209 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Do you know what makes great quests and decisions less great? Predictability. Peeking at the guide and doing a second playtrough and all the mistery is gone.

What I propose is to have consequences be somewhat random (when appropriate of course).

Let me give an example:

REDCLIFFE.

You got 3 choices of which one (getting help from mages) is superior because there is no danger in it. You KNOW nothing bad will happen when you leave. Something that is a risk, a chance, ceases to be.

But what if you didn't know? Waht if - no matter how many uides you read, how many times you play - you can never be certain that everything will be OK once you get back?

I would like to point out that, in-character, these events are always unpredictable.  The PC never knows how the Redcliffe choice is going to turn out.

That's enough unpredictablity for me. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I would like to point out that, in-character, these events are always unpredictable.  The PC never knows how the Redcliffe choice is going to turn out.

That's enough unpredictablity for me. 

Wouldn't making the player's level of unpredictability equal to the character's be, at the least, a benefit-neutral option for you then?

[Vestua]

...I don't remember it's name but i remember an older game worked it's quests out like this...I think it might've been one of the older fallout's like there was a chance even if you chose the "right" option it would sometimes backfire or sometimes not even work.

[Fast Jimmy]

Vestua wrote...

...I don't remember it's name but i remember an older game worked it's quests out like this...I think it might've been one of the older fallout's like there was a chance even if you chose the "right" option it would sometimes backfire or sometimes not even work.

Hmmm. Unless you are talking about the possibility of failing Speech checks (which you possibly could be), then Fallout wouldn't be your game.

[SeptimusMagistos]

Nope. Hate it.

I like feeling like I'm in control of things. That's why I play video games and not slots.

[Vestua]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Vestua wrote...

...I don't remember it's name but i remember an older game worked it's quests out like this...I think it might've been one of the older fallout's like there was a chance even if you chose the "right" option it would sometimes backfire or sometimes not even work.

Hmmm. Unless you are talking about the possibility of failing Speech checks (which you possibly could be), then Fallout wouldn't be your game.

Hmm...I think some quest in fallout were timebased as well. I think I was thinking about fallout it does it's quests by player stats and chance so it's the closest example in a game I know that's similar to what the OP is describing.

[Fast Jimmy]

Vestua wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Vestua wrote...

...I don't remember it's name but i remember an older game worked it's quests out like this...I think it might've been one of the older fallout's like there was a chance even if you chose the "right" option it would sometimes backfire or sometimes not even work.

Hmmm. Unless you are talking about the possibility of failing Speech checks (which you possibly could be), then Fallout wouldn't be your game.

Hmm...I think some quest in fallout were timebased as well. I think I was thinking about fallout it does it's quests by player stats and chance so it's the closest example in a game I know that's similar to what the OP is describing.

I think he, instead, means randomizing it completely, regardless of stats or time. That you could choose any decision and it be a good one or a bad one. Not sure of how it would work, but it would be truly random, and not just based on your character's numbers.

[Vestua]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Vestua wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Vestua wrote...

...I don't remember it's name but i remember an older game worked it's quests out like this...I think it might've been one of the older fallout's like there was a chance even if you chose the "right" option it would sometimes backfire or sometimes not even work.

Hmmm. Unless you are talking about the possibility of failing Speech checks (which you possibly could be), then Fallout wouldn't be your game.

Hmm...I think some quest in fallout were timebased as well. I think I was thinking about fallout it does it's quests by player stats and chance so it's the closest example in a game I know that's similar to what the OP is describing.

I think he, instead, means randomizing it completely, regardless of stats or time. That you could choose any decision and it be a good one or a bad one. Not sure of how it would work, but it would be truly random, and not just based on your character's numbers.

Well if he means that then it's not very good gameplay wise because it removes any connection the player has with the game. It'd feel as though no matter what you make your character do they have no real influence in the world around them that they supposedly shape.

[InfinitePaths]

Pedrak wrote...

A certain level of randomization could work.

I remember a paladin/stronghold quest in BG2 where you had to watch over a girl until some other paladin came to escort her away. Unless my memory betrays me, the quest could randomly go in different directions:

1) The real paladin comes, you can either give him the girl or refuse;
or
2) A guy pretending to be the paladin comes to bring the girl away, and again you can either refuse or accept.

Whether the real paladin or the impostor came, I believe it was determined randomly. I remember casting a "detect evil" spell to discover the truth. It certainly was a way to add more impredictability to the game.

I must say that the idea that you can't tell who is the impostor without casting a spell is stupid.I think it's best for you to determine who is the impostor and who is not  by dialouge.

[Fast Jimmy]

[quote]Vestua wrote...

I think he, instead, means randomizing it completely, regardless of stats or time. That you could choose any decision and it be a good one or a bad one. Not sure of how it would work, but it would be truly random, and not just based on your character's numbers.

[/quote]
Well if he means that then it's not very good gameplay wise because it removes any connection the player has with the game. It'd feel as though no matter what you make your character do they have no real influence in the world around them that they supposedly shape.

[/quote]

I don't know... don't you choose what your character does because that is what you believe is right? If you do that, then how is the outcome bad?

For instance, the example he gave is the Connor situation... you are given the option of killing Connor, sacrificing Isolde or go galavanting off to the circle to seek their help. This involves a few days trip each way, not to mention that if you hadn't done the Mage Quest before this, then it would add more time to the option.

Of course, if you do this, nothing bad happens, period. Isolde and Connor both live, you get into the Fade without any problems and the demon has no more control over Connor than before.

What if, instead, if you choose to do the trip to the Circle, there was a 50/50 chance that Connor would go on the warpath and kill everyone left at the castle (except, maybe, Teagan and the Arl, I suppose). Now, suddenly, this option has some depth. Because instead of being a instant-win option, its now a high risk option.

You could flip a coin and in one playthrough, it is the happiest outcome and in another, the worst possible outcome. The other two options are now given some weight, as the third option here is now insanely hard to make. 

The player has ALL the choice now... not just a choice of bad choice 1, bad choice 2 and good choice. Its bad choice 1, bad choice 2 and potentially awesome/disasterous choice 3. 



Again, I'm not sure it would be the greatest thing to gaming ever or anything, but I think it would prevent meta-gaming, as it were.

[Fast Jimmy]

HeriocGreyWarden wrote...

Pedrak wrote...

A certain level of randomization could work.

I remember a paladin/stronghold quest in BG2 where you had to watch over a girl until some other paladin came to escort her away. Unless my memory betrays me, the quest could randomly go in different directions:

1) The real paladin comes, you can either give him the girl or refuse;
or
2) A guy pretending to be the paladin comes to bring the girl away, and again you can either refuse or accept.

Whether the real paladin or the impostor came, I believe it was determined randomly. I remember casting a "detect evil" spell to discover the truth. It certainly was a way to add more impredictability to the game.

I must say that the idea that you can't tell who is the impostor without casting a spell is stupid.I think it's best for you to determine who is the impostor and who is not  by dialouge.

To be fair, you only get the quest if you are a paladin and "Detect Evil" is an ability paladins have naturally, so its more of an incorporation of your class abilities than anything else.

How, exactly, would you have known who it was via conversation? The guy was the girl's godfather, whom she had never met, and a total stranger to you, regardless. 

[Allan Schumacher]

Just to continue discussion: Why shouldn't it be deterministic?

Why would actions play out differently in the event of not being present?

[Rpgfantasyplayer]

To a degree doesn't this already happen in Redcliffe? No where does any NPC say (at least that I have heard) that if you leave Redcliffe before you fight that the town is destroyed. So if you don't know this and you leave, then you can't go there again. Granted this is seperate from the Connor issue, but with Connor there are options to either kill him, kill Isolde or go to the tower and get the magi's to save both Connor and Isolde.  So a random happening may take those options away.

Modifié par Rpgfantasyplayer, 29 octobre 2012 - 06:48 .

[General User]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Just to continue discussion: Why shouldn't it be deterministic?

Why would actions play out differently in the event of not being present?

I see this idea more in terms of being a way to bridge the gap between the player and the player character.  In other words, if the player character doesn't know how any given event or mission is going to resolve itself, why should the player?

Plus there's the idea that the player/player character might be able to influence the outcome of a given mission, but ultimately they shouldn't be able to determine it.  Afterall, we human beings can only influence the actions of others to greater or lesser degrees, why should our digital avatars in Thedas be any different?

This is a very good idea.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I would like to point out that, in-character, these events are always unpredictable.  The PC never knows how the Redcliffe choice is going to turn out.

That's enough unpredictablity for me. 

Wouldn't making the player's level of unpredictability equal to the character's be, at the least, a benefit-neutral option for you then?

Pretty much.

Assuming comparable development costs, I'm indifferent to the outcome of this debate.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I am somewhat concerned, though, that randomised outcomes could be seen by some players as a bug if they only ever play through the sequence once.

If the PC is warned that something bad will happen, and then that bad thing (improbably) doesn't happen, I would expect people to complain about that. Randomising outcomes like this could result in the game being less appealing to casual players, but without actually improving the product. I'm all for excluding casual players if doing so makes the game better, but I don't think that happens here.

[Lennard Testarossa]

I love this idea.

HeroicGreyWarden wrote...
It'd feel as though no matter what you make your character do they have no real influence in the world around them that they supposedly shape.

No. It's not like all events are randomized. Only those events where you, from an in-game perspective, are taking a risk, have an outcome that is randomized to some extent. You know you're taking a risk, so you should be prepared to pay for it. Randomization stops people from looking the outcome up on the internet, so you can't just make all the risky choices which you know have no negative effect and avoid those that bite you in the ass.

If you want to play it safe, you can do that. The player is the one in control.

[Rpgfantasyplayer]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If the PC is warned that something bad will happen, and then that bad thing (improbably) doesn't happen, I would expect people to complain about that. Randomising outcomes like this could result in the game being less appealing to casual players, but without actually improving the product. I'm all for excluding casual players if doing so makes the game better, but I don't think that happens here.

So just because someone doesn't want or have the time to play a game that you have to micromanage your play, those people should be excluded?  Just because someone doesn't want to play the way  you do doesn't mean that they should be excluded.  That is what higher difficult settings are for.  There is a large base of casual players out there and cutting them out of buying your product is just not smart.

[Lennard Testarossa]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I'm all for excluding casual players if doing so makes the game better, but I don't think that happens here.

It makes choices more meaningful. That's an improvement by my standards.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lennard Testarossa wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I'm all for excluding casual players if doing so makes the game better, but I don't think that happens here.

It makes choices more meaningful. That's an improvement by my standards.

They're only more meaningful from a metagame perspective.  That makes the supposed improvement an illusion.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Rpgfantasyplayer wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If the PC is warned that something bad will happen, and then that bad thing (improbably) doesn't happen, I would expect people to complain about that. Randomising outcomes like this could result in the game being less appealing to casual players, but without actually improving the product. I'm all for excluding casual players if doing so makes the game better, but I don't think that happens here.

So just because someone doesn't want or have the time to play a game that you have to micromanage your play, those people should be excluded?  Just because someone doesn't want to play the way  you do doesn't mean that they should be excluded.  That is what higher difficult settings are for.  There is a large base of casual players out there and cutting them out of buying your product is just not smart.

Read what I wrote again.

[Lennard Testarossa]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
They're only more meaningful from a metagame perspective. That makes the supposed improvement an illusion.

I, the player, am necessarily looking at the game from a metagame perspective.

[Maclimes]

I vote a big "No" on this one, for what it's worth.

"You would have gotten a good ending, but even though you made all the choices that lead to the good ending, you get the bad one, because the dice came up bad. Bummer. Accept it, or start all over."

While that may seem slightly more realistic, it doesn't actually make it more FUN. And at the end of the day, this is a game, not a fantasy life simulator. Games are supposed to be fun. There should be challenge and adversity, yes. But if you overcome those challenges, you should be rewarded, not have that reward stripped away because of an arbitrary game system.

Note: I'm not opposed to randomization, but the randomization should be in the challenges, not in the results of those challenges. Random dungeons, enemies, loot, maps, locations... these things make sense, because you can still strive for the goal. But if the goal itself may be completely unachievable because of a random dice roll after you've already overcome the challenges, that's just crappy design.

Modifié par Maclimes, 29 octobre 2012 - 07:14 .

[Maclimes]

Double post

Modifié par Maclimes, 29 octobre 2012 - 07:14 .