Anyways Allatar's idea is really a nice one. So basically from a game design perspective, you have some events occuring in the same time: Orzammar's elections, Dalish curse, Mage Circle overrun by abominations, Redcliffe sieged by undeads and brother Genitivi which is being held prisoner in Haven (because you can do the Urn as your first quest if you go to Denerim after Lothering).
If you go first in Orzammar you get the full story there, while in the dalish village pretty much everyone is turned into a werewolf, the mage circle got the annulment (?), Redcliffe was attacked by undeads and everyone is dead or kept in the castle... brother Genitivi dies...
Mmm that would be cool and it would add lots of replayability. But again you have to script at least two different playthroughs for each main area.
is this formula still working for you?
Débuté par
Spitz6860
, janv. 26 2010 09:32
Retour en haut
#27
Posté 26 janvier 2010 - 02:08
Lakmoots
-
- Members
- 234 messages
Allattar1 wrote...
The point Lak, you dont take the choice away from them, you give them choice, but none is optimal. So what do you do? Ultimately it has to come down to consequences of your actions. Certain actions can leader to honour and doom, and others dishonour and disgrace (whether its your fault or not). If there is a contradiction its becuase life is full of them.
I think that is a good idea... but I think we have that now...
I think killing your character is the ultimate in not-choice.
And well... what you are doing is not about choice, it is *forcing* people to not explore.
It would be a very linear game. You would follow *the path* or else... right?
What you have is a *certain* story... If not "A" then this happens...
It would be a great novel, but a terrible game... there is only the "right" choice, or everyone getting screwed over because you didn't do it in time.
That is simply succeed of fail... not choice. And I think that makes it made of fail.
And I think we have, like, totally hikacked this thread
Nice talking to you, though. Maybe start another thread about choices and options... I'll get some sleep, first...
#28
Posté 26 janvier 2010 - 02:12
Wozearly
-
- Members
- 697 messages
The end result should be though that a game time mechanism is present as a way of making your choices and actions impact the game more...to move to move towards putting your pc into a world that is evolving around you.
Its a nice idea, although I think fundamentally what you describe is an illusion of evolution rather than true evolution.
Taking DAO as the example with its four critical locations, if you do one of them 'first' then you would see the early-stage version, the middle two would be mid-stage versions and the final one a final-stage version. Its not really evolving per se, although presumably your early-stage supporters would be in a better position to aid you ultimately than your late-stage ones, which would add a nice twist. The entire concept would be good for replayability as well, particularly if the different stages are...well...particularly different.
Unfortunately, it also involves dramatically scaling up the amount of effort to create each location, and some people might prefer that time be spent, say, creating a new location instead of two extra versions of the same one. You could still add a feeling of evolution with very minor tweaks dependant on the order in which you go round.
A truly 'evolutionary' approach would see factions all going off on their own distinct paths with their own agendas, but with the PC's actions influencing their course and support towards the PC's cause. If it was possible in DAO to utterly foul up the critical stages and receive no allies, or fail the coup against Loghain and end, say, with the darkspawn being able to 'win' by wrecking everything in the divided Ferelden and the PC sacrificing himself to kill the archdemon to save the rest of the world (or even be unable to do so) then that'd be interesting...although damn difficult to get right as a game, and horrible to link up as a story.
If its scripted, you go back to the 'illusion' of evolution. If its not scripted, then the inherant randomness may irritate players looking to explore things they couldn't the first time around, and you always risk the effect of "Oh, great. I did everything fine, but the game decided that Loghain took a perfect route too, he was too strong and now we all end up dying and there's nothing I can do."
Or perhaps the equally deadly "I spent 25 hours on my first playthrough, didn't know what I was doing and so ultimately lost the game despite completing it. No way am I going back and playing that again - way too dissatisfying!"
Modifié par Wozearly, 26 janvier 2010 - 02:14 .
#29
Posté 26 janvier 2010 - 02:20
Erakleitos
-
- Members
- 426 messages
Wozearly wrote...
The end result should be though that a game time mechanism is present as a way of making your choices and actions impact the game more...to move to move towards putting your pc into a world that is evolving around you.
Its a nice idea, although I think fundamentally what you describe is an illusion of evolution rather than true evolution.
Taking DAO as the example with its four critical locations, if you do one of them 'first' then you would see the early-stage version, the middle two would be mid-stage versions and the final one a final-stage version. Its not really evolving per se, although presumably your early-stage supporters would be in a better position to aid you ultimately than your late-stage ones, which would add a nice twist. The entire concept would be good for replayability as well, particularly if the different stages are...well...particularly different.
Unfortunately, it also involves dramatically scaling up the amount of effort to create each location, and some people might prefer that time be spent, say, creating a new location instead of two extra versions of the same one. You could still add a feeling of evolution with very minor tweaks dependant on the order in which you go round.
A truly 'evolutionary' approach would see factions all going off on their own distinct paths with their own agendas, but with the PC's actions influencing their course and support towards the PC's cause. If it was possible in DAO to utterly foul up the critical stages and receive no allies, or fail the coup against Loghain and end, say, with the darkspawn being able to 'win' by wrecking everything in the divided Ferelden and the PC sacrificing himself to kill the archdemon to save the rest of the world (or even be unable to do so) then that'd be interesting...although damn difficult to get right as a game, and horrible to link up as a story.
If its scripted, you go back to the 'illusion' of evolution. If its not scripted, then the inherant randomness may irritate players looking to explore things they couldn't the first time around, and you always risk the effect of "Oh, great. I did everything fine, but the game decided that Loghain took a perfect route too, he was too strong and now we all end up dying and there's nothing I can do."
Or perhaps the equally deadly "I spent 25 hours on my first playthrough, didn't know what I was doing and so ultimately lost the game despite completing it. No way am I going back and playing that again - way too dissatisfying!"
Details. If the core concept have potentials you can find a way to script it in a decent way, with a "game over" protection whatever the choice you make. And it's indeed an "illusion" of evolution, otherwise i think you would win the nobel prize for programming ;D Also think about it, a Mage's Circle where:
1) You are involved in the riot in the very moment it starts
2) You are there, the riot started and templars asked for the annulment
3) The templars got the annulment and they are attacking the Circle
4) The templars won but something happened so they need your help to <whatever>
It's always different content.
#30
Posté 26 janvier 2010 - 03:15
Suron
-
- Members
- 2 245 messages
Allattar1 wrote...
The idea being is at this point you cannot get the full story, and if your slow and dawdle you may only find part of the story. Too quick and you may miss information from one mission.
Then I would kill the PC. Shock factor here, and the pc does not come back.
in theory this may sound good..in practice not so much...first..without telling the player they're gonna be PISSED when it happens..and..for the majority (of course not all but the MAJORITY) it's going to create a sense of..gotta RUSH RUSH RUSH..NO TIME TO TALK..RUSH RUSH RUSH..
hence you end up blowing through the game..not bothering with any sidequests not pertaining to the main storyline.
and if you make it so that even going too fast makes you lose out on stuff..then people are just gonna either not bother...while complaining they're missing everything...and/or just use an online guide to DICTATE what order and pace they do it in..
like I said..in theory..cool..in practice...PLEASE god don't EVER make a game if this is what you're going to do...it's a terrible idea.
Modifié par Suron, 26 janvier 2010 - 03:16 .
#31
Posté 26 janvier 2010 - 03:55
Allattar1
-
- Members
- 261 messages
Suron you didnt get the idea, and no need to make silly statements seeing as its just a theoretical idea.
If you have a game timer per se, recording what happens, and closing areas off and opening others. It does not mean rushrushrush all the time. Certainly you must be aware that certain missions may not be possible.
Think of it this way.
Lothering is an example becuase it gets closed off, but its gated, you visit it and when you leave its gone.
You could time it, up to 3 weeks in game Lothering is there, by the 4th week its under a horde of darkspawn. Any side quests to still do are gone.
However the aim would be to give players a selection of side quests, it shouldnt be possible to do every side quest. The aim though is to allow the player time to do a few, but its there choice what they do, and what they think they can do within time limits.
Another example may be given using Connor, internally the game may allow 1 week to get back to Redcliffe with a party of mages. Should you take too long, messengers may be sent to reach you implying that the control over Connor is fading and the undead are coming back. You get a period of grace and if you don't return in time by that point Connor/demon has broken free and the undead are running about again.
A timer does not need to imply got to go here and instantly must go here. It means you can represent changes in the world based on what you are doing as a character. We are all familiar with rpgs being fairly static, the game world doesn't change until we go through certain gates to change them.
With a timer though you could have a slowly creeping darkspawn influence, opening up side quests as well. You can even force the player into making very harsh critical decisions through a lack of time to do both, or open the pace up a bit and allow the player some time to do what they want in other areas. You dont fix yourself to one idiom all the way through that would be idiotic.
If your going to condemn an idea as terrible at least have the presence of mind to think through your post before posting it. And Suron, PLEASE god DONT EVER reply to my posts if your going to be offensive with your last throwaway line. I dont appreciate that, but I don't mind criticism and well thought out reasoning, in fact I welcome and encourage discussion.
If you have a game timer per se, recording what happens, and closing areas off and opening others. It does not mean rushrushrush all the time. Certainly you must be aware that certain missions may not be possible.
Think of it this way.
Lothering is an example becuase it gets closed off, but its gated, you visit it and when you leave its gone.
You could time it, up to 3 weeks in game Lothering is there, by the 4th week its under a horde of darkspawn. Any side quests to still do are gone.
However the aim would be to give players a selection of side quests, it shouldnt be possible to do every side quest. The aim though is to allow the player time to do a few, but its there choice what they do, and what they think they can do within time limits.
Another example may be given using Connor, internally the game may allow 1 week to get back to Redcliffe with a party of mages. Should you take too long, messengers may be sent to reach you implying that the control over Connor is fading and the undead are coming back. You get a period of grace and if you don't return in time by that point Connor/demon has broken free and the undead are running about again.
A timer does not need to imply got to go here and instantly must go here. It means you can represent changes in the world based on what you are doing as a character. We are all familiar with rpgs being fairly static, the game world doesn't change until we go through certain gates to change them.
With a timer though you could have a slowly creeping darkspawn influence, opening up side quests as well. You can even force the player into making very harsh critical decisions through a lack of time to do both, or open the pace up a bit and allow the player some time to do what they want in other areas. You dont fix yourself to one idiom all the way through that would be idiotic.
If your going to condemn an idea as terrible at least have the presence of mind to think through your post before posting it. And Suron, PLEASE god DONT EVER reply to my posts if your going to be offensive with your last throwaway line. I dont appreciate that, but I don't mind criticism and well thought out reasoning, in fact I welcome and encourage discussion.
Modifié par Allattar1, 26 janvier 2010 - 03:57 .
#32
Posté 26 janvier 2010 - 04:17
Xandurpein
-
- Members
- 3 045 messages
I think that what you are after is something I call the "Edge of the world Paradox". A good roleplaying game tries to give you choice, and the illussion of a limitless world. Side quests are a good example. Side quests are great because they add a sense that the world is without limits. There is always something new to explore. I can take a break from saving the world and discover that there are other things to see, people to talk to and so on.
But being the completionist nuts we are, we are driven to find every last quest, explore every last area and then we shatter the illusion anyway, because we hit the "Edge of the world". Adding more content beyond that, just pushes the Edge, it doesn't remove it. I ill soon catch up with the Edge. The only way I can be truly immeresed in a game is if I purposefully skip some Side Quests. Walking away from a quest is avoiding not hitting the Edge.
What you describe is more or less the same as creating a game where the mid-game has 12 major Quests and you are forced to quit doing them after you have done 4. It's a way to create a stronger "Edge of the world" but the question is if resources had not been better spent letting you complete all 12 quests and make it a bigger game. All you acomplish is forcing players to repeat a big part of the game several times to see all quests.
But being the completionist nuts we are, we are driven to find every last quest, explore every last area and then we shatter the illusion anyway, because we hit the "Edge of the world". Adding more content beyond that, just pushes the Edge, it doesn't remove it. I ill soon catch up with the Edge. The only way I can be truly immeresed in a game is if I purposefully skip some Side Quests. Walking away from a quest is avoiding not hitting the Edge.
What you describe is more or less the same as creating a game where the mid-game has 12 major Quests and you are forced to quit doing them after you have done 4. It's a way to create a stronger "Edge of the world" but the question is if resources had not been better spent letting you complete all 12 quests and make it a bigger game. All you acomplish is forcing players to repeat a big part of the game several times to see all quests.
Modifié par Xandurpein, 26 janvier 2010 - 04:22 .
#33
Posté 26 janvier 2010 - 04:23
Allattar1
-
- Members
- 261 messages
Yes, I like the idea that you do not need to complete, or rather cannot complete everything.
It would also lend weight to statements from characters like Morrigan, "Why are we helping the whole of Fereldan we have a blight to stop", which in DA we know we can do every quest. What though if we cannot?
On one hand limiting the availability of side quests potentially means a more replayable game as you can change your journey completely. Also true though is that if you focus too much on different quests and different times the game can end up very broad but also very shallow. Unlike say Diablo II which is the complete opposite, linear play that is long but very narrow in breadth.
Judgement of how much you flesh out, or can flesh out a timer has to be a decision on resources. Completely understand that
It would also lend weight to statements from characters like Morrigan, "Why are we helping the whole of Fereldan we have a blight to stop", which in DA we know we can do every quest. What though if we cannot?
On one hand limiting the availability of side quests potentially means a more replayable game as you can change your journey completely. Also true though is that if you focus too much on different quests and different times the game can end up very broad but also very shallow. Unlike say Diablo II which is the complete opposite, linear play that is long but very narrow in breadth.
Judgement of how much you flesh out, or can flesh out a timer has to be a decision on resources. Completely understand that
Modifié par Allattar1, 26 janvier 2010 - 04:24 .
#34
Posté 26 janvier 2010 - 04:31
Xandurpein
-
- Members
- 3 045 messages
Allattar1 wrote...
Yes, I like the idea that you do not need to complete, or rather cannot complete everything.
It would also lend weight to statements from characters like Morrigan, "Why are we helping the whole of Fereldan we have a blight to stop", which in DA we know we can do every quest. What though if we cannot?
On one hand limiting the availability of side quests potentially means a more replayable game as you can change your journey completely. Also true though is that if you focus too much on different quests and different times the game can end up very broad but also very shallow. Unlike say Diablo II which is the complete opposite, linear play that is long but very narrow in breadth.
Judgement of how much you flesh out, or can flesh out a timer has to be a decision on resources. Completely understand that
But I think that you are missing the fact that you can play like that already. You just walk away from those side-quests. The game scaling even means that you don't gain much anyway by getting those extra levels. I never try to do everything the first time I play through a Game like DA:O. When I'm truly immeresed in the game I don't need the game to force me to stop and hurry up with saving the world instead of getting kittens down from a tree. I do it myself with roleplaying.
#35
Posté 26 janvier 2010 - 04:52
Allattar1
-
- Members
- 261 messages
Xand, see the, "is the tower a chicken?" thread, my idea is just to build some more consequences to your actions.
My problem I guess is I know rpg's follow events that are determined by when you as a player cross them, time doesn't really flow until you do certain things. Its like Pandora, and I cannot forget that now.
My problem I guess is I know rpg's follow events that are determined by when you as a player cross them, time doesn't really flow until you do certain things. Its like Pandora, and I cannot forget that now.
#36
Posté 26 janvier 2010 - 05:38
errant_knight
-
- Members
- 8 256 messages
SusanStoHelit wrote...
Is the Hero's Journey working for me? Why not? It's worked for people around the globe for millennia at least. The Odyssey is a classic example (please excuse the unintended pun); but so is the entire Star Wars saga and much more besides.
If it ain't broke - don't fix it.
Lol! I was just about to post referencing Joseph Campbell, but I see you've done it first! I'll add a couple of links, though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth
http://en.wikipedia...._Thousand_Faces
#37
Posté 26 janvier 2010 - 05:45
Bibdy
-
- Members
- 1 455 messages
It'll last as long as they stop making a profit from it.
I pay no attention to these so-called 'formulas'. Only the story, the dialogue, the artistry and primarily, the CHOICES. The more impact your choices can have on a game, the more engaging it is for me. It immerses me deeper in the world when I can see first-hand the outcome of my choices.
I pay no attention to these so-called 'formulas'. Only the story, the dialogue, the artistry and primarily, the CHOICES. The more impact your choices can have on a game, the more engaging it is for me. It immerses me deeper in the world when I can see first-hand the outcome of my choices.
#38
Posté 26 janvier 2010 - 07:04
Realmzmaster
-
- Members
- 5 510 messages
The formula works. As long as we like the story, the personal interactions, graphics, dialogue and choices built around the formula it will continue to work.
The idea of an intenal clock is a good one, but a designing and programming nightmare. It took BioWare five years to come out with DOA. It would probably take more time and resources to bring to the market a game using an internal clock. Any publisher would have to ask would it be worth it and would the publisher limit the audience by doing so.
The other problem is that a clock may take away choice. Using DAO, let's take Orzammar for example. It has three time periods (based on the intenal clock) depending on when the PC arrives. The PC arrives at the beginning. The PC can help decide who becomes king either Harrowmount or Bhlen and get their support..
But if the PC arrives mid-game, either Harrowmount or Bhlen is king having killed off the other. The king tells me that the only way to get the dwarven support is to bring back the anvil of the void. The PC gets to Caradin and is presented with the choice to destroy or save the anvil. It is a non-choice. The only way to get the support is to bring the anvil back. If the PC destroys the anvil, he/she will be one army short.
Same can happen with the elves and werewolves, If the PC takes to long to get to that area one of the sides may have won. Now to get support the PC has to do the quest assigned or no support. If the PC takes to long in certain areas the PC can end up with no armies and facing the ArchDemon with just his/her party. The battle can become unwinnable.
The idea of the PC dying before the end of the game is a non-starter for me. If I am defeated in battle and my journey ends fine. I would fine it very unsatisfying if the internal clock says it has been X amount of time and the darkspawn have now covered all of Ferelden. Your PC is dead. Your Journey ends!
The idea sounds good in theory, but it is the execution that concerns me.
The idea of an intenal clock is a good one, but a designing and programming nightmare. It took BioWare five years to come out with DOA. It would probably take more time and resources to bring to the market a game using an internal clock. Any publisher would have to ask would it be worth it and would the publisher limit the audience by doing so.
The other problem is that a clock may take away choice. Using DAO, let's take Orzammar for example. It has three time periods (based on the intenal clock) depending on when the PC arrives. The PC arrives at the beginning. The PC can help decide who becomes king either Harrowmount or Bhlen and get their support..
But if the PC arrives mid-game, either Harrowmount or Bhlen is king having killed off the other. The king tells me that the only way to get the dwarven support is to bring back the anvil of the void. The PC gets to Caradin and is presented with the choice to destroy or save the anvil. It is a non-choice. The only way to get the support is to bring the anvil back. If the PC destroys the anvil, he/she will be one army short.
Same can happen with the elves and werewolves, If the PC takes to long to get to that area one of the sides may have won. Now to get support the PC has to do the quest assigned or no support. If the PC takes to long in certain areas the PC can end up with no armies and facing the ArchDemon with just his/her party. The battle can become unwinnable.
The idea of the PC dying before the end of the game is a non-starter for me. If I am defeated in battle and my journey ends fine. I would fine it very unsatisfying if the internal clock says it has been X amount of time and the darkspawn have now covered all of Ferelden. Your PC is dead. Your Journey ends!
The idea sounds good in theory, but it is the execution that concerns me.
#39
Posté 26 janvier 2010 - 07:27
RangerSG
-
- Members
- 1 041 messages
Matshelge wrote...
One could even argue that Bildungsroman is partially used in the greek epic poems.
So, my guess is that complaining about how Kotor was original and Mass Effect and DA:O is less of a game, due to using the same structure, will grow old faster then Bildungsroman will.
(Also, Baldur's Gate did the whole thing way before Kotor)
And the Greek poems go back to an even older tradition yet.
The "Quest Narrative" is quite possibly the oldest form of story-telling of all. It resonates in human nature, that's why it is so old and still speaks to us. The chance to be better, to make a mark and have a legacy.
And as I've said before, it's not "just" Bioware, or even "fantasy" or "speculative fiction." The Quest is the heart of adventure tales of all kinds. So when you say, "This is all Bioware does," I have to respond, "Do you know how much of literature you write off with the same remarks?"
Is DA's story markedly different from NWN1's? Yep. Is it markedly different from KotOR or BG? Yep. You can have the same trope and yet tell it a different way.
Heck,. for all the talk about how NWN2's Mask of the Betrayer was "different," it was still a quest narrative, and a much more linear one. And Oblivion was nothing if not hundreds of mini-quests barely tied together by a semi-coherent story that then stole the limelight from your PC at the moment of truth. They then retold the same story essentially for FO3, right down to the same "scene-stealing" gimmick. At the end of the day, they're both Quests. So was FO2, so was the original FO, for all it's "internal timer."
And you do realize that the chief criticism of the original Fallout was they 'gave' it an internal timer (several of them, in fact) and everyone complained that they couldn't enjoy the game to the fullest because of it? So citing FO's great example there is a double-edged sword. The timer was perhaps the least popular part of the design when the game came out.
#40
Posté 26 janvier 2010 - 07:36
Derengard
-
- Members
- 218 messages
What bothers me in ME2 is that all companions and even all characters are somewhat similar, but most of all the companions. I'm aware that some of that comes with the style of each game, but in ME2 it would actually work to call them all a family, that's how much they all portray merely slightly different shades of an ultimately single staple. Some are more extreme in this, others in this, and so on...
As for the story: hard-boiled action, military stuff...
As for the story: hard-boiled action, military stuff...
#41
Posté 26 janvier 2010 - 11:25
Spitz6860
-
- Members
- 573 messages
after so many games with similiar plot structures, i'm afraid the fake urgency just doesn't work for me anymore.
so basically we want to enjoy the lore and not to rush through the main story line, but atthe same time maintain the sense of urgency.
here's a thought, for Dragon Age, after you leave Lothering, that town is destroyed by darkspawn. so how about we have a darkspawn infestation area on the world map. and it keeps spreading, your goal is to finish your objective before those places are overun and becomes unavailable. but everytime you go to those darkspawn occupied regions you can kill the darkspawn there and temporary slow down the infestation speed, which can obviously be scaled with the difficulty setting. It's kind of like the Tyranid infestation mechanics in Dawn of War 2 if you are familiar with it.
so basically we want to enjoy the lore and not to rush through the main story line, but atthe same time maintain the sense of urgency.
here's a thought, for Dragon Age, after you leave Lothering, that town is destroyed by darkspawn. so how about we have a darkspawn infestation area on the world map. and it keeps spreading, your goal is to finish your objective before those places are overun and becomes unavailable. but everytime you go to those darkspawn occupied regions you can kill the darkspawn there and temporary slow down the infestation speed, which can obviously be scaled with the difficulty setting. It's kind of like the Tyranid infestation mechanics in Dawn of War 2 if you are familiar with it.
Modifié par Spitz6860, 26 janvier 2010 - 11:49 .
#42
Posté 27 janvier 2010 - 12:02
RangerSG
-
- Members
- 1 041 messages
Spitz6860 wrote...
after so many games with similiar plot structures, i'm afraid the fake urgency just doesn't work for me anymore.
so basically we want to enjoy the lore and not to rush through the main story line, but atthe same time maintain the sense of urgency.
here's a thought, for Dragon Age, after you leave Lothering, that town is destroyed by darkspawn. so how about we have a darkspawn infestation area on the world map. and it keeps spreading, your goal is to finish your objective before those places are overun and becomes unavailable. but everytime you go to those darkspawn occupied regions you can kill the darkspawn there and temporary slow down the infestation speed, which can obviously be scaled with the difficulty setting. It's kind of like the Tyranid infestation mechanics in Dawn of War 2 if you are familiar with it.
Umm, why? What does that add to the game, other than an excuse to endlessly grind to the level cap?
Honestly, that sounds like MMO stuff. I hated it when Witcher left respawning areas that you were expected to grind in so that you could be high enough level to continue the plot. The point of a SP RPG is to make a story that the character can move through in a believable sequence.
Now I'm not against some more sidequests or openness to the game. But really, I don't see how this would make for more 'urgency.' What I do see it doing is creating a host of balance and exploitation issues.
#43
Posté 27 janvier 2010 - 09:04
Allattar1
-
- Members
- 261 messages
Unless Ranger you have specific missions that open up to slow the Darkspawn down. Which is basically the DOWII mechanic.
You want more time to save the children in the Orphanage and the puppies in the lost dogs home, but dont have time for both. Unless you can lay a trap and slow the darkspawn hordes
You want more time to save the children in the Orphanage and the puppies in the lost dogs home, but dont have time for both. Unless you can lay a trap and slow the darkspawn hordes
#44
Posté 27 janvier 2010 - 09:41
SusanStoHelit
-
- Members
- 1 790 messages
If my character is dead, not because of a choice of mine, but is scripted in - I'm not only not going to play it, I'm not going to buy it. If I can't succeed, no matter what I do, no matter how good or fast or clever I am - I'd feel utterly crushed and defeated. And certainly never play another time.
I'm an absolute completionist, I want to do everything, experience everything, talk to everyone - and you're taking that away. The only way to do it would be to play again - and be utterly crushed again.
If I want the real world - I've just got to walk out my front door, watch the news, read a newspaper. I want a game where I actually have a chance to 'save the world'. If I can't do that no matter how hard I try, I'm simply not interested.
Your idea may well appeal to some, in fact I'm sure it would. But there'll be a lot like me, too.
Edit: Yes OP, the formula is still working for me. The whole point of the hero's journey is to succeed. Even in death. And as long as I can do that, I'll be happy.
I'm an absolute completionist, I want to do everything, experience everything, talk to everyone - and you're taking that away. The only way to do it would be to play again - and be utterly crushed again.
If I want the real world - I've just got to walk out my front door, watch the news, read a newspaper. I want a game where I actually have a chance to 'save the world'. If I can't do that no matter how hard I try, I'm simply not interested.
Your idea may well appeal to some, in fact I'm sure it would. But there'll be a lot like me, too.
Edit: Yes OP, the formula is still working for me. The whole point of the hero's journey is to succeed. Even in death. And as long as I can do that, I'll be happy.
Modifié par SusanStoHelit, 27 janvier 2010 - 09:45 .
#45
Posté 27 janvier 2010 - 10:04
Allattar1
-
- Members
- 261 messages
Susan you cannot ever appeal to everyone, and if you try you end up with Brown or Beige.
Take any film that tries to be everything to everyone, the story feels neutered and unimaginative.
However there are plenty of rpgs on the market that do allow you all the time to do everything. That have the usual gates. There is plenty of space for one that changes the rules on you.
As to character death, I still maintain that is what you had to choose in DA, and its also a choice that comes up in ME2. By placing the potential character death at the end of the game, it gives room for expansions or sequels to follow up on that.
Whilst you may be completely turned off by the idea, I still think that a well written and well scripted series of events that leads to character death. Not too early, or late in the game mind you, can lend a lot to storyline events. You don't have to agree, but it can be a plot device. I dont like dues ex Machina mind you.
Consider stories like A Game of Thrones, consider the following.
Story start, you are the hero of the land, your past victories include defeating a baronial rebellion against your king. Indeed you where critical into placing the King in his current position.
Start of game sees you on a mission to reign in territory in the north that has been highly critical of the king. Your also starting advanced in levels.
As the plot develops here before leaving you get to create your protegy a squire under your guidance who you are training. Queue a character creation section again.
Add in a bit of history and some information about how the ruler has been qwelling uprising, and some about the ideas of absolute monarchy. Build in a bit about how when elevating this ruler to Kingship it was fought against the idea of absolute Monarchy. eg show the cracks between the freindship, and also how past enemies are now appearing to have the kings ear, marriage to a queen who is very religious, but follows a religion that was illegal in this land until recently.
So you move north, get to the Baron causing problems, on the capture you get to talk with them etc...
Viewpoint seems reasonable, but you can decide which path to follow. Help the baron or stay with the king.
At this point the King is getting paranoid, various tasks put your way are undesirable and lets say morally wrong. The kings advisors are moving against you becuase of your past close ties to the king.
Then comes the suicide mission, your sent to something you know cannot be won. If you desert, or change sides your the enemy of the king, add in a hostage situation vaguely implied as incentive. If you proceed then you get your squire to safety but fulfill your duty. If you take the other option renege on your King, or even just quit the field and try to stay neutral. Then you move to another option where assassins are sent.
Fleeing to another country is a solution but your character is out of the picture.
In all options the squire is now the one to act, to find out what has happened, to act for the hero.
Whilst I appreciate that some people will find it hard to accept those changes the potential for a very dramatic very compelling story in such a situation is there.
Again the aim is not to try to pander to those going, omg my character died, and help them keep their pc, but to show when they hit that spot the way forward they can move in. Show them a path out of the end, and into a new beginning.
Take any film that tries to be everything to everyone, the story feels neutered and unimaginative.
However there are plenty of rpgs on the market that do allow you all the time to do everything. That have the usual gates. There is plenty of space for one that changes the rules on you.
As to character death, I still maintain that is what you had to choose in DA, and its also a choice that comes up in ME2. By placing the potential character death at the end of the game, it gives room for expansions or sequels to follow up on that.
Whilst you may be completely turned off by the idea, I still think that a well written and well scripted series of events that leads to character death. Not too early, or late in the game mind you, can lend a lot to storyline events. You don't have to agree, but it can be a plot device. I dont like dues ex Machina mind you.
Consider stories like A Game of Thrones, consider the following.
Story start, you are the hero of the land, your past victories include defeating a baronial rebellion against your king. Indeed you where critical into placing the King in his current position.
Start of game sees you on a mission to reign in territory in the north that has been highly critical of the king. Your also starting advanced in levels.
As the plot develops here before leaving you get to create your protegy a squire under your guidance who you are training. Queue a character creation section again.
Add in a bit of history and some information about how the ruler has been qwelling uprising, and some about the ideas of absolute monarchy. Build in a bit about how when elevating this ruler to Kingship it was fought against the idea of absolute Monarchy. eg show the cracks between the freindship, and also how past enemies are now appearing to have the kings ear, marriage to a queen who is very religious, but follows a religion that was illegal in this land until recently.
So you move north, get to the Baron causing problems, on the capture you get to talk with them etc...
Viewpoint seems reasonable, but you can decide which path to follow. Help the baron or stay with the king.
At this point the King is getting paranoid, various tasks put your way are undesirable and lets say morally wrong. The kings advisors are moving against you becuase of your past close ties to the king.
Then comes the suicide mission, your sent to something you know cannot be won. If you desert, or change sides your the enemy of the king, add in a hostage situation vaguely implied as incentive. If you proceed then you get your squire to safety but fulfill your duty. If you take the other option renege on your King, or even just quit the field and try to stay neutral. Then you move to another option where assassins are sent.
Fleeing to another country is a solution but your character is out of the picture.
In all options the squire is now the one to act, to find out what has happened, to act for the hero.
Whilst I appreciate that some people will find it hard to accept those changes the potential for a very dramatic very compelling story in such a situation is there.
Again the aim is not to try to pander to those going, omg my character died, and help them keep their pc, but to show when they hit that spot the way forward they can move in. Show them a path out of the end, and into a new beginning.
#46
Posté 27 janvier 2010 - 10:05
wwwwowwww
-
- Members
- 1 363 messages
SusanStoHelit wrote...
If my character is dead, not because of a choice of mine, but is scripted in - I'm not only not going to play it, I'm not going to buy it. If I can't succeed, no matter what I do, no matter how good or fast or clever I am - I'd feel utterly crushed and defeated. And certainly never play another time.
I'm an absolute completionist, I want to do everything, experience everything, talk to everyone - and you're taking that away. The only way to do it would be to play again - and be utterly crushed again.
If I want the real world - I've just got to walk out my front door, watch the news, read a newspaper. I want a game where I actually have a chance to 'save the world'. If I can't do that no matter how hard I try, I'm simply not interested.
Your idea may well appeal to some, in fact I'm sure it would. But there'll be a lot like me, too.
Edit: Yes OP, the formula is still working for me. The whole point of the hero's journey is to succeed. Even in death. And as long as I can do that, I'll be happy.
Everything she just said concerning the forced death scenario
#47
Posté 27 janvier 2010 - 10:07
Allattar1
-
- Members
- 261 messages
I ninja'd you. You don't have to make it forced, but the scenario can be unfair and leave no way out for the original character to live, or stay in the game. You can still give a live option, but it should be clear it isn't necessarily the right way.
Kind of like... Well Morrigans offer.
Kind of like... Well Morrigans offer.
#48
Posté 27 janvier 2010 - 10:29
SusanStoHelit
-
- Members
- 1 790 messages
Allattar1 wrote...
Nope. It's a possibility, it's something you can choose, if it 'feels right'. My one complete game so far - it wasn't right, for reasons I detailed in another thread tonight, lol. Of my 10 other characters, some probably won't make it that far, of those that do, well I just don't know what they'll choose. But I suspect at least one or two will make that choice.
That's kind of my point. It's a choice. And I make such choices based on how I see my character: their background, their ethics, their philosophy of life and life experiences, and so on. To have it scripted in - not me, thanks.
As for books that change heroes in mid-stream, well, I'm not fond of them. A Game of Thrones I haven't read. But it's George R R Martin, yes? I don't like his writing, tried it once many long years ago, it was less than enthralling. Of course, that's just me, many love him, I know. I prefer C J Cherryh, Lois McMaster Bujold, David Weber, Kylie Chan, Robert Jordan, Brent Weeks. None of which is to the point, I know.
And of course you can't please everyone. Not everyone likes DAO. But I do. I think I'll just stick to my Hero's Journey and leave you to your Stark Reality: You Can't Win No Matter What You Do game.
Namaste.
As to character death, I still maintain that is what you had to choose in DA
Nope. It's a possibility, it's something you can choose, if it 'feels right'. My one complete game so far - it wasn't right, for reasons I detailed in another thread tonight, lol. Of my 10 other characters, some probably won't make it that far, of those that do, well I just don't know what they'll choose. But I suspect at least one or two will make that choice.
That's kind of my point. It's a choice. And I make such choices based on how I see my character: their background, their ethics, their philosophy of life and life experiences, and so on. To have it scripted in - not me, thanks.
As for books that change heroes in mid-stream, well, I'm not fond of them. A Game of Thrones I haven't read. But it's George R R Martin, yes? I don't like his writing, tried it once many long years ago, it was less than enthralling. Of course, that's just me, many love him, I know. I prefer C J Cherryh, Lois McMaster Bujold, David Weber, Kylie Chan, Robert Jordan, Brent Weeks. None of which is to the point, I know.
And of course you can't please everyone. Not everyone likes DAO. But I do. I think I'll just stick to my Hero's Journey and leave you to your Stark Reality: You Can't Win No Matter What You Do game.
Namaste.
#49
Posté 27 janvier 2010 - 08:48
RangerSG
-
- Members
- 1 041 messages
Allatar,
1) I still don't see how your "unlock conditions" do not institute problems of balance and story continuity in an RPG. An RTS can do this because they have very linear stories. Typically with no more than 2-3 real branches and no chance to turn back. For all the talk of how "linear" DA is, you can return to almost any area (and do) and can do side-quests on those areas and such already. As a result, what you're introducing is, frankly, unnecessary grinding. Thus my critique from the Witcher, which did almost exactly what you suggested, and it was a painful experience. Easily the worst part of the game.
2) Your argument also makes an error regarding the nature of the Blight. If you talk to people, you will discover the Blight doesn't just "infest," it destroys. It makes the area unlivable, even the air becomes tainted. "Slowing down the infestation" really means nothing as long as the Archdemon lives. So it's not even a valid mechanic in the game's concepts.
1) I still don't see how your "unlock conditions" do not institute problems of balance and story continuity in an RPG. An RTS can do this because they have very linear stories. Typically with no more than 2-3 real branches and no chance to turn back. For all the talk of how "linear" DA is, you can return to almost any area (and do) and can do side-quests on those areas and such already. As a result, what you're introducing is, frankly, unnecessary grinding. Thus my critique from the Witcher, which did almost exactly what you suggested, and it was a painful experience. Easily the worst part of the game.
2) Your argument also makes an error regarding the nature of the Blight. If you talk to people, you will discover the Blight doesn't just "infest," it destroys. It makes the area unlivable, even the air becomes tainted. "Slowing down the infestation" really means nothing as long as the Archdemon lives. So it's not even a valid mechanic in the game's concepts.
Modifié par RangerSG, 27 janvier 2010 - 08:48 .
#50
Posté 27 janvier 2010 - 09:02
Raphael diSanto
-
- Members
- 748 messages
Allattar1 wrote...
Yes, I like the idea that you do not need to complete, or rather cannot complete everything.
Unfortunately, so many of us are completists. I want to do everything. I want to do as many sidequests as I can on one playthrough. Do as much as I can on one playthrough. I explore every area, nail every single sidequest that I'm able to.
I'm not saying I wouldn't like your gaming concept - I'd just play through it more often until I had it all done anyway. I know that, as a gamer, when I find that I'm locked out of certain things by other decisions it annoys me. (depending on what it is, of course)
Also..
Allattar1 wrote...
The point Lak, you dont take the
choice away from them, you give them choice, but none is optimal. So
what do you do? Ultimately it has to come down to consequences of your
actions. Certain actions can leader to honour and doom, and others
dishonour and disgrace (whether its your fault or not). If there is a
contradiction its becuase life is full of them.
Why does it have to be just those two options? Can't we have an honour -and- success option? Sure, life might be full of those sorts of decisions, but I'd rather some kind of happy ending in my computer games, thanks.
Edited to add.
Oh. Yeah. The GRRMartin books annoyed the hell out of me. I like the writing, but he kept killing off the heroes. By the third book we were suffering from a severe shortage of Starks. Maybe that makes for a realistic book. But for me, realism != fun. Real life's depressing enough. Let's not bring it into our fictional entertainment
Modifié par Raphael diSanto, 27 janvier 2010 - 09:04 .
