The Evolution of the Role-Playing Game (Soulsborne vs. Bethesda vs. Obsidian)
FinneousPJ
Member Posts: 6,455
in Off-Topic
A pretty interesting video comparing the storytelling and mechanics of modern-ish RPGs, mostly Soulsborne to Skyrim and Fallout 3 and 4.
https://youtu.be/sW_IdxJ_GlQ
What do you think?
https://youtu.be/sW_IdxJ_GlQWhat do you think?
2
Comments
His beef with Fallout 4's jack of all trade's comment and his inability to make and play a certain type of character is largely unfounded. You can still do this (with some ability level cap restrictions that annoy me), you just have to consciously do it.
Unlike the bloodborne, the game doesn't force you into these decisions and you are able to correct as you play and develop a playstyle, instead of having to completely start over once you figure out the mechanics and how best to use them.
It is also your single player game. You should be able to choose how to play it without outside influences. If someone wants to play BG with a character running around with 25 stats in everything, that is their choice, and as long as they are enjoying the game, that is all that matters.
Bethesda, understands this. It is why their games are extremely sandboxy. Yes, in Fallout 4, they put in a more story focused campaign, but that campaign can be ignored if the player chooses.
From Software games are precise, exact pieces of (dare I say) art that simply do exactly what they are meant to. They lay out the pieces on the chessboard, and encourage you to master them through extreme duress and trial and error. They are not small games, indeed, they actually seem pretty damn large at first glance. But the Soulsbourne games also shrink in size as you master them, til you eventually get to the point where they literally feel like the levels are 10% of the size they seemed to be when you first played. I probably spent 20 hours in the the Undead Burg and Parrish when I first played. I can now go through both of them in about 5 minutes. You will likely spend 60-100 hours playing various ones the first time through, but if you choose to master them, you can beat the games in 2 or 3 hours of less. It's why there is a massive speed-running community built around Souls games. I can't imagine why anyone would ever want to speed-run Skyrim or Fallout 4. It's antithetical to the entire theme of the games. The Soulsbourne series can support both a pace and sense of exploration that is glacial (because of all the story details hidden everywhere) and one that is a sprint to the finish line.
There are things I disagree with. For example, protagonist. The guy says that the protagonist that has little to none background is better, since it enables you to make your own story. But, I think that at least little bacground is neccessary, otherwise I feel like my character is just no one. My character doesn't have to be chosen one or anyone like that.
Some examples: In Fallout 1, you are a vault dweller that was sent to get a water chip - in that situation there is still room for your own interpretation regarding your character, but the game still doesn't treat you like chosen one or something like that. Very early in the game you can find out that you are not the first person who was sent for the chip. You're just next. During your travels, you are seen as person who was living in the vault, and it certain situation the fact who your character is contributes to the story. It's in my opinion, good way to make protagonist for crpgs.
It was not said anything about playing a set character, but I have an impression that guy has no love for that concept. Not one bit.
There are also grey areas. For example, causal vs non-casual conflict. I know where hardcore gamer can come from, but I personally think that there is no point nor perk in being very skilled gamer. It's very unlikely to be helpful in life. I don't think the dude meant player's choice. For me, what that hemeant was more like "one game is treating you like adult vs. the other games is treating you like child". If the game treats you like adult, you will have to make decisions and pay the consequences of them, one way or another. When the game treat you like a child, you can do anything without consequences. And that's how Behtesda's recent product are.
In Morrowind, for instance, if you wanted to rise through the ranks of the Mages' Guild, you had to raise your magic stats. Likewise, the Fighters' Guild required you to raise your combat skills in order to advance, while the Thieves' Guild required your to improve your stealth-related skills, and so on. This makes sense - an organisation is generally not going to promote someone who has not demonstrated the appropriate level of ability.
Not so, apparently, in Skyrim, because a muscle-bound, dunderheaded orc berserker can become archmage so long as he can cast whatever low-level spells are required by the College of Winterhold's gatekeeper. And that some orc berserker can rise through the ranks of the Thieves' Guild despite not having any stealth skills whatsoever. Or some waif-ish, elven enchantress can someone become Harbinger of the Companions if even she can barely heft a sword.
In Morrowind, NPCs did not scale to your level. Walk into a Daedric shrine at level 5 and be prepared to have your ass handed to you. In Oblivion (and Skyrim, to a slightly lesser extent) everything scales to your level, so you almost never have to worry about stumbling into an area that might be too dangerous.
Bethesda's newest titles don't give a damn about the character you've created, and offer the same experience regardless. There's a reason for this, and it's because Bethesda's target audience doesn't want anything to get in the way of them acting upon their whims. They make games for people who just want to feel like a badass without having to put much thought into things. Hell, Skyrim lets you kill at a bloody dragon near the very beginning of the game; imagine being able to kill a dragon in Baldur's Gate by the time you reached the Friendly Arm Inn!
I think this video sums up my feelings rather well:
I haven't had a chance to play Fallout 4 yet (I mean I own it but I never seem to get around to it) so I won't comment on that.
This lack of choice and narrow character development makes replaying the game rather pointless for me. The only reason to start a new game is to see the different endings which is a weak reason to want to play through an open RPG all over again. Almost all of the quests in game have one outcome with very little dialogue choice to allow you to approach it how you think your character would. It is definately the most restrictive game Bethesda has released, imo, in regards to personal choice despite them claiming otherwise before release. Despite all this I enjoyed F4 there were other aspects it excelled at I just hope going forward they rekindle some old school freedom and try to get of the shiny rails a little.