72 réponses à ce sujet

[Hair Serious Business]

No factions. That's for sandbox games with very little narrative. 

 

Scoia'tael Vs Flaming Rose faction.

 

Iorveth's Path Vs Vernon Roche's Path

 

Just wanted to point out that more then one faction can exist in none-sandbox games and that it doesn't automatically mean that it will damage story at all but in fact it can add some spice to it. As long as it is done right, with care and as long as developers decide not to be too lazy about it that is(meaning no Bethesda style because they are too lazy with their games).

[In Exile]

It looks like you forgot both of our points.

No? The factions in NWN were not "pointless" and they were story-driven - they just each happened to largely be part of a self-contained story and generally there was no central "glue" uniting the factions. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Why can't you just make your own single-player pen&paper RPG? You want to have complete control over the gameplay and narrative, and that will never happen if someone else makes the game.

I don't want complete control over the narrative. I don't create the narrative directly; it just happens as a result of my choices and they way they interact with the world.

If I have total control, then I don't learn anything from my character design.

I want the game world to operate as a simulation, where any mechanically possible outcome is permitted.

[Sylvius the Mad]

"Force feeding a narrative," is also known to writers as "telling a story."

You're asking writers not to write.

No, I'm asking them not to tell a story.

I want them to create a world, and then populate that world with characters and events. Those are all writing.

[The Elder King]

No, I'm asking them not to tell a story.

I want them to create a world, and then populate that world with characters and events. Those are all writing.

I'm not sure you'll get what you want from Bioware to be honest. 

[Dr. rotinaj]

No, I'm asking them not to tell a story.

I want them to create a world, and then populate that world with characters and events. Those are all writing.

 

No offence, but why do you stick around? Every Bioware game for over a decade has been story focused and they will continue to be so. Not only that but from what I've gathered from your posts, most of modern Bioware's gameplay philosophies seem antithetical to yours. Do you even enjoy Bioware's recent games?

[Shechinah]

Do you even enjoy Bioware's recent games?

 

Sylvius the Mad has said, I believe, that they liked Dragon Age: Inquisition because it was closer to the old games. I think some others has said the same and given the same reasons.
 

[The Elder King]

Sylvius the Mad has said, I believe, that they liked Dragon Age: Inquisition because it was closer to the old games. I think some others has said the same and given the same reasons.
 

The major problem is that I don't think the newt games, either MEA or DA4, will follow, at least completely, that direction. Apparently they already said that they change the non-cinematic approach in dialogues, which is one of the feature Sylvius liked.

[Sylvius the Mad]

No offence, but why do you stick around? Every Bioware game for over a decade has been story focused and they will continue to be so. Not only that but from what I've gathered from your posts, most of modern Bioware's gameplay philosophies seem antithetical to yours. Do you even enjoy Bioware's recent games?

DAO and DAI were both brilliant. DAI might be the best thing BioWare has released in the 21st century (though NWN is tough to beat).

I stick around because BioWare has long been the big developer that is closest to my preferences. They often do give me a detailed world in which to play, and the story isn't always forced upon me.

[Killroy]

I don't want complete control over the narrative. I don't create the narrative directly; it just happens as a result of my choices and they way they interact with the world.

If I have total control, then I don't learn anything from my character design.

I want the game world to operate as a simulation, where any mechanically possible outcome is permitted.

That's literally not possible. The only way to make that happen is for you to do it yourself and make it up as you're playing.

[Pasquale1234]

"Force feeding a narrative," is also known to writers as "telling a story."

In non-interactive media, perhaps.

But I expect an RPG to provide a world, characters, and a set of events I can use to construct my own character's narrative.

ME1 mostly did that, and allowed me to consume the content offered as I (and the Shepard I was playing) saw fit.

ME2 meted out content in bundles, and force-fed certain Collector related missions. The game would not allow you to go anywhere else until you'd completed those specific missions. ME3 became even more restrictive, with long sequences of cutscenes and parts of the galaxy map inaccessible until you jumped through some hoop.

Narrative is not exactly the same thing as story. Joker, Dr. Chakwas, Anderson, and Garrus (for example) might all be able to relate the story of the hunt for Saren, but each would tell it from a different point of view, thus each would provide a different narrative - just as each playthrough of the game constructs a different narrative.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That's literally not possible. The only way to make that happen is for you to do it yourself and make it up as you're playing.

Of course it is. The game world can react to inputs according to its rules. This is how CRPGs used to work.

Like how tabletop games would work if the GM were a perfectly fair adjudicator.

We can do whatever the rules allow, and then the outcome is determined by those rules.

This is basically how Minecraft works. So clearly it's possible.

[Doominike]

I look forward to a decade or 2 (maybe 3) from now when NPCs will be advanced VIs and the dialogue wheel has been replaced by the player just speaking what they want the PC to say. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

I look forward to a decade or 2 (maybe 3) from now when NPCs will be advanced VIs and the dialogue wheel has been replaced by the player just speaking what they want the PC to say.

I don't particularly want to write my own dialogue. I'd rather choose from among a set of options.

But I want to choose intent separately from the line, as I can in silent protagonist games.

Writing my own dialogue, especially if the game features persuasion, just makes the whole thing a game of player skill again.

Unless we could still somehow make the game (including persuasion) stat-based.

[Tex]

Id definitely prefer to be more Andromeda friendly if that counts.

[Doominike]

I don't particularly want to write my own dialogue. I'd rather choose from among a set of options.

But I want to choose intent separately from the line, as I can in silent protagonist games.

Writing my own dialogue, especially if the game features persuasion, just makes the whole thing a game of player skill again.

Unless we could still somehow make the game (including persuasion) stat-based.

I like writing so making my own dialogue would be nice for me, but I see how it might not be best for everyone. It would require a ridiculous amount of lines (and VA recording) to remotely approach the level of freedom that would allow though. 

 

Also I would probably fail most persuasion checks since people tend to be most easily swayed by emotion and social cues rather than logic. 

[Gago]

It would be great to be part of a faction of your choosing, being able to be let's say Cerberus or whatever operative (please BW don't recycle Cerberus) in secret and further the goals of that organisation and maybe even make a coup d'état. Become a pirate and form a gang, create little Imperium of our own and start slaughtering the filthy xenos or establish a benevolent society and cooperate with everyone, the choices are literally endless. But alas I think BW will slap us as Alliance/N7... how... original... and not boring at all. But I digress. 

 

I won't have a big problem with Ryder (bah the name still sucks) if he is Alliance but hopefully his background will be fluid with the story. It felt pretty retarded to be part of Cerberus, especially as my main Shep with survival background. Leaving the terrorists and joining the Alliance in #3 was a breath of fresh air. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

I like writing so making my own dialogue would be nice for me, but I see how it might not be best for everyone. It would require a ridiculous amount of lines (and VA recording) to remotely approach the level of freedom that would allow though.

I also like writing, and at first I liked your idea, but I'm worried about how oersuasion would work.

Ideally it would be stat-based, so we could convince people based on our stats, but use our own lines to do it as a means of expressing our character design.

[Doominike]

I also like writing, and at first I liked your idea, but I'm worried about how oersuasion would work.

Ideally it would be stat-based, so we could convince people based on our stats, but use our own lines to do it as a means of expressing our character design.

Maybe something like Coercion from DAO. Speech checks could succeed on their own by having points in that skill would increase your chances, and when it's maxed out you have 100% persuasion regardless of the argument you make. Maybe add a non-sequitur filter so you can't be like "You should marry me because chickens are blue"

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maybe something like Coercion from DAO. Speech checks could succeed on their own by having points in that skill would increase your chances, and when it's maxed out you have 100% persuasion regardless of the argument you make. Maybe add a non-sequitur filter so you can't be like "You should marry me because chickens are blue"

That's basically the Chewbacca defense. I think that should work.

[Cyonan]

Maybe something like Coercion from DAO. Speech checks could succeed on their own by having points in that skill would increase your chances, and when it's maxed out you have 100% persuasion regardless of the argument you make. Maybe add a non-sequitur filter so you can't be like "You should marry me because chickens are blue"

 

Assuming we're still ignoring the impossibilities of writing our own dialogue in games from a technological standpoint, you'd have the computer determine how "realistic" the argument was and increase or decrease the challenge of the skill check based on that.

 

Convincing a settler to pick up a gun and defend their colony would be a lot easier to do than "marry me because chickens are blue" which would have a nigh impossible speech check requirement assigned by the computer. Something like convincing the settler to aid you in attacking their own colony would be much more difficult but not impossible.

 

Basically what a good GM would already be doing in a pen and paper game, assigning penalties to your check depending on how absurd your dialogue actually is.

[Doominike]

I'm not ignoring the impossibility, I'm presuming the eventual plausibility when computing has progressed enough that the underlying systems of an RPG can decide things like a good GM, hence my use of "advanced VIs".

[Cyonan]

I'm not ignoring the impossibility, I'm presuming the eventual plausibility when computing has progressed enough that the underlying systems of an RPG can decide things like a good GM, hence my use of "advanced VIs".

 

Well I more meant "assuming we're still talking about the future and not limited by modern tech".

 

Although by the time customizable dialogue is viable in games, my suggestion will have been sorted out a while ago.

 

It'll be a hell of a leap forward in tech for gaming when we finally pull that off.