I'd like to see a game that features some aspect of the D&D 3.0 alignments. Fallout 3 and the like don't account for lawful or chaotic characters, and the games that do are in fact D&D games. I'm thinking there's got to be something between the two.
The traditional D&D alignment matrix makes particular sense for video games, I think. I've always decried it as simplistic for pen and paper, when you have, you know, a [i]human brain[/i] to handle things like NPC reactions and player character morality and motivations. But in a computer game it's important to be able to quantify that sort of thing, and nine buckets gives a much more satisfying illusion than two of covering the moral spectrum.
H. T. Parnell was the proprietor of Tarant's one and only emporium of wonders in Troika Games' Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura. I selected it not as an example of the best game I know of, but as an excellently concieved, very poorly executed game, praised for its wide variety of choices, and surprisingly non-linear gameplay. The perfect example of a flawed and buggy game, saved by an intriguing system, and excellent writing.
4 comments:
Your great-grandfather would be so proud to be featured on WOWHead --
I'd like to see a game that features some aspect of the D&D 3.0 alignments. Fallout 3 and the like don't account for lawful or chaotic characters, and the games that do are in fact D&D games. I'm thinking there's got to be something between the two.
The traditional D&D alignment matrix makes particular sense for video games, I think. I've always decried it as simplistic for pen and paper, when you have, you know, a [i]human brain[/i] to handle things like NPC reactions and player character morality and motivations. But in a computer game it's important to be able to quantify that sort of thing, and nine buckets gives a much more satisfying illusion than two of covering the moral spectrum.
Which begs the question, why don't more games do it?
Post a Comment