A Game of Thrones games

[Brother None]

Dunno if there's a lot of A Song of Ice & Fire fans here, but regardless, the HBO series is right around the corner, and we're learning more about the games. First there was the RTS announcement, then some French-language previews of the RPG, Wester.org translating.

Now I got the chance to interview the project manager Thomas Veauclin. Here

GB: We know it’s early, but what can you tell us about the game's character creation and advancement system? Will you be taking a numbers-heavy approach with attributes, skill checks, combat rolls, and such, or will the game be more of an action RPG? Also, will there be a fixed protagonist or is the game going to allow for character customization right from the start?

Thomas: We are working on a linear storyline in which our two main characters are "delimited". This must not be equated with constrained; it just means that a coherent story requires that the dramatis personae be coherent. The two of them thus have a well-defined background and a given mindset, which impact on their relationship. Of course, the player will be able to customise the equipment and attributes of his characters and this will allow them to evolve in a direction chosen by the player.

The same goes for the storyline. It would be impossible to offer an epic adventure if the game was played in an open world. Depth can only be provided if we keep the player to a linear path. Again, the player will be able to make vital choices at key moments, so he is not a captive of the game scenario.

As for gameplay, we are very much tactical RPG-orientated. That's why, in combat, we use an active pause system which allows skills to be stacked while the game is switched into slow motion.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Why has that always to mean linear story lines would need a "single" and "defined" character ? Did Baldur's not proved that you can have a very linear game AND advanced character creation/customization ?

I would like to play a Bard at some point again. Eventually

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Don't, it's extremely frustrating. You're useless to the party and get killed all the time.

Why has that always to mean linear story lines would need a "single" and "defined" character ? Did Baldur's not proved that you can have a very linear game AND advanced character creation/customization ?

With all due respect to BG, player character development was something it didn't do very well. Most of the time your avatar felt like a lifeless doll w/o a personality. What's the point of allowing choice if it makes no difference?

 

[Crni Vuk]

for diversity ? No clue. That's the whole point of it when I think about RPGs.

Imagine ALL shooters would follow CoD (which many do actually ... but anyway) even the one which want to be tactical, or realistic, or what ever.

Diversity in gaming is at the moment going down the toilet. And that is very sad. Many games feel similar. Be it in story telling or game play. Not every game has to be a success. But at least some are sometimes different. And that can be enough for fun. Not always but there certainly is less and less experimenting. But C&C was not like Supreme Commander. And I liked it for that. Hence why the RTS genre is so dead for me. When was the last time I played one a GOOD one anyway which did not felt like a C&C clone ? Even Supreme Commander 2 moved down the sink of "casual gaming" and has not improved anything compared to the first game.

RPGs are similar in that. You get one character. One Shepard. One Gerald. One Hawken (or what this schmock in Dragon Age 2 is called). That CAN be a good thing. Nothing wrong with that. But it doesn't mean it has to be like ALWAYS that way. I agree with you that the character creation in BG could have been better. But it was good enough for me.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

You're advocating form over substance. There's no need to add extra "fluff" if it serves no purpose, and with resources limited there's better things to spend them on. I care a lot more about whether or not the story is well-written than I do about character options, and whether dialogue choices lead to different outcomes rather than how many choices I get. That's the biggest problem with BW games: too much fluff, too little substance.

Diversity in gaming is at the moment going down the toilet.

There's various more effective ways to promote diversity in RPGs. Adding a multitude of 'flavor' choices that all lead to the same outcome in a linear game does little to diversify gameplay. While I agree with your point about standardization of gaming experience in the mainstream, I don't think it's directly related to the argument at hand.

RPGs are similar in that. You get one character. One Shepard. One Gerald.

Ironically, the "one Gerald" managed to provide a more diverse, responsive, replayable gaming experience than any number of Bioware games, recent or old. Just to give a counter-example, you could play 7 different characters in Diablo and all had virtually the same experience (barring gameplay differences).

Bottom line: It matters not how many characters you get, what matters is how well the story is written and how the interaction is handled.

 

[x'il]

Very little info about the game, but there's some indication of not-so-goodness.

You're advocating form over substance. There's no need to add extra "fluff" if it serves no purpose, and with resources limited there's better things to spend them on. I care a lot more about whether or not the story is well-written than I do about character options, and whether dialogue choices lead to different outcomes rather than how many choices I get.

From what Crni Vuk wrote, i don't think he is, really. Character creation options and character advancement/development and it's impact and interaction with the gameworld (skill, ability, class, stat, whatever... requirements, checks, restrictions) make (or should make) the bulk of rpg gameplay (otherwise you just have an interactive novel).

Just to give a counter-example, you could play 7 different characters in Diablo and all had virtually the same experience (barring gameplay differences).

Gameplay differences doesn't count toward replayability?

It matters not how many characters you get, what matters is how well the story is written and how the interaction is handled.

Assuming that by 'interaction' you mean dialogue c&c then no, i disagree: what matters is how varied the character system is and how well the quests and story are integrated into it.

 

[Crni Vuk]

You're advocating form over substance. There's no need to add extra "fluff" if it serves no purpose, and with resources limited there's better things to spend them on. I care a lot more about whether or not the story is well-written than I do about character options, and whether dialogue choices lead to different outcomes rather than how many choices I get. That's the biggest problem with BW games: too much fluff, too little substance.
.

That is all if we assume that it has no substance. Why can't we have both ? Good character creation AND good story lines ? It is not like we did not had games which achieved it. It has not to be Baldurs Gate. But take Fallout as prime example. Or Jagged Alliance. True JA had not the deepest kind of story. Nor was it really THE reference for RPGs. But it was very funn for it self. Games like Planescape Tourment, Fallout, Acranum or Baldus Gate, Ultima or The Elderscrolls had no trouble to coext with each other giving room for different game play and different experience. I would not want either that now suddenly all action movies become movies of a certain type. You have here everything Scfi-Fi to Horror and comedies. As said. It is about diversity.

I personally do not always need a tella novella as game or interactive movie. x'il got very nicely what I tried to explain. Of course if character creation has no point then it might be meaningless. But that does not mean EVERY game has to end that way.

There's various more effective ways to promote diversity in RPGs.

That is opinion in my eyes. Because I think BG2 was quite effective when it comes to diversity. Simply because certain characters had a few quests just for them. As Bard you could get a theater. As Warrior a castle. As druid the chance to lead a bosk (?) or community or something like that.

- Again this is has nothing to do with if a game is "good" or "bad". It is like the discussion that a motorbike is inherently superior to a usual bicycle. But the one can not simply replace the other. I am using the bicycle eventually for a different reason.

Bottom line: It matters not how many characters you get, what matters is how well the story is written and how the interaction is handled.

The character creation is somewhere for me personally part of the game play. And game play is for me at least as important like a story. Depending on the game or what it wants to achieve I of course are capable to differentiate.

My Bottom line:

Maybe I see this to much from the cRPG or PnP side of role playing. Because those kind of RPGs seem to be dead on the PC in general.

 

[ZeusComplex]

All I have to add is this one thing, what ever it is that forces GRRM to hurry up and finish "A Dance for Dragons" is a good thing. I read all the Ice and Fire books around 4 years ago and I'm still waiting for that damn 5th book to come out. I really feel sorry for everyone who has followed the series from the beginning.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Gameplay differences doesn't count toward replayability?

Considering that Crni complained about the story aspect of it specifically, most of what you wrote (which I agree with, mostly) does not apply. Or at least I assume he did, because whether the game lets you create your character or has a set "face figure" makes little difference for the leveling system; the difference is mostly cosmetic and story-related. You can attach any sort of character leveling system to a single, defined story character. DAII did that (even though it sucked otherwise). Fallout's Vault Dweller was more or less a single, defined character.

That is all if we assume that it has no substance.

That's my point, story-wise, character creation in BG had very little substance. One extra quest does little to change that. I like BG but I hate people singing praises to it in the areas where it doesn't deserve it.

The character creation is somewhere for me personally part of the game play. And game play is for me at least as important like a story. Depending on the game or what it wants to achieve I of course are capable to differentiate.

Considering that the article and your original post deals with the story, importance of gameplay is a completely different topic of discussion. Since the article promises an open world and advanced character customization gameplay-wise, I don't see what your complaint is.