Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

ToEE is the worst RPG ever made

Voss

Erudite
Joined
Jun 25, 2003
Messages
1,770
Actually, I'd like that.

Though less control would be a plus too.

And if you check for it, ToEE is taking some shit for the NPCs, and limited roleplaying opportunities.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Messages
2,443
Location
The Lone Star State
Nomad said:
Now, I'm positive that you're not saying that you would rather the characters under your control in a party-based CRPG, refuse to obey your orders because they disagree with your main character. Please clarify.

Actually, I would like that. It would give them more of a sense of being individuals. If they're willing to do what you want as long as it doesn't betray their principles, it would make them seem more real.
 

Spazmo

Erudite
Joined
Nov 9, 2002
Messages
5,752
Location
Monkey Island
Nomad said:

Naturally. But that's not the point. The thing is that in games like PS:T or Arcanum, there's a) more and b) better scripted content for the party members. BG just had a tiny bit of mediocre stuff going for it (Jaheira: "I REALLY LOVE TREES! I HATE CITIES! CAN WE GO IN A FOREST PLEASE?"). In PS:T and Arcanum, the party members had enough background and interaction with the player character that they seemed much, much more alive than anything from a BG game.
 

Volourn

Pretty Princess
Pretty Princess Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Mar 10, 2003
Messages
24,924
True, both Arcanum and PST had deper npcs than BG1; but BG2 is definitely on par with them if not at a higher level than Arcanum, and at the same level of PST - though, imo, PST had at least 2 stinkers, and BG2 had 1, or 2 as well; but it had more so its percentage was higher.
 

Diogo Ribeiro

Erudite
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
5,706
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
BG1 had mediocre behaviouristic patterns for NPCs. However, i think that the best examples of party NPCs reside in Arcanum, BG2 and Torment. I'll explain.

In Arcanum, you could talk to your party NPCs. Not only that they reacted to what you did. In fact you could even make Virgil go evil (the climax being that Star Warsesque confrontation with his mentor, Joaquin, in Caladon). Due to your actions he actually became evil. The voice and attitude even shifted. Beyond that, they didn't do much. There was something else which was also nifty, though - you could ask them what they knew about the current location.

In BG2, characters acted out of their own accord. Yes they were mostly timed events, but does this matter? NPCs in other games, BG2 included, acted based on scripts or timed events as well. I think that BG2 succeeded in creating a party dynamic on one side, but crippling it on other. On one hand, you were witness to some party members simulating a relationship of sorts (which, admit it, adds to that much touted immersion factor). They act like they are aware of things, and people in the party. Not only that, people could get emotionally attracted, but you also could decide how this romantic endeavour would play out. I get a kick out of trashing Aerie and tell her to leave my party when she got pregnant :twisted: But the system was crippled in the part where you could not interact by your own will. Everytime you wanted to ask Jan for a joke, well, tough luck - he, and all others, had "nothing to say to you". Bullocks to that. Strangely, fanmade mods for the game add this functionality for romance purposes. Good job, Bio, i can see where the idea to let NWN's community do your job for you came from. :roll:

In Torment, you could interact with your party member at will. You could engage with them in dialogue, trading impressions and learning skills with them (in fact you could even teach them out to improve some of their skills). But the problem is that they never spoke out of their own accord, only very rarely and as shortly as NPCs in BG1 (though PS:T's NPCs traded more funny comments they were still minimalistic). Though, how you treated your comrades actually influenced their morale, which had visible effects (like Dak'kon's blade strengthening).

I think that, what is missing from these games is the actual part where NPCs acted less like meat puppets and more like personalities. It doesn't make sense, in BG2, that i can't talk to my party members but can decide for them what i want them to specialize in, in terms of weapon proficiencies. It also doesn't make sense that none of the well crafted personalities in Torment won't speak their own mind except in scripted moments. Like mentioned above, why does a Paladin nonchalantly kills a street urchin, but then complains about the drop in reputation? Why did he even obeyed my order in the first place? This is a major problem in many RPGs. Unfortunately, this is more visible in BG2 because characters bitch about everything. I like it how Bioware states in the official FAQ that sometimes characters may disagree with my choices. Well, if they disagree why don't they actually *do* something, instead of just whinning? We have the example of Jan cursing me for making him attack the Sniverfrniblin (sp?) group in the Underdark, for the leader's helmet. But its rare, and its just a complain.

EDIT: Also another 2 thing in Torment. One, is that some characters wouldn't even interact with the rest of the party (like Ignus or Vhailor). Two, one thing you had the opportunity of doing on several occasions, was to ask their opinion on matters presented to you, like the Lim-Lim purchase. Again, unfortunately, this was little in amount.
 

Sharpei_Diem

Liturgist
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Messages
223
Location
We're here
I recall someone leaving my party, and subsequently getting into a fight with them, over some alignment problem in Bg1 or 2.... but i was purposely 'pushing their buttons' and seeing what the consequences were...
 

Transcendent One

Liturgist
Joined
Nov 21, 2003
Messages
781
Location
Fortress of Regrets
What games should do is make NPC's act on their own occasionally, but give the PC the ability to talk to the NPC's as well. Ultimately BG had very little of the first and none of the second.

ToEE NPC's were pretty much the same, except for Burne and Lareth having involvement in the story, and you could talk to NPC's (but most of the time it would only yield two dialog options one asking them to leave the group and the other saying goodbye).

Overall, neither game is a particularly good example of how NPC's should be handled, which is why I found what the reviewer said silly.

Now if he was talking about BG2, then what I said would most certainly be incorrect, but then the reviewer would once again be acting silly, as there are some pretty signifiact differences between the two games.
 

Jed

Cipher
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
3,287
Location
Tech Bro Hell
One of the things I really disliked about the NPCs--er, henchmen in NWN is the predictability of the progression of the development of the character in question. What I mean, is after a bit, I knew that when I started a new chapter, immediately there would be a "revelation" from Brandilyn or whatever the hell her name was (talk about forgettable, throwaway characters...). I always felt, "Well, here we go...," and thought it took too much of the "unexpected" out of it. I also thought it was lame that the relationships depended--literally!--on an actual game token. That's a part of the overall poor design of NWN, though, so we'll save that for another conversation. At least in BG2--annoying and inappropriate as it could be, like in the middle of combat--I was a little surprised when the NPCs would drop their "earth-shattering revelations" on me. It gave them a little more edge to feeling "alive," at least more so than the aforementioned NWN NPCs, who were more plot devices--thin ones, at that--than anything else.
 

Chadeo

Liturgist
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Messages
111
Location
OR, USA
NPC’s should all be the same. Joinable, or not, they should have their own personalities, backgrounds, and motivations. You should be able to interact with them at any time, and in any manner of your choosing (limited by your character’s ability and history of course). It is icing on the cake if they will act independent of any prompting from you.

The reason why the first aspect is rarely pulled off is because of the high degree of writing skill required (some might say that it is because the suits in marketing have figured out that gamers will not read, or even care much about, this extra writing and thus deliberately do not spend money/time on it). The second aspect (acting on their own) is mostly an AI issue. While scripting can make this work in some cases, it can also fall far short of creating the illusion of life.

The first issue is easily solvable by any developer who is willing to spend the effort at it. The second is harder and I doubt AI will be in place for such a thing (again scripted events being the exception) for a long time.

Oh and while I would not say TOEE is perfect, it is a trival task to come up with large number of so called RPG's that are far worse.
 

Nomad

Novice
Joined
Apr 17, 2003
Messages
99
I don't know.

Having characters under my (i.e. the player's) control in a party-based CRPG that refuse to obey my commands sounds like a bug report waiting to happen. I just don't think the average gamer would understand (or appreciate) why that character isn't responding. From a gameplay standpoint, I think it's a bad idea.

However, from a realism point of view, where I don't have that level of control over the people I associate with in real life, I don't think it's realistic. For example, say my adventuring companion and I are in the local tavern when he (or she) insults the half-orc bouncer. The bouncer then calls over his bouncer buddies and start taking their frustrations over being ostricized by the community out on us. Now, I may not have agreed with my companion's timing or decision to call into question the bouncer's intelligence, but I'm not going to stand there and get beaten to a pulp, either. Like it or not, I've got to get out of this situation alive; I'll worry about educating my companion on proper orc-etiquette later.

Overall, I think having NPCs in my party not respond to my orders in a party-based CRPG is just a bad idea.


N.
 

Spazmo

Erudite
Joined
Nov 9, 2002
Messages
5,752
Location
Monkey Island
NEVER consider realism when discussing game design! It's pure poison for fun.

And the answer to this is obvious: don't put party members in the player's control! If you don't control the NPC (which is natural, really, since they're NPCs), they can't do horrible things in the first place. Fo2 and Arcanum did this moderately well, but had some failings: stories abound of Sulik and Cassidy mudering all the children on a map but pouting when the PC does the same. With a bit of intelligent scripting (ie. Will not kill children = 1 and Will not kill if Karma > 50 or something), it'd work just fine.
 

mr. lamat

Liturgist
Joined
Nov 21, 2003
Messages
463
Location
hongcouver
i'd like to something akin to a system of playcalling. giving your party members orders, ranging from general to specific, the more specific for combat oriented characters. a decent soldier would know how to flank someone or lay down supressing fire... where if you or i got into a fire fight, after peeing our pants, would hardly be able to do more than stay in cover and fire blindly. these character realities should be a basic part of any combat system...

for more experience combat characters... or chicks in thongs with big guns... you could issue an order some like "move here" then be able to set out some waypoints they will take along the way. once in position you could issue orders along the lines of "covering fire" where the character would pop out of cover to snap off a few burst then duck back down. there could be "fire supremecy" where they'd find a decent position and just open up with the Bozar. orders for closing in and going hand to hand (provided they're not running into a withering haze of bullets... which they'd promptly reject and lower thier respect/score for you).

for non-combat characters... the orders would have to be less specific, with greater freedom giving to the AI. they'd decide how and when the moved, whether or not they even left cover to move, or, on the rare occassion, did something incredibly foolish and brave. the player would have no control over waypoints, only a general area... like, "behind that car" (done by mouse pointer) or "hold the line" (staying in relatively close proximity to the party and cover).

to me, this seems a reasonable and decent balance between control of your party and characters responding like characters should. Aerie should not charge a illithid with her dagger. the idea, of course requires alot more fleshing out and development and would probably only work in a turnbased game with more modern weapons... but realtime and faeries and magic suck anyways.

on a side note... do the new wotc rules mean that the drow have given up slavery? they're rather broad and vague... are they going back and rewriting the fiction of the entire series?
 

Volourn

Pretty Princess
Pretty Princess Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Mar 10, 2003
Messages
24,924
Huh? One already posted near the thread beginning. :wink:
 

Sheriff05

Liturgist
Joined
Sep 24, 2003
Messages
618
Location
Chicago
Hey there Humans
thought I join in over here at RPG Codex looks like fun,
Glad to see even those of you who dislike ToEE can see the BS in a review like that a mile away..Cheers!
 

Volourn

Pretty Princess
Pretty Princess Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Mar 10, 2003
Messages
24,924
Hey, TOEE is not completely horroful. It has its good points. And, oh, my buddy Sherriff is here. :D
 

Sheriff05

Liturgist
Joined
Sep 24, 2003
Messages
618
Location
Chicago
Volourn said:
Hey, TOEE is not completely horroful. It has its good points. And, oh, my buddy Sherriff is here. :D

Hey Vol-
yeah the Atari boards are so friggin lame there is not much to even say anymore
been playin Silent Storm alot, finishing up my last round of ToEE for awhile-
Oh, and I just unloaded on Bioware in another thread..if you want to go tell
me how I am "out of my mind"..LOL
Cheers!
 

Volourn

Pretty Princess
Pretty Princess Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Mar 10, 2003
Messages
24,924
Heh. I don't go there that often anymore. I finally rnated enough about stuff there. I'll check it out. :)
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom