Azrael the cat said:Actually I kind of think his first step - the one where his initial companions (the archmage girl and the paladin mentor from WC2) abandon him - was completely justified. He had a village full of infected peasants who were about to turn into an undead army with a dual purpose of attacking the kingdom and spreading the plague further. There was no cure for the plague available, and from his perspective no way of knowing who was infected, who isn't, and who might become infected. Pretty much all he could do was kill them all, which then brutalised him and prepared him for his later corruption in Northrend (burning the boats so his troops couldn't flee, turning on the mercs that helped him, and eventually taking the cursed sword)
Azrael the cat said:I thought the Witcher was certainly a step towards the right direction, but I thought that - story-wise - there was an obvious adjustment that would have made the order/elves C+C that much more interesting. The first 'nice-guy' character you meet in the game, early in chapter 2, is the archetypal paladin character - I forget his name, but if you've played it you know who I mean. He's a genuine good guy in a questionable but potentially good organisation. As a consequence, I suspect many players (of those who got caught up in the story) chose the Order out of 'loyalty' to him. Similarly, I suspect that those who chose the rebels did so because they sympathised with the hard-but-understandably-so rebel leader you meet later that chapter more than they did the good-but-naive paladin. Now...imagine that early in Act 4 (or late Act 3) the game killed off one or both of those characters. So you've been going with the order because of one good hero, (or the rebels, substitute accordingly), and then just before things are set to really heat up, that 'good face' of the organisation dies and you're left thinking 'do I really want to be with these guys after all'. Maybe a bit emo-faggy, but I think that, story-line-wise, that would have been a great C+C.
It's not hard as fuck when the PC has all the initiative and can reload the game if the attempt fails. In Arcanum it's particularly easy to use fate points to steal any weapon you might take a fancy to.RK47 said:1. No Scaled Loot. None. Rewards are static. You see a guard with a sniper rifle. Kill him and you get it. It's hard as fuck though.
Indeed. I recently became the enemy of both Tarant and Caladon, and killing all those guards and citizens was really, really boring. And I just missed out on a bunch of Thieves' Underworld quests too, because while the field agents seem to have their own faction, separate from the towns, that does not seem to apply to the management. Oh well, it's a change from how I played the first time.Edward_R_Murrow said:One of the strangest things in games, especially RPGs, is how easy it is to be the good guy. In fact, it's usually the best path; the path with the coolest loot, the best quests, more party choices, and the easiest aside from maybe fighting some big special evil dude. Contrast this with the less-than-saintly paths in which the game gives you minimal quality loot, only a few extra quests, less party members who will like you, and generally a more pain-in-the-ass experience.
I agree. If players will go to extremes to keep Dogmeat alive, why not use such feelings as an incentive instead of appealing to greed for doing good deeds? And then everyone would get what they want.Edward_R_Murrow said:If games are going to stick to a good/evil dichotomy, they should at least differentiate the paths a bit as opposed to just offering different flavors of the same reward. Perhaps have the more altruistically inclined characters receive friendship and allies as rewards yet lack money and loot while the greedier, more self-centered characters get the typical power and wealth type of rewards, but might have to always watch their back and/or trust no-one.
Yep. If it's good enough for Star Wars, why not good enough for RPGs? Or is it just that I'm not evil enough to enjoy slaughtering innocent NPCs? No... the rewards are still crap. Well, except maybe for that friendly mage guy in Baldur's Gate. I remember once attacking him with a beginner party, and actually defeating him despite his powerful magic. Though too many party members died, so I reloaded and failed to do better. He did have some nice things, so I guess that's kind of a reward for being a bastard.Edward_R_Murrow said:I'd really like to see a game that was balls to the walls difficult and beat the player down at every angle. Except there would be a way to make things easier....by being a completely heartless bastard.
Emergent gameplay? Or isn't the script already the game's 'decision'? Or should we have alternatives like in The Witcher, but instead of the player initiating them, they'll be randomly determined at the start of the game? So that there's a 50% chance of the master thief being the secret leader of the thieves' guild, and a 50% chance of being the most notorious enemy/competitor of that same guild? And perhaps no matter which it is, rumours will always claim the latter?Squeek said:CRPGs really ought to make decisions of their own, ones that exhibit a kind of personality and style. That would result in collaboration. So instead of the game reacting exclusively to the player's decisions, the player would be reacting to the game's as well.
I'm simply suggesting that RPG is one of those things that's done better with collaboration. The way I see it, RPG without it is limited.RGE said:Emergent gameplay? Or isn't the script already the game's 'decision'? Or should we have alternatives like in The Witcher, but instead of the player initiating them, they'll be randomly determined at the start of the game? So that there's a 50% chance of the master thief being the secret leader of the thieves' guild, and a 50% chance of being the most notorious enemy/competitor of that same guild? And perhaps no matter which it is, rumours will always claim the latter?Squeek said:CRPGs really ought to make decisions of their own, ones that exhibit a kind of personality and style. That would result in collaboration. So instead of the game reacting exclusively to the player's decisions, the player would be reacting to the game's as well.
It's not hard as fuck when the PC has all the initiative and can reload the game if the attempt fails. In Arcanum it's particularly easy to use fate points to steal any weapon you might take a fancy to.
Or rape.Squeek said:For instance, take the collaboration out of sex, and what do you get? Masturbation.
DraQ said:Or rape.Squeek said:For instance, take the collaboration out of sex, and what do you get? Masturbation.
I'm just trying to be completist (and lure Major_Blackhart here).Korgan said:DraQ said:Or rape.Squeek said:For instance, take the collaboration out of sex, and what do you get? Masturbation.
Um, so your point is, you can't get the best if you collaborate?
Yes, that is what singleplayer CRPGs are compared to multiplayer RPGs.Squeek said:For instance, take the collaboration out of sex, and what do you get? Masturbation.
Isn't this what C&C is about, with each consequence being a 'version'? If the game 'makes a decision' based on something the player did, it's a consequence, whether it's scripted or emergent gameplay. If the game 'makes a decision' that's not a consequence of something the player did, then isn't that too either in a script or emergent? Or based on a random chance? I'm just trying to understand what it is you're thinking about.Squeek said:Versions could be designed modularly and redundantly to accommodate an entire gamut of possibilities to correspond with choices the player makes every step of the way.
Are you wishing for an actual AI? It sounds as if you are.Squeek said:It there were collaboration, then there would also be potential for flair. Software that could participate in decision-making could do it with personality and style. Those could even be player options.
Sure, but even in Fallout you can just walk up to a guard (unless it's an enemy who'll attack on sight) and initiate combat when you feel that you have a decent chance to win based on preparations against this particular guard. Granted, you'll end up fighting an entire settlement, but isn't that just a way to quickly try out your new sniper rifle?RK47 said:Pickpocketing something people held in their hands is complete bullshit. Especially if this is a rifle. Fate point is a silly feature.
I'm talking about fundamental changes that could go beyond plot. For instance, when a mod is installed over a game, it modifies the version (hence the term "mod").RGE said:Isn't this what C&C is about, with each consequence being a 'version'? ... I'm just trying to understand what it is you're thinking about.
Dark Elf said:I maintain that true choices and consequences are dependent on a hardcore setting. If every little thing you do stays done and there's no save/reload option there to save you, chances are that developers flesh out the consequences a bit more.
If an RPG could react to a player by making fundamental changes in the game, then you would get exactly that. There could be no reloading, because the save would be for a different version.Dark Elf said:I maintain that true choices and consequences are dependent on a hardcore setting. If every little thing you do stays done and there's no save/reload option there to save you, chances are that developers flesh out the consequences a bit more.
The Witcher proves you wrong. However, someone has already said that.Dark Elf said:I maintain that true choices and consequences are dependent on a hardcore setting. If every little thing you do stays done and there's no save/reload option there to save you, chances are that developers flesh out the consequences a bit more.
Based on developer interviews lately, that seems to be a prevailing point of view. But from a technical standpoint, it's actually kind of crazy to think client-server applications would ever have that kind of superiority.RGE said:Yes, that is what singleplayer CRPGs are compared to multiplayer RPGs.Squeek said:For instance, take the collaboration out of sex, and what do you get? Masturbation.