I tend to think of “the world is ending” as being terrible writing from the outset. If you’re starting from that, you’ve only yourself to blame.
Witcher 3 did it really well by having the “end of the world” stuff being centered around Ciri, and Geralt is just kind of along for the ride and isn’t really entirely sure what is happening, and his impact on whether she succeeds is rooted in whether he supports her as a father figure. Most of the game is Geralt not really having any idea that this end of the world stuff is happening to Ciri at all, until near the end.
On the other hand, it would be nice to have an RPG with lower stakes. Like I’ve always imagined a modern-day RPG where you have to do things like scrounge through your couch for change to buy a soda. The mundane RPG.
I feel that. I’ve been playing satisfactory since way before 1.0 released, and my head canon was “Boring Interplanetary Camp Job”. but when 1.0 came out suddenly I have to sAvE tHe WoRLd too. gah.
It’s one of the great things about Deep Rock Galactic, in so many ways there’s very little story other than deep lore, and the Dwarves aren’t saving the world, they’re getting drunk and doing their dayjobs.
Hoxxes IV doesn’t need saving, it needs mining.
I didn’t really have any kind of urgency based on the story, but I do think the story fell short of being a good story.
Spoiler warning: Satisfactory endgame and story
spoiler
They built up so much with the aliens talking to the pioneer and Ada acting as a translator, then towards the end it just stops happening. Then you build a ship and the story is done. Most anticlimactic ending for such a huge game
Funnily enough The Witcher 3 is one of the games I always think of for the trope of not following the plot. Often I think of the ludonarrative dissonance specifically between Gestalt’s paternal drive to find and protect Ciri Vs Gwent.
For large scale, AAA open world games, I mostly think of Breath of the Wild, which transparently sets itself up as being about taking as long as you need to get strong enough to save the world and Red Dead Redemption 2, which doesn’t care about the stakes of the world.
I sometimes can’t wrap my head around the fact that Witcher 3, BotW and RDR2 were each two years apart. I don’t feel any open world game has occupied the cultural space those games did since.
I wrote a short dnd campaign (4 or 5 sessions) with the main NPC who framed the adventure being a self important egomaniac, and the only world they saved was his world-sized ego. Making that NPC trusted by the players and breaking that trust by seeing the actual stakes of the adventure was a pretty neat idea, and it would have been a good start to my dming.
Unfortunately i ate the “save the world” pill and binned that idea for a shitty campaign about saving the world and it died the classic death of all campaigns: scheduling.
I think I might eventually run that game when I get back into DMing or start with a new group.
Are you DMing online or in the real world? I got to play a single campaign (well part of one) of Traveller until the DM didn’t have time for us anymore (because he was getting back into his actual job of being a military officer - go figure) and to say that I enjoyed it immensely was an understatement. I had a great time both learning how these games work and trying to find the limits of what’s possible. I’d love to do this again sometime.
I can only tolerate in person games, or hybrid games in the case where we live close enough to meet up only once in a while. But could play mote consistently online
Honestly, toughest part of Baldur’s Gate 3 is recognizing how much there is to do despite the fact that you literally have specific characters haranguing you to move the story forward (I’m looking at you Frog Wife, we’ll get to your fucking Creche when I’m ready!), which makes you feel like maybe there’s a time limit. First playthrough I missed massive amounts of the game because I felt rushed by the characters in my party.
On the other hand, maybe there does need to be a time limit so the urgency is real? In the original Fallout, on release, you had something like 100 in-game days before The Master found Vault 13 and it was game-over. They later removed this because it was seen as too difficult… but I actually dislike that it got removed. Maybe change how long the player is given, but still, give them something to press that urgency as an actual, real, urgent thing.
Some games fix this issue by making the player trigger the change they want and bring the fight to the big powerful threat themselves, on their terms.
In fact one of my favorite RPG has the player characters being the ones trying to end the world as they know it.
I do think the extreme example, the old RPG trope of the big bad looming over in the red-tinted sky and being just minutes from firing the world busting laser while you finish your quest list, is rather cringe. Maybe don’t invoke this in a game where time is basically irrelevent.
Some games fix this issue by making the player trigger the change they want and bring the fight to the big powerful threat themselves, on their terms.
Yes but even in this scenario it’s a bit strange that the threat in question is just twiddling their thumbs waiter for the player.
It’s not an RPG, but I think Owlboy handled it expertly.
Each level, Owlboy is out to handle some dangerous issue that is happening. By the end of the level, he succeeds.
The thing is, in the background, other things are happening. Almost every time you “succeed” the story moves forward to tell you, “oh, while you were doing that, THIS was happening that made all you just did basically pointless and we’re all even more screwed than before you started this level.”
So, it keenly points out the enemies aren’t waiting around, in fact, they’re doing dastardly things while you’re busy trying to save the day, so much so that your character continues to feel like a failure despite many successes. I think it’s a great way to present and write a story, to show that your character isn’t the only one in the wider world that things are happening to and can’t handle all problems at once. Things happen outside of their control and outside of their vision, just like in our real lives.
I feel like FromSoft’s games have a nice solution to this in that generally speaking, the world has basically already ended and you’re fighting through the wreckage to try to pick it up again. Not a viable option for every story, though, of course
I would quite like to see a game in which the events play out both without a completely fixed schedule and without being within the player’s control. If we take Skyrim as an example, since everyone already knows how that one works, imagine if:
- Civil war battles happen whether you are there or not. You get some notice about them or can maybe even ride in at the last moment to turn the tide, but they’re happening with or without you.
- Your sidequests to win over jarls and find powerful artifacts stack the odds in your chosen side’s favour. Intercepting the messenger on that one mission allows you to avert an otherwise guaranteed loss for your side.
- Alduin is also doing stuff on his own schedule. If you leave him unchecked, one of your allied jarls might have their army decimated trying to hold off a dragon attack without you.
- If you leave Alduin unchallenged long enough, jarls start defecting to the Dragon Cult and directing dragons with armies as backup towards your side, knowing that you are fighting for them and are the biggest threat on the board.
- Leaving your civil war side unsupported means that Balgruuf won’t agree to help trap Odahving. You then have to track down info about the portal to Sovngarde in an ancient scroll and take the long and arduous journey up the mountainside yourself on foot, leaving your civil war side without you for days on end
You’d need to make sure that the player has control over when these events start, but it already does gate dragons behind that first quest to defend Whiterun. You want to just mess about in caves for the first twenty hours, sure, go ahead.
Obviously Skyrim was never going to do this because it isn’t trying to be that kind of game. It wanted to be a do anything go anywhere power fantasy, and that’s fine. But I would like more games to do this sort of thing. I think some of Paradox’s strategy games actually do quite a good job of creating this feeling, but the gameplay is completely different (and it only works until you get good enough to just break the mechanics in half for most of them)
I feel like FromSoft’s games have a nice solution to this in that generally speaking, the world has basically already ended and you’re fighting through the wreckage to try to pick it up again. Not a viable option for every story, though, of course
Nier Automata also nailed this specific theme.
In fact one of my favorite RPG has the player characters being the ones trying to end the world as they know it.
Which one would that be?
I can’t help but read this headline as, “with climate change and the rise of fascism, the real world is ending, but how is this for a distraction: why can’t RPGs get the sense of urgency right?”
And like, this is genuinely an article and discussion I’m interested in, so this is not a criticism of anyone or anything other than the ambiguity of language.
Because the world isn’t “ending”. Yes climate change might bring famine, destructive weather events, or plague but in the meantime we are living in the safest, healthiest, and most technologically advanced era of humanity up until now, especially for those of us living in democracies. Most diseases that would have killed you a few hundred years ago have been solved, in general there are very few wars (compared to the constant on and off warfare in history anyway), and in most of the world slavery has been eradicated.
Yes, there is societal divide (mostly due to economic difficulties and how social media influences people), yes there is bigotry and a rise in nationalism but much of this is only noticeable because of the media and the 24 hour news cycle. There has to be a constant issue hanging over our heads to make sure we are glued to our screens 24/7 improving shareholder value of the companies supplying the news on the current crisis.
So in conclusion, there are some global issues, but there is no reason not to go on an adventure, pursue that girl/boy you like, build a shed, or do whatever “side quest” you are up to at the moment. It’s not like you’re gonna solve climate change alone but you’ll be completely miserable if that is all your life is about. The world is not ending for now, go do your side quests.
Most diseases that would have killed you a few hundred years ago have been solved
RFK wants to ban vaccines entirely in the US. They’ll come back frighteningly fast if he does that. They’re only “solved” as long as we keep up our vigilance.
in most of the world slavery has been eradicated.
There are more slaves alive today than at any point in history.
But much much less as a percent of population.
I don’t want to diminish slavery in any way, but the indebted servitude of now is very different to the, for example, Roman concept of slaves as property that you walk through the street with.
We talking IDE slaves? Or on a serious matter, got any source for your claims?
I think I disagree about the severity and urgency of some of the things you’re talking about, but I do agree with your sentiment. I restate: the only thing I am criticizing here is the ambiguity of language. It’s the “side quests” that give life flavour, and to give them up to deal with the “real problems” would be choosing to stop living because you’re too worried about surviving.
But still, strange headline choice.
Yes climate change might bring famine, destructive weather events, or plague but in the meantime we are living in the safest, healthiest, and most technologically advanced era of humanity up until now, especially for those of us living in democracies.
Don’t take your democracies for granted. If people aren’t around to fight to keep them that way, they don’t last.
That’s why i love Metroid so much.
The world doesn’t end until you decide it will.
