Elvenshae said:
The fact remains that a "Game Over - You have died." screen is a possible ending to an RPG, whether it be PnP or C. Have you ever had a character die in PnP, Jed? It isn't always possible to bring them back.
Well for the part that touches me, i think we won't be agreeing on this one anytime soon
I consider first and foremost losing in a videogame to be failing on my personal skill as a gamer, not as lack of skill of my character. There are very rare occasions in games where dying is the end, while still existing a continued story (Omikron: The Nomad Soul portrays this in a nice way. When you die, your character dies, but your soul will pass on to nearby bodies), but, for me, thats how i feel - permanent death in an RPG is a failing derived by me, not by my PC, thus, out of the intentions of the game.
In a single-player environment, when the PC is the *only* character that counts, this sort of ending almost always results in a reload. We all do it.
When its game over when they die, i know i do.
In multi-player situations, however, the *party* - you know, those guys you roleplay with - can continue on and successfully - however that is defined - complete a task. Your PC's death - though no doubt regrettable - can make that success possible. This sort of interaction, this ability to *roleplay* a heroic sacrifice, is, to my knowledge, entirely lacking in the single-player arena.
But even then, a party-based game where the PC is able to die and be resurrected by party members (and that it works) is hard to come by. And there are still some points where many games find convenient workarounds, or commit terrible flaws. In BG its mainly just about the PC, so that means that, despite of the party you invest time in, you will always have to reload when you die. Which is a pity, given the fact that when in posession of a high-level Cleric in the party, i can only resurrect others, not have them resurect me. Wizardry pulled it off as no character was a main character, which, while making party mechanics work, also has them fail because no party member will distinguish itself from the other, aside a statistcal spreadsheet, name and sound file (though they can perfectly resurect themselves and/or keep on carrying out an objective regardless of who died). NWN to me, managed to screw it up, by allowing you to die and having you "respawn" (at least it presented the choice to choose a penalty to XP and money, but given the fact both were easy to come by, specially money, there wasn't much challenge in it). Furthermore, in SP, henchmen don't resurrect you (yes, only one has the ability to do it, but she doesn't). It does succeed in the multiplayer aspect where if you die, others can resurect you, while you're in their party. But it still had to take it to multiplayer and not do it in SP :\
I won't discuss other games such as Fallout (where resurrection is impossible) or Planescape, for obvious specialized mechanics they have.
All else you said
Well, considering the potential danger of repeating myself, i believe i don't consider that "problem with multiplayer CRPGs is all the idiots with computers". Let me try to explain this in a better perspective (bare with me, its almost 1 A.M. where i live, and i have to write this in a hurry because at 2 A.M., i'll be seeing The Daily Show re-runs :D).
The reason i have a problem with people on online games is not necessarily how they write only, its the whole set of failures they commit by not adhering to the rules of the game, culminating in a conduct which does not help a game. Note - i don't consider myself an online roleplaying example by no means. While i don't type correctly in several occasions, i also don't pause in battle while being flayed at by enemies and type flourished text.
Like you said i mainly enjoy in-depth roleplaying experiences, ranging from vast gameworlds to detailed ones. I can lose myself in Morrowind's physical space just as much as i can lose myself in Arcanum's emulation of a reactive world where one can cause impact (and be recognized for it). I only expect however that there be a sense of credibility on all parts included in the games. If im playing Arcanum i'd probably dislike seeing a space shuttle, or would pose many questions as to the credibility of a possible existence of a Star Wars racial group similar to Chewbacca. I also won't expect NPCs to ask me things in a manner akin to fast-typing online players (meaning i'd probably would not understand if i was killed in the middle of a medieval square and an NPC shouted out "LOL!"), and neither will i expect a medieval-themed game in single player to present me with a black man asking me "Yo man, what the dilio?" (or however that's written).
Note however this isn't me hating anything beyond normalcy - one thing is to dislike things which don't make sense, the other is to dislike things which don't help maintain that sense, wheter its real or imaginative.
Point in case, the actions of the casual gamer. I would honestly prefer to play with people that knew how to behave according to the game. Unlike what you said, i don't ask others to share my views on anything - having a group of adventurers without their own personalities would be very uninspiring; and be it in games or debates, i totally welcome different input. However, the afforementioned casual gamer is not interested if the game is an RPG to the full extent of the word, or wheter it has rules. The RPG genre has long become bastardized to accomodate the "casual gamer", and in turn the casual gamer accomodated itself to it. Many online players aren't playing an RPG because of what the game can give them in its full sense, they're only there to go out there and kill things and increase in levels. When its an FPS its to get better weapons and shoot things; when its a Strategy game its to handle resources and kill things; when its an RPG its to go out there, kill things, level up and choose what skill to increase. Most players are enthraled by the basic mechanics of the game, and can't see past them. Thats my main problem.
Maybe im too anal, and maybe i just have a problem of looking at a game in its whole entirety instead of just the one or two thigns i like most - who knows?
Anyway...
When i used to play PnP, i had a group which could put their real life problems aside, plus any adversities among themselves, and join together to enter a gameworld where adventuring and all it entailed was a rewarding thing. Each of us had their own personalities, or created knew ones when playing their own characters. Again, each had its own views of the game, they didn't had to conform to mine, and neither did i conformed to theirs - different personalities or enacting different personalities helped the game, and us. Furthermore, the rules, the essence of the game, was explained, and we knew how we could, and should act. Furthermore were played together, meaning its a more personal experience, with a level of respect between gamers participating in a collective sport, of sorts.
Now, how does this translate to multiplayer?
For one, gamers aren't together. Thats the most important thing. They can talk together, they can act together, they can move together, but they are not there. Anonimity over the net causes a problem, which is players not really caring that much for having offended a fellow player. In a party-based PnP session, we can discuss in between us how loot can be divided - in MP, a gamer can simply steal it, transfer it to someone he knows, than that someone will give it to the other player with another character (this was also quite visible in NWN).
Second, because they are not together, they don't think together. Now in PnP you could have a hireable NPC or party member have a hidden agenda (though this also happens in CRPG NPC's), so it'd be wrong to state human players could not have their own agendas - however, personal agendas coupled with the fact players are most of the time there for themselves and not for the group is bad.
Not only that, its hard to have online players work towards a single goal. Unless your party is actually comprised of people who are willing to play succesfully and in the benefit of the greater good, most people in your party will do things of their own accord. I could recount NWN experiences where i lead people trough victorious battles because they listened to me, and recount other times where they all died because they didn't listened (and they died more than they survived). In dangerous areas i usually said people to travel together. Of course, i said together, and already most players were already in the other side, leaving weaker characters to die, because they flat out didn't care. I don't want them to have extensive battle tactics, i just wanted them to play for the group
This is kind of like the "being evil" problems. To many people being evil is just whacking peasants and civilians so they don't care about acting in really evil ways. In the same sense, people in online games, in groups, tend to be machos in battle, forgetting they also earn experience and can survive longer if they work together (the lone wolf ideology is very evident in multiplayer online games, specially visible in shooters, where its all about the snipers).
Third, because the majority are more interested in the RPGish gimmick of levels and skills, and not in the whole game itself, they tend to forget they're in another place. Meaning, they will not care if its out of character to use slang or insults in the course of dialogue. Another aspect of not being interested in the game itself, is letting real life issues pop up in the middle of sessions. Its the most common thing, seeing medievel characters talk about their Pentiums, and their homeworks, or how their girlfriends dumped them or how the Nicks trounced the Lakers. Many just use online-capable RPGs as a mix between levelling up an IRC simulators (which is obviously not what they're for).
These are mainly the reasons why i state the majority of players should stop and self-integrate themselves better in online worlds - and they bring down the enjoyment when put together. In a single-player CRPG, the cohesion of a party-based gameplay is achieved alongside with a gameworld and reactivity to what i do. My pre-programmed party NPCs can handle better many situations that human versions over the net cannot, and will never say
or
or something like that (i doubt they could talk trough rebuses like the PS:T Dabus).
So, again, between a solid (yet fixed) single player experience which provides good credibility and flow of its setting, and a fluid (yet chaotic) multiplayer experience which doesn't provide that good credibility, i think i'll take SP any day over MP. This isn't to say i can't enjoy a MP game once in a while, though: i just have to enter it with a different mind set and expect, beforehand, that it won't be as good as advertised :D
The kicker, however, is would Arcanum have been a better game if multiplayer - and the ability to find decent roleplaying partners - had been better implemented? It's an option, and, to my mind, more options is always better, all else being equal.
The counter kicker however, in Arcanums case is, if the combat system had been only turn-based in MP, i'd probably play it more, regardless if MP in itself was better with whatever conditions. I heavilly disliked the realtime combat in Arcanum's MP. Too hectic, too broken. With mod-making ability, Arcanum's sole reason as to why i didn't played it online was combat.
[Note: Sorry for any incomplete sentences, i'll shall return tomorrow
Now its Jon Stewart time!!]
[EDIT: Fixed a typo]
Actually, IWD2 didn't do a bad job with the 3E rules.
