collapse

Author [EN] [PL] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: End-game, or the lack thereof  (Read 20232 times)

Offline VampireBill

  • Neonate
  • **
  • Posts: 94
  • Reputation: +0/-0
End-game, or the lack thereof
« on: February 28, 2013, 07:51:22 PM »
[WARNING: This is going to be apt to me rambling off on tangents about my annoyances with other storylines, TL;DR will skip you to the last paragraph]
Let me start this by positing my problem with the general concept of an end-game as set up in most all fantasy and sci-fi stories (most particularly "epic" ones: the conclusion of the end-game results in the removal of what made the story/world interesting. It's what I've taken to calling "The Last Orc Syndrome". Once the great evil has been destroyed, and all the evil minions (such as orcs) have been smited, the heroes and the world in general go back to being normal... boring, without mystery. The Forgotten Realms novels (I'm speaking of RA Salvatore's Drizzt Do'Urden books, at least) subvert this (so they can keep putting out new, non-boring sequels) by making it so there's always some greater demon or evil overlord rising in power. However... this rather quickly starts feeling a bit ridiculous. "And then, a demon who was one THOUSAND feet tall came forward, who not only had the ability to destroy the world, but imprison all its inhabitants on another plane where every moment will be absolute agony, -for eternity!!!!"

This approach is basically what fantasy and sci-fi game franchises (and I guess, to an extent, games like Call of Duty) have had to do to continue on, whether they be single-player or MMO games. When you hit the level-cap and finish all the quests in a traditional MMO, it's basically time to grind raids or PVP until "NOW EVEN MOAR EPIC" content (usually with an increased level-cap) is released. EVE, on the other hand, subverts this to a great extent by making most everything player-driven, where personal ambition can lead to greater rewards, -with greater risks. There's really no risk in advancing in power in traditional MMO's, only benefits.

That's why I'm still hopeful CCP will be able to give the WoD justice... The WoD lends itself to more open-ended gameplay with true risks and true rewards. Vampire lore in particular in the WoD avoids (as far as I'm aware) things I find annoying/cliche in many other vampire stories at this point.

1. There is no cop-out "daylight" ring (and certainly no glittering) that only exists to make it easier on the writers to move the vampire characters through the world/society. The sun will kill you, and is to be feared (though admittedly, the perma-night aspect of the MMO could be seen as a bit of a cop-out itself).

2. There is no "cure" to vampirism. You're a vampire, until your final death, deal with it, move on. The cure storyline is one of the most annoying aspects in vampire stories, in my opinion. It's basically saying, "Hey, let's work towards removing the basis of what makes this interesting!" And at this point it's so cliche that it actually remains equally cliche whether the vampire character finds the cure and uses it, doesn't ultimately find it (or "Turns out there isn't one!"), or even finds it but doesn't end up using it (for whatever reason: change of heart, dire consequences of use, etc). It's especially bad when the active vampire rules/lore have it where the pros/cons list of being a vampire don't make it very believable why anyone would *want* to be cured (it's not AIDS, -or even herpes...).

3. Killing an/the "original" vampire doesn't mean the final death (or curing) of its entire bloodline. This one is just problematic/annoying. I guess it can add tension to being a vampire, or hope for anti-vampire forces, but... I just don't like it, ha. It sets up the very real potential of an end-game scenario. Feel free to let me know how you feel about this one, even though it doesn't really apply to WoD.

4. Vampires have to contend with the "Beast" inside them, but they *can* contend with it. They don't have to be a mortal threat to every... mortal.

5. Piggy-backing off the previous, biting a human does not infect that human. If it did, they would have to kill every human they fed on to keep from turning them. This would be pretty limiting on how you decide to play.

Now of course, Vampire: The Masquerade, did succumb to one very major pitfall, which was... Gehenna. Pretty much a very real end-game. Your character is screwed, all you accomplished is for naught, no way of getting around that, sorry. Fortunately, it sounds like they removed this from the MMO, or are saying... it didn't actually happen? Obviously it's a pretty darn major part of the lore, so it will be interesting to see what they chose to do to get around it.

And now to bring this whole thought process fully back to the MMO, as this totally was not just an excuse for me to complain about vampire stories after watching where The Vampire Diaries decided to go with its storyline...

What do you envision/hope the "end-game" of the WoD MMO will be, seeing as how without Gehenna the WoD is set up to be about as end-game free as possible? I'm guessing as close to EVE as can be, keep as much of the power/progression in the hands of the players/community as possible, so we don't have to just grind raids and wait for new content to be released, ha. A good way to do this is to make so that the risk of reaching for more power is more than simply going into torpor and having to respawn elsewhere, even if it's with an XP and/or equipment condition hit. There has to be something real to lose, more in line with what you're attempting to achieve, though of course as has been discussed, not so drastic that people rage quit (such as non-avoidable perma-death) and never play again...

Offline Rick Gentle

  • Gangrel Playboy
  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 3057
  • Reputation: +595/-19
Re: End-game, or the lack thereof
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2013, 09:47:19 PM »
I think a very similar subject has been discussed before, and I'm going to give the same glib answer I gave last time:
Players.

As far as Gehenna goes, I'd be very willing to accept the World of Darkness being permanently "set" in 1999, just like we have to take for granted that it's always night. That way there's always the fear of the new millenium and impending Gehenna, but the developers don't ever actually need to put in end-game "raid" content or other shizzle you see in the common World of WarCraft paradigm. If there are no endgame bosses, there is no need to keep stacking on the power levels like we see in many Dungeons and Dragons campaign settings and other (level-based) MMOs. (Personally, I am extremely annoyed with the seeming necessity to always have some sort of cataclysmic event that aaaaaaalmost destroyed the world in a setting's distant past. What happened to the level 90+ Ranger/Warlocks back THEN, huh? HUH?!)

EVE Online has been going for many years now being driven solely by player-based content, and it shows no signs of stopping. There should be no problems in a vampire-based MMO that's as centered around politics and hidden violence as it is economics or strategy. Progression in the WODMMO should ideally be measured as much by your political standing and ambitions as it is sheer kickassery. That is to say, you could be the hands-down most kick-ass combat fiend in the game, but there are still multiple aspects of the game you have yet to master - such as the political branch by becoming a Prince, the strategic branch by executing a Crusade or counter-offensive, or the economic branch by having a controlling share of all domain in a city. In other paradigms, when you hit the level cap/achieve total kickassery, that's the "end" of the "game" right there. The World of Darkness MMO should have no real endgame because the game should not end.

I have no doubts that the combination of CCP and White Wolf will be able to design the WODMMO to these "specifications". My only real concern at this point is how long it's going to take them.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2013, 10:02:46 PM by Rick Gentle »
Remember: It's not the size of your fangs that matters; it's what you stick them in.

Offline Nigama

  • Dead
  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 1883
  • Reputation: +383/-7
Re: End-game, or the lack thereof
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2013, 11:27:17 PM »
I mostly agree with Rick. 

On the topic of "End Game" as it's traditionally been defined:  I dislike it.  I don't think there should be a leveling up period, followed by an end game period.  I think EVERYONE should jump into the meat of the game right off the bat, and that will be the meat and bones for your entire time playing.  And that, as Rick said, is the players.  Your character's possessions, domain prestige and personal power.

I think Gehenna is great lore wise, but I like keeping it ambiguous.  I'd like to see Golconda be attainable, too, even if it's insanely hard.

Nigama
"You may not remember us, but we may be responsible for your lack of memory."

Offline VampireBill

  • Neonate
  • **
  • Posts: 94
  • Reputation: +0/-0
Re: End-game, or the lack thereof
« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2013, 12:17:21 AM »
It will be interesting to see how they manage to make political/economic power ever increasing/fluctuating, and in a meaningful way. EVE has the benefit of basically unlimited places/resources to conquer/control (incredibly simple to create new systems), whereas cities are going to be most likely much more finite (it will require a whole lot more places to design, or be reduced to being even more of a spreadsheet system than EVE to keep them comparable).

I really think the risk/reward system is going to be key, because the quests and realm PVP in traditional MMO's lack any real sense of gravitas. Failed quests can be almost immediately restarted with no downside but time spent, and realm PVP is usually so back-and-forth and generally trivial in its rewards (a key part might be also that there are basically only rewards, no *demerits*, too) that most people won't even notice any results from the successes or failures of their realm. Planetside 2 got boring for me pretty quickly once it became apparent how shallow it all is.

Players contemplating making a grab for power should have to consider what consequences failure could bring, and even what consequences success could bring. In other words: advancing in power shouldn't simply be a matter of course. That should keep up the tension and greatly reduce the end-game problem. Of course... that all sounds great, but how you actually implement that in a game with thousands of concurrent players without forcing you to dedicate your life to the game in order to have any success in it is a whole other matter... When you sign off the world still has to go on, unlike LARP or PnP gatherings, haha.

I think DayZ has a glimmer of how this can work, on a considerably smaller scale, though. You can kill other players and/or steal their supplies at will, or team up and help them, or even team up with them and eventually stab them in the back to get their stuff, but you have a humanity ranking and if you play like a dick, before long you'll be marked as a bandit, making you not only visible as a player-killer, but making it so there's no humanity loss for people to kill you. And there is a very real downside to dying, because you lose everything when you die, and start back again far far away from where you died. The problem is that at this point there's no real character progression, and very few other incentives to not being a dick, and more and more people are just treating it like a FFA deathmatch where the zombies are just a minor distraction. How exactly you balance it without forcing gamey mechanics on it I'm not sure...

Offline silhouette666

  • Ancillus
  • ***
  • Posts: 190
  • Reputation: +5/-0
  • The hunger inside given to me makes me what I am.
    • Bloodlines
Re: End-game, or the lack thereof
« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2013, 12:56:58 AM »
[WARNING: This is going to be apt to me rambling off on tangents about my annoyances with other storylines, TL;DR will skip you to the last paragraph]
Let me start this by positing my problem with the general concept of an end-game as set up in most all fantasy and sci-fi stories (most particularly "epic" ones: the conclusion of the end-game results in the removal of what made the story/world interesting. It's what I've taken to calling "The Last Orc Syndrome". Once the great evil has been destroyed, and all the evil minions (such as orcs) have been smited, the heroes and the world in general go back to being normal... boring, without mystery. The Forgotten Realms novels (I'm speaking of RA Salvatore's Drizzt Do'Urden books, at least) subvert this (so they can keep putting out new, non-boring sequels) by making it so there's always some greater demon or evil overlord rising in power. However... this rather quickly starts feeling a bit ridiculous. "And then, a demon who was one THOUSAND feet tall came forward, who not only had the ability to destroy the world, but imprison all its inhabitants on another plane where every moment will be absolute agony, -for eternity!!!!"

This approach is basically what fantasy and sci-fi game franchises (and I guess, to an extent, games like Call of Duty) have had to do to continue on, whether they be single-player or MMO games. When you hit the level-cap and finish all the quests in a traditional MMO, it's basically time to grind raids or PVP until "NOW EVEN MOAR EPIC" content (usually with an increased level-cap) is released. EVE, on the other hand, subverts this to a great extent by making most everything player-driven, where personal ambition can lead to greater rewards, -with greater risks. There's really no risk in advancing in power in traditional MMO's, only benefits.

That's why I'm still hopeful CCP will be able to give the WoD justice... The WoD lends itself to more open-ended gameplay with true risks and true rewards. Vampire lore in particular in the WoD avoids (as far as I'm aware) things I find annoying/cliche in many other vampire stories at this point.

1. There is no cop-out "daylight" ring (and certainly no glittering) that only exists to make it easier on the writers to move the vampire characters through the world/society. The sun will kill you, and is to be feared (though admittedly, the perma-night aspect of the MMO could be seen as a bit of a cop-out itself).

2. There is no "cure" to vampirism. You're a vampire, until your final death, deal with it, move on. The cure storyline is one of the most annoying aspects in vampire stories, in my opinion. It's basically saying, "Hey, let's work towards removing the basis of what makes this interesting!" And at this point it's so cliche that it actually remains equally cliche whether the vampire character finds the cure and uses it, doesn't ultimately find it (or "Turns out there isn't one!"), or even finds it but doesn't end up using it (for whatever reason: change of heart, dire consequences of use, etc). It's especially bad when the active vampire rules/lore have it where the pros/cons list of being a vampire don't make it very believable why anyone would *want* to be cured (it's not AIDS, -or even herpes...).

3. Killing an/the "original" vampire doesn't mean the final death (or curing) of its entire bloodline. This one is just problematic/annoying. I guess it can add tension to being a vampire, or hope for anti-vampire forces, but... I just don't like it, ha. It sets up the very real potential of an end-game scenario. Feel free to let me know how you feel about this one, even though it doesn't really apply to WoD.

4. Vampires have to contend with the "Beast" inside them, but they *can* contend with it. They don't have to be a mortal threat to every... mortal.

5. Piggy-backing off the previous, biting a human does not infect that human. If it did, they would have to kill every human they fed on to keep from turning them. This would be pretty limiting on how you decide to play.

Now of course, Vampire: The Masquerade, did succumb to one very major pitfall, which was... Gehenna. Pretty much a very real end-game. Your character is screwed, all you accomplished is for naught, no way of getting around that, sorry. Fortunately, it sounds like they removed this from the MMO, or are saying... it didn't actually happen? Obviously it's a pretty darn major part of the lore, so it will be interesting to see what they chose to do to get around it.

And now to bring this whole thought process fully back to the MMO, as this totally was not just an excuse for me to complain about vampire stories after watching where The Vampire Diaries decided to go with its storyline...

What do you envision/hope the "end-game" of the WoD MMO will be, seeing as how without Gehenna the WoD is set up to be about as end-game free as possible? I'm guessing as close to EVE as can be, keep as much of the power/progression in the hands of the players/community as possible, so we don't have to just grind raids and wait for new content to be released, ha. A good way to do this is to make so that the risk of reaching for more power is more than simply going into torpor and having to respawn elsewhere, even if it's with an XP and/or equipment condition hit. There has to be something real to lose, more in line with what you're attempting to achieve, though of course as has been discussed, not so drastic that people rage quit (such as non-avoidable perma-death) and never play again...

Sounds like a beef toward Vampire Diaries LOL That show is my weakness. I can't NOT watch it. lol But I get why you would get aggravated about the cop-outs. I just think a lot of current vampire series are trying to avoid the classic vampire/Dracula cliches... ya know, the garlic, avoiding sunlight, the lack of a reflection etc

Offline Nigama

  • Dead
  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 1883
  • Reputation: +383/-7
Re: End-game, or the lack thereof
« Reply #5 on: March 01, 2013, 02:09:52 AM »
It will be interesting to see how they manage to make political/economic power ever increasing/fluctuating, and in a meaningful way. EVE has the benefit of basically unlimited places/resources to conquer/control (incredibly simple to create new systems), whereas cities are going to be most likely much more finite (it will require a whole lot more places to design, or be reduced to being even more of a spreadsheet system than EVE to keep them comparable).

Absolutely.  But it's not JUST physical space that creates interesting power dynamics.  I think the trick is keeping the various communities from becoming too stale and set in their ways.  Which of course is where NPCs and Metaplot might enter.

Quote
I really think the risk/reward system is going to be key, because the quests and realm PVP in traditional MMO's lack any real sense of gravitas. Failed quests can be almost immediately restarted with no downside but time spent, and realm PVP is usually so back-and-forth and generally trivial in its rewards (a key part might be also that there are basically only rewards, no *demerits*, too) that most people won't even notice any results from the successes or failures of their realm. Planetside 2 got boring for me pretty quickly once it became apparent how shallow it all is.
 

Static quests will be in the game.  As tutorial, to set the lore, for starting cash if you've lost it all, etc, etc...  that said, hopefully the majority of the system will be player created.  See the Sanguine Nights mission creation tool.

Quote
]Players contemplating making a grab for power should have to consider what consequences failure could bring, and even what consequences success could bring. In other words: advancing in power shouldn't simply be a matter of course. That should keep up the tension and greatly reduce the end-game problem. Of course... that all sounds great, but how you actually implement that in a game with thousands of concurrent players without forcing you to dedicate your life to the game in order to have any success in it is a whole other matter... When you sign off the world still has to go on, unlike LARP or PnP gatherings, haha.

Absolutely.

Quote
I think DayZ has a glimmer of how this can work, on a considerably smaller scale, though. You can kill other players and/or steal their supplies at will, or team up and help them, or even team up with them and eventually stab them in the back to get their stuff, but you have a humanity ranking and if you play like a dick, before long you'll be marked as a bandit, making you not only visible as a player-killer, but making it so there's no humanity loss for people to kill you. And there is a very real downside to dying, because you lose everything when you die, and start back again far far away from where you died. The problem is that at this point there's no real character progression, and very few other incentives to not being a dick, and more and more people are just treating it like a FFA deathmatch where the zombies are just a minor distraction. How exactly you balance it without forcing gamey mechanics on it I'm not sure...

Day Z..  gah

my brain hurts

Nigama
"You may not remember us, but we may be responsible for your lack of memory."

Offline VampireBill

  • Neonate
  • **
  • Posts: 94
  • Reputation: +0/-0
Re: End-game, or the lack thereof
« Reply #6 on: March 01, 2013, 03:56:43 AM »
Sounds like a beef toward Vampire Diaries LOL That show is my weakness. I can't NOT watch it. lol But I get why you would get aggravated about the cop-outs. I just think a lot of current vampire series are trying to avoid the classic vampire/Dracula cliches... ya know, the garlic, avoiding sunlight, the lack of a reflection etc

Haha, actually, I've loved the show almost from the start, to the point of preferring it over True Blood (actually lost all interest in True Blood about halfway through last season and stopped watching). The first episode or two of TVD I was worried how distractingly teen girl oriented it was going to be, with the trendy music (complete with lyrics) blasting over dialogue, but they seemed to balance it out pretty well after just a few episodes. I couldn't believe how they managed to move so much storyline so quickly, and still be so consistently good, while having over twice as many episodes per season than True Blood. I've just gotten frustrated with the "search for the cure" storyline this season, and how increasingly ham-fisted the introduction of new lore (that apparently no one was ever aware of, until just now, in this town) has been, simply to progress the plot how they want to (sort of in the same vein of how in many vampire stories, vampires only seem to have super senses when they need to for the story). The lore about vampires having to be invited in is actually one I thought they would have done away with if they were going to give every main vampire character daylight rings, but it's actually one piece that WoD *doesn't* have that requires more creative writing, but I could see how it could potentially become convoluted as hell in a game that requires hard rules.

Offline silhouette666

  • Ancillus
  • ***
  • Posts: 190
  • Reputation: +5/-0
  • The hunger inside given to me makes me what I am.
    • Bloodlines
Re: End-game, or the lack thereof
« Reply #7 on: March 01, 2013, 04:02:42 AM »
Quote
Haha, actually, I've loved the show almost from the start, to the point of preferring it over True Blood (actually lost all interest in True Blood about halfway through last season and stopped watching). The first episode or two of TVD I was worried how distractingly teen girl oriented it was going to be, with the trendy music (complete with lyrics) blasting over dialogue, but they seemed to balance it out pretty well after just a few episodes. I couldn't believe how they managed to move so much storyline so quickly, and still be so consistently good, while having over twice as many episodes per season than True Blood. I've just gotten frustrated with the "search for the cure" storyline this season, and how increasingly ham-fisted the introduction of new lore (that apparently no one was ever aware of, until just now, in this town) has been, simply to progress the plot how they want to (sort of in the same vein of how in many vampire stories, vampires only seem to have super senses when they need to for the story). The lore about vampires having to be invited in is actually one I thought they would have done away with if they were going to give every main vampire character daylight rings, but it's actually one piece that WoD *doesn't* have that requires more creative writing, but I could see how it could potentially become convoluted as hell in a game that requires hard rules.
It's basically over and the "cure" was for Silas and no one else. I just give props to the writers that keep it interesting and I'm not getting bored. I am actually glad they kept that. I mean, I don't think vampires should be overly powerful. Being faithful to the Fright Night "invited in" thing was smart too.

At least when I play Bloodlines, you don't have to watch the sky or have a watch to check for the sun coming up lol I can only imagine how much more difficult the game would be.

Offline VampireBill

  • Neonate
  • **
  • Posts: 94
  • Reputation: +0/-0
Re: End-game, or the lack thereof
« Reply #8 on: March 01, 2013, 04:21:11 AM »
Absolutely.  But it's not JUST physical space that creates interesting power dynamics.  I think the trick is keeping the various communities from becoming too stale and set in their ways.  Which of course is where NPCs and Metaplot might enter.

True. There has to be some motivator to keep things moving/shaken up. Even if all the big power players formed an alliance/truce/understanding to keep the peace that only lasted a month... in game time that might be way too long to keep people's interest up, ha. Gotta find a balance between constant chaos (where nothing *really* matters, since it's all so transitory anyway -Planetside 2), and long bouts of peace (boring). Just hopefully that motivator doesn't feel too gamey. Planetside 2 would have benefited greatly from SOME sort of metaplot complete with the assignment of updated objectives, and so would this.

Offline VampireBill

  • Neonate
  • **
  • Posts: 94
  • Reputation: +0/-0
Re: End-game, or the lack thereof
« Reply #9 on: March 01, 2013, 04:28:22 AM »
It's basically over and the "cure" was for Silas and no one else. I just give props to the writers that keep it interesting and I'm not getting bored. I am actually glad they kept that. I mean, I don't think vampires should be overly powerful. Being faithful to the Fright Night "invited in" thing was smart too.

At least when I play Bloodlines, you don't have to watch the sky or have a watch to check for the sun coming up lol I can only imagine how much more difficult the game would be.

Haaaa, spoiler alert?! I had just finished the episode where they first got to the island. Oh well, I was thinking (and kinda hoping) it was going to be some sort of predictable twist like that. Turning any of the main vampires back to human would have been detrimental to my interest level (I knew there was NO way it would be Damon, Stefan, or Klaus, but was less certain about Elena and Rebekah). But if they betray Rebekah yet again it would just be annoying as hell. "Derp, trust us this time, for realz, ok? Our word!"

Offline silhouette666

  • Ancillus
  • ***
  • Posts: 190
  • Reputation: +5/-0
  • The hunger inside given to me makes me what I am.
    • Bloodlines
Re: End-game, or the lack thereof
« Reply #10 on: March 01, 2013, 04:31:33 AM »
Oops! My bad...

Well, I didn't give it all away (: Trust me...that's a key thing and you learn that early on anyway, it's everything that follows. Something happens that will really shock you.

Offline Radical21

  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 3023
  • Reputation: +-1344/-52
Re: End-game, or the lack thereof
« Reply #11 on: March 01, 2013, 04:37:47 AM »
End Game is intended to keep us playing and interested after the initial scripted story advancement ended and it is time for the characters to forge their own story.

In MMORPGs the end game is usually painful to get to(lots of grinding) and is often disappointing due to the long buildup and little payoff.( in most MMORPGs I've seen the end game consist of very hollow PvP experience since it is not the focal point of the game and by the time you get to it you are usually already invested in the game so it seems the Game Designers do not bother with it beyond some pointless sandbox mechanisms) All of these is given most MMORPGs do not really have the tools to allow you to create a new dynamic story for themselves or others(map editors to make a new instance don't count) and the players are not allowed to affect the game-world in the long term. Feel free to bring examples to prove me wrong of course.

Instead Let me Approach End Game vs. Start Game from the P&P Perspective:

In P&P the game is interesting regardless if you've reached the 'end game' or not because anything can happen and you are allowed to permanently affect the game world and do whatever is reasonably possible from the moment the game starts(some Storytellers choose to limit choices or strongly oppose PvP for example but that is considered house rules).
What changes from Start to End Game? The Scale of the ripple effect the choices of your character makes on the game world.

So Theoretically at all points the game is interesting and players keep playing to explore their characters, the game-world and the resulting unpredictable evolution of both.

This typically doesn't translate to MMORPGs because:
- Players are very afraid of the possibility of losing their characters and game over usually == Rage Quit due to lose of "all their hard work" (and yet they say games should be fun, but it involves hard work?) , because players tend to play to accumulate power and feel powerful which is also required to unlock new content and game-play options/abilities.
This is so ingrained in the minds of many MMORPG players that they cannot even imagine things done differently.
-For the Developers it involves more thinking about maintaining balance and adding the possibility of letting players add to the game and its story-line because so many things can become chaotic so there is greater risk that the players won't like it.


In short 9 out of 10 times I found that the End Game in MMORPGs simply isn't worth it and doesn't deliver on its promise, especially when you put it next to a proper Unlimited Sandbox PnP-style RPG game with only 6 or more people.

So to answer the question I personally prefer a game with lesser emphasis on progression and end-game and more emphasis on letting players create and do what they really want which is amazing even if it makes the game harder and sometimes there are clashes.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2013, 04:41:23 AM by Radical21 »

Offline Valamyr

  • Kindred
  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 1321
  • Reputation: +395/-17
Re: End-game, or the lack thereof
« Reply #12 on: March 01, 2013, 06:31:41 AM »
I actually loved TVD too at first. But it fell in the classic trap of over-the-top. It was much more enjoyable with a local scope and personal conflicts (very-WoD-like) than with a 'Originals' and 'Silas' focus. Raising the stakes ever-higher is a dangerous slippery slope. After Rose's death it's pretty much always been obviously they were aiming for the shock factor. Nonethess. I admit, its been a worthy challenger to the likes of true blood, and still is in many ways.

Offline Radical21

  • Antediluvian
  • *****
  • Posts: 3023
  • Reputation: +-1344/-52
Re: End-game, or the lack thereof
« Reply #13 on: March 01, 2013, 02:28:29 PM »
I actually loved TVD too at first. But it fell in the classic trap of over-the-top. It was much more enjoyable with a local scope and personal conflicts (very-WoD-like) than with a 'Originals' and 'Silas' focus. Raising the stakes ever-higher is a dangerous slippery slope. After Rose's death it's pretty much always been obviously they were aiming for the shock factor. Nonethess. I admit, its been a worthy challenger to the likes of true blood, and still is in many ways.

TVD?

Why are you talking about TVD now?


But ok ill go with this:
I watch TVD occasionally on my side job to relieve bordom when it is busy and there is not enough time to sit down do something serious so what I say is probably not from a very serious analytically point of view
For the record I always regarded TVD as slightly soapy/overblown but entertaining derivative of the WoD with an excuse to show hot actresses in various poses.
As far as story goes it was always over the top and from the point of view of WoD-lite Storytelling with a superhero/villain theme vampires.(Can walk in the sun and go to school to charm everyone and be powerful and awesome)

What sold me on the show aside from decent production value was the actors and actresses and the overblown/overacted way they expresses themselves that by now could be trademarked and some of them should do voice acting for animation. (Damon expressions, Elena whiny expressions, Rebecca expressions, Jeremy's 'too stupid to understand what you are saying' expressions etc)
The actor who plays Silas/Prof.shane is especially funny in a lame way because he has no idea how to really play a villain so there are some scenes where he tries sooo hard to appear intense it backfires.

« Last Edit: March 01, 2013, 02:30:05 PM by Radical21 »

Offline silhouette666

  • Ancillus
  • ***
  • Posts: 190
  • Reputation: +5/-0
  • The hunger inside given to me makes me what I am.
    • Bloodlines
Re: End-game, or the lack thereof
« Reply #14 on: March 01, 2013, 04:04:34 PM »
I actually loved TVD too at first. But it fell in the classic trap of over-the-top. It was much more enjoyable with a local scope and personal conflicts (very-WoD-like) than with a 'Originals' and 'Silas' focus. Raising the stakes ever-higher is a dangerous slippery slope. After Rose's death it's pretty much always been obviously they were aiming for the shock factor. Nonethess. I admit, its been a worthy challenger to the likes of true blood, and still is in many ways.

TVD?

Why are you talking about TVD now?


But ok ill go with this:
I watch TVD occasionally on my side job to relieve bordom when it is busy and there is not enough time to sit down do something serious so what I say is probably not from a very serious analytically point of view
For the record I always regarded TVD as slightly soapy/overblown but entertaining derivative of the WoD with an excuse to show hot actresses in various poses.
As far as story goes it was always over the top and from the point of view of WoD-lite Storytelling with a superhero/villain theme vampires.(Can walk in the sun and go to school to charm everyone and be powerful and awesome)

What sold me on the show aside from decent production value was the actors and actresses and the overblown/overacted way they expresses themselves that by now could be trademarked and some of them should do voice acting for animation. (Damon expressions, Elena whiny expressions, Rebecca expressions, Jeremy's 'too stupid to understand what you are saying' expressions etc)
The actor who plays Silas/Prof.shane is especially funny in a lame way because he has no idea how to really play a villain so there are some scenes where he tries sooo hard to appear intense it backfires.
Because in VampireBill's first post, he talks about a lot of the "cop-outs" he can't stand. TVD uses most of the cop-outs he talked about, so I just mentioned it and now we're all talking about it lol

 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2020, SimplePortal