Conference Call

GWJ Conference Call Episode 164

Dragon Age, Mario Bros Wii, L4D 2, A Big Old Fashioned Email Show, A Special Christmas Request and more!

This week we catch up on emails as we recover from Thanksgiving. We also request Christmas memories from our listeners! If you want to submit a question or comment call in to our voicemail line at (612) 284-4563.

To contact us, email [email protected]! Send us your thoughts on the show, pressing issues you want to talk about or whatever else is on your mind. You can even send a 30 second audio question or comment (MP3 format please) if you're so inclined. You can also submit a question or comment call in to our voicemail line at (612) 284-4563!

Sponsor
Good Old Games

  • Subscribe with iTunes
  • Subscribe with RSS
  • Subscribe with Yahoo!
Download the official apps
  • Download the GWJ Conference Call app for Android
  • Download the GWJ Conference Call app for Android

Show credits

Music credits: 

Intro/Outtro Music - Ian Dorsch, Willowtree Audioworks

"Chloe" (James 106) - 0:21:14

Comments

AdamGM wrote:

With regards to the request for Christmas gaming stories - where can those mp3s be sent? Sorry, I'm relatively new and haven't discovered the email yet...

call at gamerswithjobs dot com

As near as I can tell, if you don't mind a bit of generalization, the core difference between JRPGs and WRPGs is that in JRPGs you're typically playing the role of a specific, pre-defined character; in WRPGs, the character you're playing is supposed to be "you" or at least is supposed to be created by you. This fundamental difference trickles down to the choices that players are able, or unable, to make over the course of the game's length. It's essentially the difference between playing a character in a play and playing a character in a game of Dungeons and Dragons.

(The remainder of this post contains intermittent spoilers for the first Mass Effect.)

The non-linearity and lack of choice that some players feel they encounter in JRPGs comes about as a result of this: you're witnessing or participating in the choices that a character is making, but those aren't your choices to make. Whatever decision you would make about killing or sparing the life of a villain, the choice that matters in a JRPG is the one that the character would make. For some players, that inability to choose chafes at them; for me, I'm more bothered by a game that has apparently offered me a number of choices but removes choice from me according to the dictates of the story. For example, when Ashley killed Wrex in my playthrough of Mass Effect, I wanted to retaliate against Ashley, but that was a choice I simply wasn't able to make. I'd rather that a game decide whether or not it was going to control my experience entirely, as in your typical JRPG, or leave it entirely open, as in something like the original Fallout.

I'd take issue, though, with the assertion that WRPGs, specifically BioWare RPGs, are somehow less linear in terms of gameplay than JRPGs generally are. The typical BioWare game seems to be structured like this: you have an opening act that doubles as a tutorial for the game, then you have a number of middle acts that you can play in any order but that you must all play, then you have a final act that ends the game. Each of the middle acts, by virtue of their being playable in any order, is more or less self-contained so that my actions in one have little to no effect in another. Wordsmythe mentioned meaningless choices, but I've found that choices in BioWare games aren't particularly meaningful, either.

I can't speak for Dragon Age, as it isn't a game that I've played, but Mass Effect illustrates this point well enough. Whatever choices I made while playing through the mission to rescue the colony, my adventures on the ice planet and against the bug aliens are going to be more or less what they were had I chosen to play them first instead of second and third, respectively. I can't recall the exact order of the quests in Mass Effect, but the biggest difference in a given area is that I might or might not have Liara or Wrex available to join my party (and later, Kaiden or Ashley). However, all of the dialogue options that can play out will play out because every scenario has been programmed to account for whichever party members I've brought along with me; whether I have Ashley and Wrex or Garrus and Kaiden, one person will always recommend that I kill the alien queen while the other will always recommend that I spare her. It's just the lines of dialogue that differ, and even Final Fantasy VII offered that much. And, as was mentioned before, JRPGs tend to have optional characters that can join your party depending on the subquests you complete.

As to missing an opportunity to complete a sidequest or have a character join your party because you mucked up a dialogue option, I don't see how that's much different than missing an opportunity to do a sidequest or have a character join your party because you moved on to the game's next act without doing everything available to you. In both cases, you have a window of opportunity that you can take or miss.

Now, Dragon Age might have changed this and each of the game's central quests is substantially different depending on your origin story and the order in which you play them, but I've heard nothing to indicate as much. The extent to which choices, tactics, and character builds affect a WRPG world are generally just window-dressing.

I guess what it boils down to is to what degree of choice a player must have before they don't feel as though they're being railroaded. Personally, being told that I could do A, B, and C in any order but must do all of them and they're each discrete is no less linear than being told that I must play A, B, and C in that order. (Actually, I'd rather benefit from the sharper story that can be offered by knowing the order in which events will unfold, but that's just personal preference.)

Great job and great listening, as always. I have a couple questions ... the first of which is show related, and the rest of which are not.

A) During the MMO discussion, Rabbit mentioned a "Paranoia type MMO." I assume he was speaking of paranoia with a lowercase p, and not Paranoia with a capital P, but if by chance he was speaking of the latter, I wanted to chime in with my love for that little known P&P RPG.

B) My wife is really enjoying New Super Mario on the Wii, to an extent she hasn't enjoyed any other video game, to my knowledge. We're about to polish off world 8, and I'm wondering if there are any other coop games of a similar difficulty level? Due to her anti-gaming stance in general, it'd have to be Wii or possibly PC, as we lack the other consoles.

C) It's December -- does Elysium plan on reviewing his Year Of Gaming Experimentation in an upcoming podcast?

Much love.

TOTALLY Capital P. Gawd I love me some Paranoia.

Trust No One. Keep Your Laser Handy.

C) It's December -- does Elysium plan on reviewing his Year Of Gaming Experimentation in an upcoming podcast?

His what? I have no idea what you are talking about. No idea at all. I never did anything like that. Or got halfway through the year and quietly abandoned it hoping no one would notice.

adam.greenbrier:

Thank you.

rabbit wrote:

TOTALLY Capital P. Gawd I love me some Paranoia.

Trust The Computer.

Lucky we have such a loyal troubleshooter as I am to fix these typos.

(You owe me.)

adam.greenbrier wrote:

I'd take issue, though, with the assertion that WRPGs, specifically BioWare RPGs, are somehow less linear in terms of gameplay than JRPGs generally are. The typical BioWare game seems to be structured like this: you have an opening act that doubles as a tutorial for the game, then you have a number of middle acts that you can play in any order but that you must all play, then you have a final act that ends the game. Each of the middle acts, by virtue of their being playable in any order, is more or less self-contained so that my actions in one have little to no effect in another. Wordsmythe mentioned meaningless choices, but I've found that choices in BioWare games aren't particularly meaningful, either.

I think we're working from fundamentally different understandings of "linear." The possibility space in that second act you mention is considerably larger in BioWare games than it is in FF#. To me, linearity is a measure of how confined possibility spaces are and how often progression is necessarily along a fixed, unchangeable (but for death) series. If that difference, to a puzzle-minded player, is no more than "count to 5 by ones" versus "mention 7 numbers, but make sure 5 are the numbers 1-5," I still feel that there's a huge difference there.

But I don't think that western RPG choices are necessarily as contained as you think, either. Certainly Dragon Age is a great example of the hidden reverberations of choices, but long-term consequences for short-sighted choices goes back at least as far as Fallout. Perhaps it's true that the final act remains in many ways the same, but unlike the iterations of JRPGs (e.g., same boss fight and cut scenes, but this time NPC 1 is carrying a different sword), the motives, characters present and options for approaching and solving the final conflict are all dependent on previous choices and investigations. Mass Effect still has one final showdown, but how many versions of denouement followed that? Three? However many, they were all related to choices intentionally made by the player, not factors based on an unlockable secret or on how long your play clock's been running.

wordsmythe:

That relates to the point I was making. The denouements after the final showdown in Dragon Age are just so many cutscenes and text boxes - no different than what you might find in the various endings of a Japanese AVN. In fact, in terms of plot design, these AVNs are often superior in complexity and subtlety, partly because they don't involve any other kind of gameplay mechanic, other than choosing options.

In fact, it is 100% certain that you won't see all the content in some AVNs in one or two playthroughs, as going one way locks out the content in conflicting story arcs.

Both Dragon Age and Mass Effect are essentially a mashup of tactical wargame and choose-your-own-adventure, and these elements transition one to the other with no effort at concealing the delineations. Are they necessarily superior because they offer this kind of content rather than another kind of content? Is it really a "problem" per se that Japanese RPGs happen not to feature choose-your-own-adventure type play?

Indeed, I'm not quite so sure that all Japanese RPGs should be typecast and molded the same, because even the core gameplay mechanics are not always the same. Arc Rise games feature turn-based tactical-board play, broadly similar to Dragon Age and Phantom Brave, whereas Final Fantasy and Wild Arms feature strictly abstract placement of units, if it matters at all.

Are they really the same kinds of game, simply because they share a similar broad aesthetic? Is it fair to classify them all the same genre just because they are all similarly alien to the Western mind?

By that measure, would it not also make sense to classify Call of Duty, Dragon Age, and Starcraft as "Western RPGs?"

I'm not fond of all JRPGs, of course, since they don't all appeal to my sensibilities, in terms of both aesthetics and gameplay. A JRPG-esque production like Spectrobes: Origins appeals to me on the basis of its action-oriented gameplay, though strictly speaking, it's really more like Zelda, so Certis may have words for me, if he knows what Spectrobes is like.

Similarly, a game like Wild Arms appeals to me, too, even though it's turn based and unit placement hardly matters in some versions. That doesn't make it an inferior game - just a different one.

Even the different Final Fantasies aren't all of one make.

LarryC wrote:

Indeed, I'm not quite so sure that all Japanese RPGs should be typecast and molded the same, because even the core gameplay mechanics are not always the same. Arc Rise games feature turn-based tactical-board play, broadly similar to Dragon Age and Phantom Brave, whereas Final Fantasy and Wild Arms feature strictly abstract placement of units, if it matters at all.

Are they really the same kinds of game, simply because they share a similar broad aesthetic? Is it fair to classify them all the same genre just because they are all similarly alien to the Western mind?

By that measure, would it not also make sense to classify Call of Duty, Dragon Age, and Starcraft as "Western RPGs?"

A genre is just a collection of common elements and the audience expectations that come from those common elements. The JRPG is a subgenre--a group of commonalities and expectations that include general RPG tropes but add more elements.

Now, so that we're clear, this isn't a hierarchy. There are plenty of titles that share elements from multiple genres, and titles that don't depart in some way from genre conventions are usually dull and rightly disparaged.

That said, if the particular conventions of a genre or subgenre don't appeal to a podcaster, there's little reason for someone else to take offense or launch a campaign to change that podcaster's mind. If Certis doesn't like the taste of basil, I don't see much reason for any of us to waste our time or energy expounding on the nuances of a good pesto or telling him that he's not allowed to like oregano otherwise.

Elysium wrote:
C) It's December -- does Elysium plan on reviewing his Year Of Gaming Experimentation in an upcoming podcast?

His what? I have no idea what you are talking about. No idea at all. I never did anything like that. Or got halfway through the year and quietly abandoned it hoping no one would notice.

You have no idea how many times I've stopped myself from posting something about that experiment you seem to have been so traumatized by that you can hardly remember it. Especially when JRPG's and The World Ends With You comes up. Except, this time I'm hitting the post button.

mrtomaytohead wrote:
Elysium wrote:
C) It's December -- does Elysium plan on reviewing his Year Of Gaming Experimentation in an upcoming podcast?

His what? I have no idea what you are talking about. No idea at all. I never did anything like that. Or got halfway through the year and quietly abandoned it hoping no one would notice.

You have no idea how many times I've stopped myself from posting something about that experiment you seem to have been so traumatized by that you can hardly remember it. Especially when JRPG's and The World Ends With You comes up. Except, this time I'm hitting the post button.

It's a bit of post-whoring on my part, but just today I began an attempt to revitalize the Horizons Broadening Project.

This year's Year of Gaming Experimentation choice - Desert Bus.

Enjoy Elysium!

wordssmythe:

1. I would argue that based on the best and most popular JRPGs, JRPGs rather subtract elements from the RPG formula rather than add.

Traditional pen and paper RPGs from D&D on are tactical grid-based position-sensitive wargame simulations. Games like Bioware's offerings strongly carry that tradition and formula. Even RPGs like The Witcher show elements of this.

Hand in hand with that is also the very traditional "choose-your-own-adventure" gameplay with puzzle elements and exploration elements, which are are also originated in D&D and carried forward.

Modren Western MMOs are even based on grid collision loosely - aggro mechanics are meant to simulate collision-based positional defense without actually having collision-based positional defense.

JRPGs do not share these universal qualities. Some of them are grid-based or tactical board-based and some are not. Some are turn-based with tactical placement, and some are action-based with an emphasis on real-time action gaming, trending to the Zelda formula (without actually being a Zelda game), and some are turn-based with little or no semblance of position whatsoever, being based on pure numbers and broad role mechanics.

The weirdest ones even incorporate collectible card mechanics with or without abstract position (or whatever).

In terms of theme, they are also not of a one. Some are fantastic, some are sci-fi, some are steampunk, and some are set in Shibuya. A fantastic overlay is expected, but the thematic elements can range from wild west to modern high school.

About the only unifying element of these games is that they involve more-or-less linear progression through a story with a strong protagonist or group of protagonists, and that they all have elements of manga/anime aesthetic.

That said, if the particular conventions of a genre or subgenre don't appeal to a podcaster, there's little reason for someone else to take offense or launch a campaign to change that podcaster's mind. If Certis doesn't like the taste of basil, I don't see much reason for any of us to waste our time or energy expounding on the nuances of a good pesto or telling him that he's not allowed to like oregano otherwise.

I have no problems with that whatsoever. I was just commenting on several things:

1. According the email in question, it is somehow admirable to prefer non-JRPG games. It may have been meant in jest, but even meant in jest, constant put downs of an entire genre can be off-putting especially without adequate representation from the fans (or should I say, fan?)

The suggestion is that JRPGs are representative of an inferior game design and that being a JRPG indicates that a game has a problem.

"Don't get me started on the problems of JRPGs," as if all JRPGs have these problems, or that these supposed critiques even are problems (ie: the supposed linearity of JRPGs vis-a-vis Western RPGs or games)

2. I also don't have a problem with opinion - the problem is factual mistakes. Muramasa is NOT a JRPG, in any way, shape or form. Certis (?) corrects the group weakly at the end of the second time they tackle this, but I feel that he was not firmly in control at that point, and that the unfortunate overall message delivered by the group contained a factual inaccuracy.

This is not limited to that incident. In this podcast, the hosts, when discusses the "faults" of JRPGs, mention that "a JRPG will take that choice (of content) away from you, my friend." That is not true. Final Fantasy VII gives you a choice of which materia to go after and which characters to go after. Many of them are written in as constant companions, but at least two arcs are optional: Yuffie and Vincent. I recall more content in that game being purely optional, aside from monster hunting, chocobo racing, and materia hunting. It's plausible that the hosts don't take the time to explore JRPGs that much but that, too, means that they tailored their JRPG experiences to themselves.

As far as I'm concerned, the vast majority of the FFX experience was the game of Blitzball, and I was perfectly happy with that. I tailored the game to give me the experience I wanted out of it.

Moreover, it's not like a game like Dragon Age is materially different. You get to choose which order you get the story, but the arcs of the story are compartmentalized in order to accomplish this, and the overall points are largely similar.

"It's a common problem with gamers these days. People don't ask 'What can I do?' of their games anymore, and instead are only occupied with the 'What am I supposed to do?' question. It's a sad sight indeed when fans of this interactive medium are baffled and even frustrated when they are presented with an actual choice."

In fairness, they dealt with the light-hearted comment appropriately lightly also, and rabbit eventually steps up to the plate and essentially says "What the hell is wrong with that?" even though he professes to avoid JRPGs like the plague.

3. At the same time, he expresses the opinion that "an endless tree where every decision procedurally affects the end" (paraphrasing heavily there) is "where we ALL want our journey to take us to."

I'm not sure what he meant by that, but I don't understand how he can say that, having mentioned that in this very question, and dismiss AVNs as a distraction to the issue at hand. Clearly, the choose-your-own-adventure procedurally generated ending is something he can appreciate. How is it that it's suddenly a distraction, just because it's not being interrupted by a tactical boardgame in between?

ALL the choices you make in Dragon Age that materially affect the ending of the game are made via choose-your-own-adventure menus. The tactical aspect of the game does not figure into it whatsoever, and the exploration part largely does so in a simplistic manner. For the most part, if you ask someone to move the character and play the tactical game for you, it IS a Japanese Adult Video Novel.

It even has the sex scenes.

4. Finally, I'll take this moment to mention something somewhat peripheral:

A review CAN be wrong. That is because a review is not only an opinion, but also fact. A review that states that Uncharted 2 is a PC game is wrong on that score. Likewise, a review that scores down and criticizes a game for faults it does not have is also wrong.

For instance, a reviewer cannot review Dragon Age and fault it for not representing dwarves and elves at all - because it clearly, and obviously does. It cannot fault Dragon Age for being a short 4 hour game - it cannot be completed within that time frame, even if you do a speed run on the fastest settings. It cannot fault Dragon Age for not having a Mage class nor should it fault Dragon Age for not having platforming segments, even though it very clearly does not have that element.

You might say at this point, "You are being preposterous, LarryC. No review can possibly be that wrong." You would be mistaken. Some reviews on well-known mags and sites ARE that wrong.

What's worse is that the editors will tell you that those reviews are 100% plausible and contain no factual errors whatsoever. It's part of why I no longer subscribe to any reviewer but myself - my responsibility, you understand.

LarryC wrote:

wordssmythe:

1. I would argue that based on the best and most popular JRPGs, JRPGs rather subtract elements from the RPG formula rather than add.

Traditional pen and paper RPGs from D&D on are tactical grid-based position-sensitive wargame simulations.

Excuse me if I feel the need to stop you there. D&D may have been a variation on Chainmail--a grid-based war game--but the combat mechanics of an RPG are hardly a defining characteristic of the genre, as you obviously know. Rather, what makes D&D different from Chainmail is that a player controls an individual or small group of individuals (rather than a unit of many non-unique troops) and that the player is not competing in a test of skill against an opponent (as in a war game) so much as participating in a story, with the aid of a virtual or human storyteller. The amount of control allowed to players in determining the pace, details and plot of the story varies by storyteller. RPGs, as a genre, generally also feature dynamics whereby characters grow in prowess and ability through the course of the story, often as an abstraction of "experience" from successful completion of challenges or amelioration of conflicts.

That said, perhaps this is a good illustration of how individuals have different understandings of what defines a particular genre.

1. According the email in question, it is somehow admirable to prefer non-JRPG games. It may have been meant in jest, but even meant in jest, constant put downs of an entire genre can be off-putting especially without adequate representation from the fans (or should I say, fan?)

We all tend to feel more kinship with those whom we perceive to share our opinions. There's no guarantee that the podcasters and the emailer would define "JRPG" in the same way--though it is clear that the definition that the emailer uses is one that encompasses many aspects of (game, narrative, artistic or audio) design that the emailer doesn't like.

The suggestion is that JRPGs are representative of an inferior game design and that being a JRPG indicates that a game has a problem.

"Don't get me started on the problems of JRPGs," as if all JRPGs have these problems, or that these supposed critiques even are problems (ie: the supposed linearity of JRPGs vis-a-vis Western RPGs or games)

One issue with more tightly-restricted understanding of genre or subgenre is that it's easy for an individual's understanding of that genre to only include titles that fail to innovate at all--as innovation away from genre conventions can (by the narrow-minded) be seen as excluding a title from the genre. This is doubly problematic in the case of negative views on a specific genre, as the animosity will preclude effort to seek out innovative design or to include an innovative title under a genre that has come instead to be a subjective epithet. It's not your fault if someone has a different (or even warped or mean-spirited) definition of a genre--though I don't see why it's worth taking such a strong defensive stance, either.

2. I also ... have a problem with ... factual mistakes. Muramasa is NOT a JRPG, in any way, shape or form. Certis (?) corrects the group weakly at the end of the second time they tackle this, but I feel that he was not firmly in control at that point, and that the unfortunate overall message delivered by the group contained a factual inaccuracy.

This is not limited to that incident. In this podcast, the hosts, when discusses the "faults" of JRPGs, mention that "a JRPG will take that choice (of content) away from you, my friend." That is not true.

I won't argue with you here. As a result of the conversational format, labels and generalities get tossed around with other assertions in ways that aren't as common or acceptable in written form--even in the significantly casual mode of GWJ's Front-Page articles, let alone in academic or paid professional writing.

As a favor to us all, and to your own stomach lining, I ask that you rather approach such statements on the podcast as the sweeping generalities that they are. It's probable, even, that some of the podcasters are speaking of Japanese games in general--though only based on the considerably less innovative, mainstream, AAA titles that they've played. Sure, that may make them wrong, but these are not personal attacks.

In fairness, they dealt with the light-hearted comment appropriately lightly also, and rabbit eventually steps up to the plate and essentially says "What the hell is wrong with that?" even though he professes to avoid JRPGs like the plague.

You may not know this, but Rabbit doesn't often play more than 6 hours of a story-based game. It's no wonder he'd avoid titles that often run more than ten times longer than that--even if he does have a penchant for the cute and sappy.

3. At the same time, he expresses the opinion that "an endless tree where every decision procedurally affects the end" (paraphrasing heavily there) is "where we ALL want our journey to take us to."

I'm not sure what he meant by that, but I don't understand how he can say that, having mentioned that in this very question, and dismiss AVNs as a distraction to the issue at hand. Clearly, the choose-your-own-adventure procedurally generated ending is something he can appreciate. How is it that it's suddenly a distraction, just because it's not being interrupted by a tactical boardgame in between?

ALL the choices you make in Dragon Age that materially affect the ending of the game are made via choose-your-own-adventure menus. The tactical aspect of the game does not figure into it whatsoever, and the exploration part largely does so in a simplistic manner. For the most part, if you ask someone to move the character and play the tactical game for you, it IS a Japanese Adult Video Novel.

It even has the sex scenes.

AVNs may be a purified form of RPG. I won't argue otherwise. However AVNs, like all Interactive Fiction, are a niche market at best to most of the writers and podcasters here. When speaking in generalizations, such types of games are fairly easy to dismiss. I'm a fairly big fan of IF, but I'm willing to admit that and smile to myself when I hear podcasters complain out things that are lacking in "games" that I know are readily available in niche genres. I might, if I'm feeling generous, even try to help educate others in the comments later on.

wordsmythe:

Excuse me if I feel the need to stop you there. D&D may have been a variation on Chainmail--a grid-based war game--but the combat mechanics of an RPG are hardly a defining characteristic of the genre, as you obviously know. Rather, what makes D&D different from Chainmail is that a player controls an individual or small group of individuals (rather than a unit of many non-unique troops) and that the player is not competing in a test of skill against an opponent (as in a war game) so much as participating in a story, with the aid of a virtual or human storyteller. The amount of control allowed to players in determining the pace, details and plot of the story varies by storyteller. RPGs, as a genre, generally also feature dynamics whereby characters grow in prowess and ability through the course of the story, often as an abstraction of "experience" from successful completion of challenges or amelioration of conflicts.

That said, perhaps this is a good illustration of how individuals have different understandings of what defines a particular genre.

It is probably as you say, but that doesn't make what I said wrong.

Combat mechanics ARE one of the defining points of what makes RPGs RPGs, at least in the Western sphere.

Let me ask you this: what percentage of your Dragon Age character describes characteristics that are NOT related to combat in any way whatsoever?

I can't really quantify that in any percentage that isn't pulled out of my ass right this instant, but it's very, very small. Off the top of my head, only Coercion skill is a purely noncombat skill application.

The very fact that I talk about Dragon Age about what's "combat" and what's "not-combat" emphasizes how focused it is on that aspect of gameplay. In contrast, Cooking Mama has no combat whatsoever, and I don't see how it's not amenable to having a story and a role-playing aspect, if it came down to it.

I'll present you a challenge here: name me a video-game RPG classed as an RPG that doesn't have any kind of combat.

We can easily point to what's different about D&D and Chainmail, of course, but they have more in common than, say, D&D and Carcassone.

As a favor to us all, and to your own stomach lining, I ask that you rather approach such statements on the podcast as the sweeping generalities that they are. It's probable, even, that some of the podcasters are speaking of Japanese games in general--though only based on the considerably less innovative, mainstream, AAA titles that they've played. Sure, that may make them wrong, but these are not personal attacks.

I understand that perfectly. Despite the endemic nature of these mistakes, this is the first time I've talked about it at length as itself, and not related to another central subject.

It's just a little jarring, that's all, and I thought I'd bring their attention to it, by way of help. It's a little like telling someone they have something on their teeth. I didn't know the reception was going to be even mildly hostile. To be fair, it hasn't gotten nasty at all, for which I credit the incredible self-restraint of the crew. That or the incredible soothing power of their wives.

You may not know this, but Rabbit doesn't often play more than 6 hours of a story-based game. It's no wonder he'd avoid titles that often run more than ten times longer than that--even if he does have a penchant for the cute and sappy.

Actually, I got the impression that he didn't play 6 hours of pretty much anything, at least at a single stretch. We're probably way off base, here, though. After all, he has finished some games.

On the other hand, I'm "blessed" with a constitution that's apparently naturally adapted to gaming. I can, and have, gamed for 18 hours or more, with only minor snack and bathroom breaks, and suffered no more aches and symptoms that can normally be associated with such dire use of your body. My thumbs don't ache from controllers, and my wrist never gets tired from holding a mouse.

rabbit apparently can at least play music games for some length of time. That could be a plausible replacement for tactical combat in a music-based RPG.

AVNs may be a purified form of RPG. I won't argue otherwise. However AVNs, like all Interactive Fiction, are a niche market at best to most of the writers and podcasters here. When speaking in generalizations, such types of games are fairly easy to dismiss. I'm a fairly big fan of IF, but I'm willing to admit that and smile to myself when I hear podcasters complain out things that are lacking in "games" that I know are readily available in niche genres. I might, if I'm feeling generous, even try to help educate others in the comments later on.

Sometimes I smile, sometimes I cringe and the hairs on the back of my neck rise like I were some offended cat. I understand that AVNs are a niche market to the podcasters and writers here; I assumed that they were almost wholly unacquainted with them, and it appears that I was correct.

That said, an estimated 70% of all PC games released in the Japanese market are AVNs. This means that choice-based games with procedurally generated endings are, by far, the most played PC game genre in Japan.

This explains why Japanese game developers feel no special need to include such gameplay in games that are classed "JRPGs." Westerners don't feel any need to have this kind of gameplay in their RTS games, most of which are just as linear as JRPGs. Likewise, procedurally generated endings and "nonlinear play" isn't asked of point-and-click adventures like Grim Fandango. Why? Because they already get that from Western RPGs. Japanese get the tree-dialogue play from Little Busters! Why would they ask it from something like Final Fantasy? In nearly all cases, they're better off with Little Busters! where the story actually makes some kind of sense, and isn't limited to the same tropes expected in JRPGs.

Thus, when the Japanese buy (and create) an RPG, they have very particular tropes and conventions in mind. It isn't innovative to them to hack apart an AVN and shoehorn it in between the combat gameplay of a Final Fantasy. It would probably make as much sense (to them) as taking a shmup design and putting it in as the travel-gameplay of Dragon Age.

It'd be downright ludicrous.

In point of fact, the choose-your-own adventure play of Dragon Age is somewhat rudimentary in comparison to AVN design, and the combat and sandbox gameplay clearly gets in the way of creating stronger story elements. It's hard to write a powerful story when you ask your readers to forcibly play chess or Soul Calibur every few pages, and you have to write it so that it makes no difference in what order you read the chapters.

Does anyone honestly think that you can write Les Miserables in 5 interchangeable chapters without losing narrative power?

In light of that, I don't see how anyone can interpret CYOA play in Dragon Age as innovative and new or that it's really going anywhere that hasn't been explored before.

There are better and purer examples of interactive fiction out there (as you already know).

LarryC wrote:

... It would probably make as much sense (to them) as taking a shmup design and putting it in as the travel-gameplay of Dragon Age.

It'd be downright ludicrous.

Wow, that just sent shivers down my spine as the flashbacks from the pseudo-shmup parts of Jade Empire came flooding back.

They were horrible.

rabbit wrote:

TOTALLY Capital P. Gawd I love me some Paranoia.

Trust No One. Keep Your Laser Handy.

What? You can trust The Computer. The Computer is your friend.

LarryC wrote:

wordsmythe:
Combat mechanics ARE one of the defining points of what makes RPGs RPGs, at least in the Western sphere.

Let me ask you this: what percentage of your Dragon Age character describes characteristics that are NOT related to combat in any way whatsoever?

I think, in fact, that Dragon Age is a triumph of characterization and character development. The overarching plot and any combat are not the focus, and they pale in comparison to dialog and the complexities of character interaction. If you're thinking about characters in Dragon Age on the basis of their skill allocation, you're playing an entirely different game than I am.

I'll present you a challenge here: name me a video-game RPG classed as an RPG that doesn't have any kind of combat.

Dangerous High School Girls In Trouble

We can easily point to what's different about D&D and Chainmail, of course, but they have more in common than, say, D&D and Carcassone.

That's because D&D was, according to its creators, a way of adding rules to childhood games of "pretend" by borrowing from extant rule sets such as Chainmail. I'm not sure I take your point, though. Are you trying to claim that JRPGs are an entirely distinct genre from RPGs as a while, and that they developed completely independently from other RPG traditions?

I understand that AVNs are a niche market to the podcasters and writers here; I assumed that they were almost wholly unacquainted with them, and it appears that I was correct.

That said, an estimated 70% of all PC games released in the Japanese market are AVNs. This means that choice-based games with procedurally generated endings are, by far, the most played PC game genre in Japan.

No, it means that they're the most common games in the Japanese market; releases aren't the same as sales. I'm sure I don't need to show you what the multi-million-selling titles are in Japan.

This explains why Japanese game developers feel no special need to include such gameplay in games that are classed "JRPGs." Westerners don't feel any need to have this kind of gameplay in their RTS games, most of which are just as linear as JRPGs. Likewise, procedurally generated endings and "nonlinear play" isn't asked of point-and-click adventures like Grim Fandango. Why? Because they already get that from Western RPGs.

I don't think many gamers in any country have as large and diverse a diet as would be able to incorporate balancing "needs" of this variety across various genres.

sandbox gameplay clearly gets in the way of creating stronger story elements. It's hard to write a powerful story when you ask your readers to forcibly play chess or Soul Calibur every few pages, and you have to write it so that it makes no difference in what order you read the chapters.

Does anyone honestly think that you can write Les Miserables in 5 interchangeable chapters without losing narrative power?

I think you're making the crucial mistake of thinking that games work the same way as novels. It's a fundamentally different medium in which the player actually has input. While there certainly remain stalwarts who feel that the designer must maintain dictatorial control over the game's story, many (e.g. Clint Hocking) are learning that the fundamentally interactive nature of games allows for a completely different kind of co-operative and emergent storytelling. If you think there's no way that procedural gameplay can create its own story, then you need to read Alice and Kev.

wordsmythe wrote:
LarryC wrote:

sandbox gameplay clearly gets in the way of creating stronger story elements. It's hard to write a powerful story when you ask your readers to forcibly play chess or Soul Calibur every few pages, and you have to write it so that it makes no difference in what order you read the chapters.

Does anyone honestly think that you can write Les Miserables in 5 interchangeable chapters without losing narrative power?

I think you're making the crucial mistake of thinking that games work the same way as novels. It's a fundamentally different medium in which the player actually has input. While there certainly remain stalwarts who feel that the designer must maintain dictatorial control over the game's story, many (e.g. Clint Hocking) are learning that the fundamentally interactive nature of games allows for a completely different kind of co-operative and emergent storytelling. If you think there's no way that procedural gameplay can create its own story, then you need to read Alice and Kev.

I have to agree with Wordsmythe. Comparing literary story telling to that in games is not a fair one.

Game stories, particularly for sand-box / non-linear ones I find are more akin to a Season of Babylon 5 or Star Trek.

In a given season of Random SciFi 23 you will have a starting point, usually the fallout from the previous season or introduction to the cast / crew. This and a few early key episodes set up the challenges for that season. Throughout the season, the writers will identify several (for examples sake lets assume 4) plot points that must be dealt with for the final act to begin.

Maybe they need to:
1) Find and destroy an enemy shipyard.
2) Uncover the plot to assassinate a key political figure.
3) Make contact with an old and powerful alien race thought long extinct.
4) Build a prototype warship capable of defeating the "Evil Alien Empire".

Once these have been accomplished the allied races will be able to take the fight to Evil Alien Empire, cue Final Act(s).

Now in a TV series the episodes will be played in a specific order to make viewing easier, but there needs not be reason to any given order. It's not uncommon for episodes to be shifted chronologically due to technical, scheduling or scripting problems prior to the season’s completion. It is this shifting and freedom that is granted to the player rather than the writers in regards to non-linear game stories.

Heck, that outline I have come up with could almost be the plot of a BioWare sci-fi RPG.

That said, it is rare for a game to have as "good" a story as books, movies and even some TV series. That lack of coherence can sometimes shatter the suspension of disbelief at times. This however is completely forgivable as when it inevitably happens you are able to play in the sand-box until you are ready for "the next episode".

Currently I am 75% (guess) of the way through Assassin's Creed 2, and whilst I think Dragon Age is a "better" game, unless AC2's story sh*ts all over itself it will likely get my "Game of the Year" due to being a far more immersive game. For reference 2008 I would say Fallout 3 was my GOTY and it was far removed from AC2 narrative-wise and yet gets the nod again due to its sheer brilliance at immersing me. That time due to the overwhelming loneliness and crushing sense of loss.

The best part of game stories (imo) is that there is so much diversity in how they can be told. Gaming is probably (hyperbole incoming) the new frontier of story telling because it has no entrenched expectations and conventions created from decades or more use and development.

Wuppie wrote:

Currently I am 75% (guess) of the way through Assassin's Creed 2, and whilst I think Dragon Age is a "better" game, unless AC2's story sh*ts all over itself it will likely get my "Game of the Year" due to being a far more immersive game. For reference 2008 I would say Fallout 3 was my GOTY and it was far removed from AC2 narrative-wise and yet gets the nod again due to its sheer brilliance at immersing me. That time due to the overwhelming loneliness and crushing sense of loss.

Sounds like you're a pretty big fan of rich settings and environments.

wordsmythe wrote:
Wuppie wrote:

Currently I am 75% (guess) of the way through Assassin's Creed 2, and whilst I think Dragon Age is a "better" game, unless AC2's story sh*ts all over itself it will likely get my "Game of the Year" due to being a far more immersive game. For reference 2008 I would say Fallout 3 was my GOTY and it was far removed from AC2 narrative-wise and yet gets the nod again due to its sheer brilliance at immersing me. That time due to the overwhelming loneliness and crushing sense of loss.

Sounds like you're a pretty big fan of rich settings and environments.

Probably. I never thought about it like that. As I mentioned in another thread I really enjoyed the atmosphere of the Prince of Persia reboot. The game mechanics were ok, but the free running and scenery were great. And it conveyed the feeling of a "lost greatness" well enough to penetrate my thick skull.

Although if pressed to name my "Top 5" all time favourite (note: NOT best) games, I would likely pick:
1) Mass Effect
2) Master of Orion 2
3) Fallout 3
4) Darklands
5) Knights of the Old Republic
- Probably in that order.

Useless info I know ;p

wordsmythe:

I think, in fact, that Dragon Age is a triumph of characterization and character development. The overarching plot and any combat are not the focus, and they pale in comparison to dialog and the complexities of character interaction. If you're thinking about characters in Dragon Age on the basis of their skill allocation, you're playing an entirely different game than I am.

I don't particularly think that Dragon Age is any kind of triumph, to be perfectly frank, and particularly not in terms of characterization and character development!

Most of the characters are made of stock elements, awkwardly mashed together and badly paced in terms of revelation. Little to no foreshadowing is done, and you can kiss subtlety goodbye.

Character interaction is simple, not complex. Nearly all character interaction is done through a transparent numerical system, which you can bluntly ignore as long as you know where all the positive gift modifiers are. If you plan to explore the less pleasant parts of each character, it's quite easy to predict how to get that modifier down for each.

In a few cases, characters even act inconsistent with prior characterization, much like Mass Effect's "always a representative for each viewpoint" system. Characterization here doesn't strike me even as good as it was in Mass Effect, and I'm not saying that the characterization there was epic.

The CYOA part of this game is basic, characterization is mediocre, and interactivity is limited. If that's your premise for playing Dragon Age, I can't say I can agree that this is all that outstanding a game.

The tactical gameplay does not pale at all in comparison to the story game, particularly in light of the fact that this is a game in the tradition of one of the best such small squad tactical game designs ever made, and it's a pretty good example.

I'm sure you were exaggerating for effect but it does your point no good in this case.

That's because D&D was, according to its creators, a way of adding rules to childhood games of "pretend" by borrowing from extant rule sets such as Chainmail. I'm not sure I take your point, though. Are you trying to claim that JRPGs are an entirely distinct genre from RPGs as a while, and that they developed completely independently from other RPG traditions?

No. I'm saying that games like D&D and in the tradition of D&D are mostly comprised of the tactical portion of the game. You can skip through most of the CYOA gaming (press escape and always choose "1") in Dragon Age, and ignore nearly all the characterization portions of the game and still finish it. You are, on the other hand required to play through the tactical elements of the game without question.

If you don't like tactical games, Dragon Age would not be a hugely good recommendation, IMO.

No, it means that they're the most common games in the Japanese market; releases aren't the same as sales. I'm sure I don't need to show you what the multi-million-selling titles are in Japan.

Sales are not the same as playtime. It's a pointless quibble. Let's agree that they're the most common PC games in the Japanese market, and that market behavior there is more than enough to throw enough dough their way to make it so.

This is a far cry from the Western market where interactive fiction is NOT the most common game in the PC gaming market.

The point here is that Japanese RPG makers probably don't feel any need to include this kind of gaming in their game design because it's readily available in other and purer form. If Japanese interactive fiction fans need their fix, they don't need to play tactical games to get it.

It means that Japanese RPGs NOT incorporating said design isn't a sign that they're "stagnating" or that they're "behind the time." They simply don't operate in the same milieu and have different forces and perspectives guiding them.

Is there even a Japanese release for Dragon Age?

I think you're making the crucial mistake of thinking that games work the same way as novels. It's a fundamentally different medium in which the player actually has input. While there certainly remain stalwarts who feel that the designer must maintain dictatorial control over the game's story, many (e.g. Clint Hocking) are learning that the fundamentally interactive nature of games allows for a completely different kind of co-operative and emergent storytelling. If you think there's no way that procedural gameplay can create its own story, then you need to read Alice and Kev.

I think you're making the crucial mistake of thinking I'm not familiar with video games.

It's obvious to any gamer what the differences are between a novel and a game. That said, how is that relevant to the question?

I said that the interchangeability of Dragon Age episodes ultimately hurts its narrative power, and it does. This would have been the same regardless of the medium in which it was released. Creating a story by piecing together prefabricated episodes ultimately weakens the overall plot and flow because you cannot properly weave pacing and such through multiple chapters - they all each have to be interchangeable and largely noninteractive (with each other).

A more linear story and game has the chance to deliver a more powerful story because it's linear.

You might make a case that a character-driven narrative can afford to deal its parts out in interchangeable episodes, and you would be right - in fact, many TV shows take advantage of this power, but Dragon Age does not. Instead of taking each part and making it about a particular character, each part is geared to drive the story forward in such a way that you can complete any part any fraction and then go do something else.

Dragon Age has many strengths, but narrative power is not one of them.

Being familiar with interactive fiction, I do not subscribe to the idea that interactivity is exclusive to stories that have strict authorial control. You know that. You should know that I know that since I referred you to Japanes AVNs. I don't understand how you think you're making headway against my point by charging me with a belief you should know I don't adhere to.

I play D&D, FYI. I know firsthand the power of interactive and emergent storytelling. You don't need direct me anywhere to show me that. That said, Dragon Age does not deliver on interactive storytelling. The characters are rote and predictable, the camera work for interactive scenes is laughable, and the overall pacing for character interaction is hacked because it's taking a backseat to the tactical game, which you implied you weren't really appreciating.

PS: Thanks for the game referral. It's kind of scraping, though, don't you think? It even bills itself as "RPG-lite." It's RPG like Cluedo or Muramasa is "RPG." If that's your best shot, I think you should just concede the obvious point.

Wuppie:

I have to agree with Wordsmythe. Comparing literary story telling to that in games is not a fair one.

1. I don't think you're agreeing with him.
2. Rubbish.

I can easily compare a literary story to an interactive one, and I can indicate where each has its strengths and weaknesses. Dragon Age does not employ the power of interactive storytelling in any truly powerful way, and even the elements of that are stilted, hackneyed, and badly done.

The voicework for Alistair is halfway passable. The lines, however, are rubbish. I laughed at none of the jokes. I didn't even cringe at the bad ones - they weren't bad enough to make them good. They were all just mostly ho-hum, which is the worst sin an entertainment medium can do - NOT to entertain.

The voicework is good for a video game. For any other kind of audio show, it's pathetic. I've listened to old radio shows with better voicework. Ugh.

In short, Dragon Age is not a good example of a good interactive fiction game, and the simple elements of the story game are not really up to par. Mass Effect was better in obvious ways.

Now in a TV series the episodes will be played in a specific order to make viewing easier, but there needs not be reason to any given order. It's not uncommon for episodes to be shifted chronologically due to technical, scheduling or scripting problems prior to the season’s completion. It is this shifting and freedom that is granted to the player rather than the writers in regards to non-linear game stories.

Heck, that outline I have come up with could almost be the plot of a BioWare sci-fi RPG.

Good shows of an episodic nature still weave foreshadowing of future events within the individual shows, and these foreshadowings need not occur in any particular order : eg Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Also, the main plot could be directly and dramatically advanced in episodic nature, while focusing on the strengths of the episode format. Dragon Age does not do this.

That said, it is rare for a game to have as "good" a story as books, movies and even some TV series. That lack of coherence can sometimes shatter the suspension of disbelief at times. This however is completely forgivable as when it inevitably happens you are able to play in the sand-box until you are ready for "the next episode".

Rubbish.

It is not forgivable at all. You may be able to ignore it, but you do still notice it, don't you? That, in itself, makes it a failing of the material in question.

The reason there are not as many games that have as good a story as books and movies is because there are less games that are released that focus on narrative. Moreover, the best writers have tended not to want to express their vision in game format.

It is not necessary nor inevitable for a game to lack cohesion when dealt in the episodic format. You're simply used to bad material.

For instance, when you leave a certain somewhere in Dragon Age to seek help elsewhere, that certain somewhere remains static and unchangeable. It's not the episodic format that's ruining your disbelief - it's the fact that that certain somewhere remained unbelievably static when you left the place in a shambles. You'd think they'd at least clean up the place a little.

The obvious solution is to advance ALL locations in the game small amounts whenever you spend time playing the game. This is not undoable - it could be little things, even just stupid goshdarned textboxes when you enter the area!

It's not that it's undoable. It's that the many of the current material just isn't that good.

The best part of game stories (imo) is that there is so much diversity in how they can be told. Gaming is probably (hyperbole incoming) the new frontier of story telling because it has no entrenched expectations and conventions created from decades or more use and development.

It's been a "new frontier" for decades now - about three and a half by my count. Don't hold your breath or anything.

That said, Bioware is bringing a fresh perspective to the genre by bringing cheaply-available CGI animation to interactive CYOA format, and making money by releasing it mashed up against a popular tactical game. If nothing else, the production value is a little better these days, so that's something.

Although if pressed to name my "Top 5" all time favourite (note: NOT best) games, I would likely pick:
1) Mass Effect
2) Master of Orion 2
3) Fallout 3
4) Darklands
5) Knights of the Old Republic
- Probably in that order.

Useless info I know ;p

Not at all. Please check out Galatic Civ 2 - Impulse has a nice bundle and GWJ would benefit if you bought it through the Impulse tie-up. I personally though that it was superior in some ways, and overall, to MO2, though I love MO2 to death.

I'd still play it if it ran on my computer. Does GOG have it in a nice playable Windows form?

LarryC wrote:

Most of the characters are made of stock elements, awkwardly mashed together and badly paced in terms of revelation. Little to no foreshadowing is done, and you can kiss subtlety goodbye.

The need for foreshadowing and subtlety are obviously two story mechanics you prefer, they are not however a requirement. I do admit that foreshadowing when used well (refer: Babylon 5) has an impressive effect.

LarryC wrote:

Character interaction is simple, not complex. Nearly all character interaction is done through a transparent numerical system....

Keep in mind that this is a game and any game requires a numerical system of some sort. Even hidden number systems can be deduced. If BioWare had hidden the numbers would that have made it better? Personally, I think not as the system is still there. Maybe an option to hide the reaction adjustments would have allowed you to customise your experience better.

LarryC wrote:

In a few cases, characters even act inconsistent with prior characterization, much like Mass Effect's "always a representative for each viewpoint" system. Characterization here doesn't strike me even as good as it was in Mass Effect, and I'm not saying that the characterization there was epic.

The “represent each viewpoint” aspect of Mass Effect is really only noticeable on multiple play throughs. Having played it through over 6 times I believe they did a pretty good job at making sure opinions are as consistent as possible. Given the possible number of party setups (15) then there was bound to be at least a few possibilities where the NPC’s would have agreed if the situations played out as you would expect. When these do arise they tend to pick the “lesser of two evils” to switch opinions.

LarryC wrote:

A more linear story and game has the chance to deliver a more powerful story because it's linear.

That does not mean that there is inherently less value or narrative reward in the CYOA method you attribute to WRPG’s and BioWare in particular.
I do however agree, and it is this strength of narrative that makes me believe that Assassin’s Creed 2 is my game of the year. Whilst the actual story may not be terribly original, it, like Batman: Arkham Asylum kept me playing for the story and not purely the gameplay, which Dragon Age did do to some extent towards the end. That said I have started to find high fantasy rather dull as I get older and look more at “historical fiction” and sci-fi as my go to fictions of choice.

LarryC wrote:

1. I don't think you're agreeing with him.

OK then, how so?

LarryC wrote:

I can easily compare a literary story to an interactive one, and I can indicate where each has its strengths and weaknesses. Dragon Age does not employ the power of interactive storytelling in any truly powerful way, and even the elements of that are stilted, hackneyed, and badly done.

I never said you “couldn’t”, just that I thought it was unfair.

LarryC wrote:

It is not forgivable at all.

I should correct my statement by adding that “I find it forgivable”.

LarryC wrote:

You may be able to ignore it, but you do still notice it, don't you? That, in itself, makes it a failing of the material in question.

True, but there are plenty of times my immersion is broken when watching TV, movies, reading books etc. Stupid plot twists that have no consistency with the stories established norms I find FAR more jarring than when a mission ends and I am presented with the choice to “play in the sand” or “start next plot point”. I never get so immersed in a game that I forget the interactive (which implies choice) nature of gaming. So whilst I notice it, it scarcely annoys me. I bought a 360 game, not the next Raymond E. Fiest novel.

LarryC wrote:

Please check out Galatic Civ 2

I am the proud owner of boxed copies of both games since release. Something about MoO2 struck a chord with me. The music is fantastic, the custom race brilliant for its time and the gameplay was simple to learn, hard to master. To this day I frequently return to it when sick of RPG’s. Other than Civ4 I have all but abandoned the strategy genre. Probably the switch to Real-time as the standard has pushed me away. I love sitting back watching TV / Movies while plotting the demise of the Silicoids / French.

****

Just a quick note, I am relatively new to these forums and I tend to be clumsier than I realise with text only conversation. I have always found speaking far more efficient as text misses the most important parts of a message, tone.

Wuppie:

Ha! Never you mind that. It's not like I'm a master of text language, myself. I have, on at least two occasions here, found myself defending myself from allegations of hostile attack when I meant nothing of the sort. You don't need to worry about that with me. I make every effort to view personal communique with the best possible interpretation.

The need for foreshadowing and subtlety are obviously two story mechanics you prefer, they are not however a requirement. I do admit that foreshadowing when used well (refer: Babylon 5) has an impressive effect.

They're not required - just two easy ways to improve the impact of a narrative moment. You can strengthen narratives in other ways, but Dragon Age doesn't do that, and video games in general are poor at using these techniques, even in manners that are consistent with video game format.

Keep in mind that this is a game and any game requires a numerical system of some sort. Even hidden number systems can be deduced. If BioWare had hidden the numbers would that have made it better? Personally, I think not as the system is still there. Maybe an option to hide the reaction adjustments would have allowed you to customise your experience better.

People in general do not react to events in a numerical, quantitative fashion. Rather, they have values and motivations, and that drive them to behave in certain fashions. With only one or two exceptions per character, actions and motivations in DA are quantitative, not qualitative. This makes it weaker, and is not necessary. Bioware doesn't need to hide anything - they can employ a qualitative system or employ it more, anyway, on top of a quantitative thing.

For instance,

Spoiler:

Leliana only balks at the Reaver quest when you're actually at the Ashes pouring Dragon blood into the urn. She mentions her disapproval once earlier on, but that is your only real clue that she's against that entire questline.

My feeling is that she should have had more screentime during this quest - possibly by making her a required character in the party, like Oghren in the Anvil. At the end of the Reaver questline, she should defend the urn with her life, but by that point, she shouldn't even be in your party anymore - you should have come to a crossroads and have driven her from the party before that (or at least you should have been given the option to intentionally mislead her until the very last moment).

The “represent each viewpoint” aspect of Mass Effect is really only noticeable on multiple play throughs. Having played it through over 6 times I believe they did a pretty good job at making sure opinions are as consistent as possible. Given the possible number of party setups (15) then there was bound to be at least a few possibilities where the NPC’s would have agreed if the situations played out as you would expect. When these do arise they tend to pick the “lesser of two evils” to switch opinions.

It is noticeable on the first playthrough if you're taking the right combination. For instance, on Noveria, just about anyone in combination with Wrex will advocate mercy for the Rachni Queen - even rabid alien-hating Ashley. It's totally against her character to be doing this.

If you take Kaidan and Liara against Saren in the final encounter, one of them will strongly advocate letting the Council die to save humans. It is totally against character for either of them.

That does not mean that there is inherently less value or narrative reward in the CYOA method you attribute to WRPG’s and BioWare in particular.

You're mistaken on that count. I specifically mention Japanese Adult Visual Novels as having a similar design, and I also specifically say that this design is not the problem per se.

I never said you “couldn’t”, just that I thought it was unfair.

Why? Is it unfair to compare the narrative power of movies and novels? It isn't, last I looked. I don't believe that it's necessary or desirable to isolate gaming as a narrative medium just because we're gaming fans. I believe that given the right talent and with the right vision, games are more powerful narrative media than any other for particular kinds of narratives.

It's just that the games we've been getting so far have been obviously bad in that respect.

True, but there are plenty of times my immersion is broken when watching TV, movies, reading books etc. Stupid plot twists that have no consistency with the stories established norms I find FAR more jarring than when a mission ends and I am presented with the choice to “play in the sand” or “start next plot point”. I never get so immersed in a game that I forget the interactive (which implies choice) nature of gaming. So whilst I notice it, it scarcely annoys me. I bought a 360 game, not the next Raymond E. Fiest novel.

The failings of material in other media is not an excuse to tolerate failings in gaming media. Some movies and TV have stupid plot twists. That makes them flawed in exactly that manner for that reason. Games that prioritize gaming over story are narratively weak when the gaming portion ruins the narrative portion. That is simply truth, and the failings of material in other media does not make it less of a failing in gaming.