That's about it. Of course, without any of the entertaining and notably unnecessary filler.
Maybe it's since you guys let writers in on writing capabilities rather than on what personal experience they have or what type of person they are. Of course, this isn't anything that's unexpected.
Of course, with everything, except wine, the magazine's quality deteriorating over time.
-mofomojo
From The Lounge: [Re: "Masks in the Woods," by John Tynes] I agree wholeheartedly with the article - the problem game designers need to face is removing themselves from the formulaic frame of mind and thinking, "OK, how can I relate as the player?"
Many games do give you an awkward disconnect from your avatar. But when it's executed masterfully, or even if it's just well-done, the game instantly feels a thousand times better. Even games like Animal Crossing; it feels like your village, your house, that you are building up and decorating. You don't say, "he got a royal couch," you say I got a royal couch, and it looks good in my house.'
I think even the most "typical" of the high-end MMORPGs, like EverQuest, have room for this. I disagree that the game mechanics make the players unable to fully roleplay, though. Did The Escapist not have several articles about manufactured gameplay in EVE Online?
Indeed, one could argue that so-called "manufactured gameplay" is the only way to let players do what they want. That is, to create a game with a ruleset, but a - here it comes - paidia so effectively set-up that it is a sandbox. I mean, think about it - why can't you really roleplay in Super Mario Brothers 3? You can barely even move two directions. Now think about real life, where physical games are created all the time. Most of the time, these can be done "without restrictions," without adhering to some, "oh, we can't trade items," or "yeah, Earth doesn't have pencils" rule.
EVE Online had a bunch of people deciding they wanted to do something, and even though everyone else "could" theoretically do "anything" to them (ie, the neutral outpost in space), they didn't. Why? People underestimate trust and cooperation. These are the fundamentals of Wikipedia. Hell, these are the fundamentals of Anarchism!
Anyway - if the game isn't too linear, I think players can always think of something. Sometimes, it is disheartening, sitting there, all looking at each other with your 3-D models, not doing much of anything, but it gets better as time goes on. At least I think.
-Parkbench
From The Lounge: [Re: "Quest for Glory," by John Walker] That was a brilliant experience Wizard-wise.
If I may note on an RPG convention that not many people pay attention to is that of complete strangers armed to the teeth entering a settlement. I mean, historically if a band of four warriors in full plate armor and carrying longswords and whatnot was spotted anywhere near a meek village on the countryside, the village would be evacuated way before these guys reached the village rather than the local townspeople approach them and entrust them with important quests.
This would be the modern equivalent of people wearing camouflaged uniforms and kevlar while walking into a town holding assault rifles; it would be no time before the local law enforcement approached the party to inquire as to the reason for all these equipment.
If you are anywhere near Southampton, let me know :-)
-Felipe
