Zombra wrote:If Christine had been Chris, maybe I would have liked him, maybe I wouldn't have. If Ralf had been Smitty the Bear-Baiter, maybe I would have liked him, maybe I wouldn't have.
By being different every time, you wouldn't even remember their name. They'd be "NPC downtown" and "NPC being tortured". Anything interesting about them would be bled out. Mort's boring enough as is, I can only imagine how forgettable he'd be if he stopped being "gambling city slicker" and became "NPC #5: Needles Police Station".
The prospect of seeing all the same exact NPCs again just doesn't entice me that much when most of them are dull.
And making them randomly generated non-entities will improve that? It will make them less of a collection of statistics? You found a connection with Christine because of who she was. Her abilities, her attitude. All of which the game was able to get across in a single line of text
. That's an effective character. She stuck out in my memory too. If she was different every time I played, she'd be forgettable. Perhaps you don't see it because you've only done one playthrough, but I've played it hundreds of times. Having Christine vying with a couple dozen other versions would dilute them all.
So you do seek variation from playthrough to playthrough, but you want that variation to be totally predetermined based on your decisions, not based on any variety in the game itself?
Generally. I still play games with plenty of randomness, like Desktop Dungeons, but that randomness is frequently a source of frustration rather than excitement. Getting Meat Boy as the boss pretty much means "scrap the game and try again". I prefer to succeed or fail based on my ability, not on how generous Fate is feeling.
How about Skyrim? Elder Scrolls is certainly a beloved and popular franchise. Tons of randomness (or at least "proceduralness") in Skyrim.
Very little, actually. The NPCs certainly aren't random. And would it be improved if Lydia was sometimes Leon?
End bosses in dungeons completely change based on the level and skill set of the PC.
That's not random, that's scaling.
I suppose there are "decision paths" that would lead to similar playthroughs every time, particularly if you stick doggedly to major prescripted quest lines, but for the most part I think you couldn't play that game the same way twice if you tried.
Every major quest-line will be identical each playthrough. The Radiant system adds some randomness, but it's still pretty narrow, and generally just a source of frustration, especially the Thieves Guild side jobs when you're trying to finish off the last city and they keep giving you cities you've already done.
But the main quests will always be the same. Assassinating the emperor will always be the same; finding the Staff of Magnus will always be the same; capturing Odahviing will be the same. The majority of significant changes between playthroughs will be based on the player's actions, not randomness.
Sure, then you have games like Mario World
Which are still wildly popular. Along with their cousins in the Megaman, Castlevania, Zelda, and Metroid worlds.
Wasteland is your favorite movie and you love watching it over and over again. Which is fine! I'm not knocking that mindset.
Referring to Wasteland as a "movie" certainly implies that you're mocking both it and me. The most generous interpretation would be that it's a backhanded compliment as opposed to outright dismissal.
But in games I'd rather have a little mystery, especially if I've played it through before, and I'm not the only one.
I prefer to improve by learning how the games works and being able to play it better and more efficiently. If I want an all new experience, I'll play a new game or replay it with a completely different set-up. Like my New Vegas playthrough with a character who had a 1 Intelligence.