New AoD article

[Nedrah]

Right, looks like I'm going to buy it, after all.
Why not hand that article to the guys at quarter to three?
They might even like it and start hyping it a bit.

 

[k_bits]

Look fantastic - graphics AND choices. Will wonders ne're cease?

VD - how much are you expecting to charge for this badboy, once it comes out? How will the free portion of the game work - do you pay for a code and input it or something else?

Also - if you had to give it a %, how far along are you towards completion? What do you consider are the biggest hurdles you have left?

 

[Perishiko]

Games like that don't sell a lot, which is why nobody is interested in making games like Darklands or Torment. Sad, but true.

So, if it sells reasonably well for a "game like that", will you continue to make games?

 

[Monolith]

It's true. Out of curiosity though, what part sounds like bullshit or wishful thinking?

Actually, none. It just seems too good to be true, that's all. Before I start believing everything just to be disappointed again I cloak myself in skeptism.

Games like that don't sell a lot, which is why nobody is interested in making games like Darklands or Torment. Sad, but true.

We'll see. It's been some time since "games like that" have been made. Just don't repeat Zero Sum's mistakes (a premature release and as good as no marketing). I'm not saying you'll make millions that way, but it could be enough if in fact you reach all potential customers (enough to be able to stay in business that is). Besides, I'm hoping your game will pave the way for *your* and other such games. Just a reminder so you actually feel that burden...

They are very business-like. When you enter the guild for the first time, it will be described and the business-like "may I take your order?" nature of the establishment will be noted.

Your screenshots spoke for themselves.

No. I've considered such an option, but decided against it. I don't recall now what screens I gave to RPG Vault (and I'm too lazy to check), but it goes something like that. The guildmaster asks if you are good with crossbows. If you say no, he tells you that xbows are easy to handle (which is true) and that you can't miss from a few meters. He also sends you to a guy who will give you a few tips (increasing your skills by up to 10 points if it's too low), and that's it.

Sounds good to me. As long as it's logical I'm fine.

 

[Vault Dweller]

VD - how much are you expecting to charge for this badboy, once it comes out?

$25 - the standard shareware price.

How will the free portion of the game work - do you pay for a code and input it or something else?

Yep, similar to the Spiderweb/Zero-Sum setup. You download the game, start playing, but can't leave a certain area until you unlock the rest of the game.

Also - if you had to give it a %, how far along are you towards completion?

Hard to say. Technically, it's completed, as in you can play it and finish it, but about every aspect of it (graphics, atmosphere, writing, quests (I changed quite a few already), money system, inventory, balance, etc) should be improved. Why? Well, take a look at Gothic 3, for example. It's still a pretty good game, but it could have been a fantastic top 10 game if the developers were able to spend 6 more months on it.

What do you consider are the biggest hurdles you have left?

No big hurdles, but a shitload of redoing & improving what we can.

So, if it sells reasonably well for a "game like that", will you continue to make games?

Absolutely. That's always been my dream.

 

[Gambler]

Sounds very good, except this one:

2. Conflicts: each successfully completed side quest must piss some people off.

I hope you don't mean it literally. Because if you do, then it's an artificial design constraint. And a very common one.

Sometimes it is interesting to pursue win-win resolutions. That's what people frequently do in real life, and that's what diplomacy is supposed to be about. I'm not saying that there always should be a way to make everyone in the quest happy, but sometimes it should be an option (albeit the most difficult one).

Games like that don't sell a lot, which is why nobody is interested in making games like Darklands or Torment.

Not entirely true. Games "like that" are harder to advertise and make popular, but it is still possible. Pathologic, for example, sold quite good. And it very far from being mainstream.

 

[Excrément]

Sounds very good, except this one:

2. Conflicts: each successfully completed side quest must piss some people off.

I hope you don't mean it literally. Because if you do, then it's an artificial design constraint. And a very common one.

Sometimes it is interesting to pursue win-win resolutions. That's what people frequently do in real life, and that's what diplomacy is supposed to be about. I'm not saying that there always should be a way to make everyone in the quest happy, but sometimes it should be an option (albeit the most difficult one).

indeed, each action should have, in a perfect RPG, consequences for you, but these consequences don't have to be always good or bad. what make them good or bad consequences for you should be the way you do your actions.
for example if you kill the spy and no one spot you or even know it is your guild who is responsible for the murder (because you arrived to make the other guild believe it is another guild which is involved), the consequences should only be good for you.

it is precisely because you do your mission so well that nothing bad occurs for you.
we shouldn't be punished for our competence.

 

[John Yossarian]

I'm guessing that if someone gets assassinated, most people will know it was the assassins guild, and your rep with the spies goes down by association, regardless of whether they saw you do it.

 

[galsiah]

Sometimes it is interesting to pursue win-win resolutions... but sometimes it should be an option (albeit the most difficult one).

Sure, but if that's an option then the situation changes from being an interesting choice, to a clear success/relative-failure (once all solutions are known).
I agree that having there never be an optimal solution is an artificial constraint, but you say that like it's necessarily undesirable. Having all quests be interesting is an "artificial constraint" too - a desirable one.

With regard to the assassins' guild quest, I think it's coherent for faction reputations to be affected. There's a client, a contract, guild members who have information etc. etc. - there would be ways for a resourceful organization to find the perpetrator. It's much more of an issue when e.g. the player kills a faction member unobserved with no contract, motive or third party knowledge. In that circumstance it really is not credible for faction standing to fall.

Most quests will involve the knowledge of at least a few other characters, so having factions learn of the player's actions is at least credible - if sometimes unlikely.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I hope you don't mean it literally.

I do.

Because if you do, then it's an artificial design constraint.

Not really. Any basic conflict requiring you to pick a side will force some consequences on your ass. I simply don't have any quests requiring you to do some meaningless activities that nobody gives a shit about.

Sometimes it is interesting to pursue win-win resolutions.

Depends on the conflict.

... and that's what diplomacy is supposed to be about.

Diplomacy is about getting what you want through persuasion. If you got what you wanted, that means that somebody didn't get what he/she wanted and had to settle for less.

Different options will result in different reaction, ranging from "what an asshole this guy is" - 2 points to "I want this meddling motherfucker DEAD! NOW!" - 20 points.

Pathologic, for example, sold quite good.

How good is quite good? In units sold.

 

[Necro]

i'm kind of debating if the crossbow not missing is a good thing, on one hand it is, but what if instead when he asks u if your good with it, you could get dialog options for other ways to kill them, poison, a trap etc.?

 

[Volourn]

Sell it in stores, and you got yourself an insta sale.

 

[Twinfalls]

One question, though. Shouldn't it be "tears start running down your face/your cheeks/the side of your face/something to that effect" instead of "tears start running down" in this dialogue option?

It could just be 'your voice breaks and tears start running', or better yet 'your voice breaks and tears start flowing'.

'Down your face' is just redundant - where else are they going to be running?

 

[Nicolai]

I don't have a whole lot of experience with crying, so I wouldn't know. Ask Bryce.

 

[Gambler]

Sure, but if that's an option then the situation changes from being an interesting choice, to a clear success/relative-failure (once all solutions are known).

Why all solutions should be known?

Anyway, I don't agree, because:
1) Win-win situation doesn't have to be "a clear success". You can make all involved parties happy, but spend a lot of time and money doing so.
2) Are you saying that different options should always yield similarly beneficial outcomes, because it's "more balanced" that way?
3) There are things like risk, ethics, curiosity, sympathy, etcetera. Neither motivation, nor outcome has to be purely quantitative.

Any basic conflict requiring you to pick a side will force some consequences on your ass. I simply don't have any quests requiring you to do some meaningless activities that nobody gives a shit about.

Are you implying that meaningful activity absolutely has to involve conflict between several parties where you have to pick sides?

If you got what you wanted, that means that somebody didn't get what he/she wanted and had to settle for less.

Only in zero-sum situations.

 

[The_Pope]

There are very few activities in RPGs which don't make one side suffer. The difference in AoD is that there isn't a bunch of consequence free walking targets for you to stab.

 

[Psycroptic]

It does look really good! Scorpia (of old CGW fame, of course) mentioned AoD briefly on her site. Something to the effect of "A Real RPG at last!"

 

[galsiah]

Why all solutions should be known?

They needn't - which is why I qualified my remark.
However, at some point they often will be. Replaying a game you know relatively well is less interesting if there are clear best solutions to problems - you'll just pick them and be done with it. A potentially interesting decision has been lost.

1) Win-win situation doesn't have to be "a clear success". You can make all involved parties happy, but spend a lot of time and money doing so.

I agree - on the condition that time/money have a real, significant, long term cost to the player. Usually they don't: there's no time limit, and there's an unlimited amount of money to gain over time.

In this situation, the incentive is for the player to go for the best solution, but to spend a lot of his (real) time doing it, and more of his (real) time getting the money for it. That's not good unless the loss of game time involved has consequences.
If it does, then that's great, and I agree with you - though the player should have a clear idea that delay may be costly.

2) Are you saying that different options should always yield similarly beneficial outcomes, because it's "more balanced" that way?

Mostly, yes - if it's a solution which the developers have specifically elected to support. Sure, it might be realistic to have the occasional "solution" which makes things worse from every perspective - but why include such a solution?
Including a lose-lose solution takes development time that could have gone into a more interesting win-lose solution (certainly more interesting on replays etc.). Why pick the lose-lose?

Again, if the lose-lose solution saves time and money, and those commodities do make a real, long term difference, then that's fine (again the player should be aware that there are time/money constraints).

With either of these alternatives, you're just delaying the upside/downside of the action. The win-win might well lead you into a lose-lose later, and vice-versa. That's fine, but I don't think that too much is lost by not including these possibilities.

3) There are things like risk, ethics, curiosity, sympathy, etcetera. Neither motivation, nor outcome has to be purely quantitative.

Sure, but what do these things gain you?
Take "risk" for example. Adding a high-risk win-win solution might well encourage players to go for that solution (if they can see it), in spite of their particular character's very low odds of success. This might well lead to frustration. [whether or not it's the player's fault is irrelevant - only that your game design led to its happening]

As for "ethics, curiosity, sympathy..." I think it's too often the way that games are designed with a choice between doing-the-right-thing (no material reward), and being EVIL for material gain.
I think having the optimal powergaming solution being directly opposed to what the player wants to do ethically / sympathetically... is bad design. I'd much prefer every solution to have tradeoffs in terms of "resource" gain, and tradeoffs in terms of ethics.

I really don't care that this is "artificial" (and I agree that it is when applied to all situations). The point is that it makes for more interesting choices and better gameplay.

Having a straight Powergaming-Advantage / Roleplaying-Sense tradeoff is undesirable. If a few artificial constraints eliminate that situation without making the game world incoherent, then I'm all for them. [importantly, these artificial constraints don't create an impossible/incoherent game world - just a somewhat unlikely one]

Are you [VD] implying that meaningful activity absolutely has to involve conflict between several parties where you have to pick sides?

With a wide definition of "parties" and "sides", that's true.

Only in zero-sum situations.

Not true. Zero-sum games mean that there's an exact quantitative balance between winner and loser about zero. In the following situation this isn't the case:
Option 1: Faction A gains 10 points; Faction B gains 15 points.
Option 2: Faction A gains 18 points; Faction B gains 11 points.

Both of these situations are win-win. However, one faction always gets less than they wanted out of the situation. Since in most situations parties don't look at what they gain in absolute terms (but rather what they gain vs what they might have gained - Faction A probably perceives option 1 as a loss), there will almost always be parties which are not completely happy with a situation.

Very rarely there might be a solution that is the best from every party's perspective, but this is hardly common. Eliminating this possibility makes very little difference.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Are you implying that meaningful activity absolutely has to involve conflict between several parties where you have to pick sides?

In an RPG? Yes. However, I would welcome some not-overly-lame examples proving me wrong.

If you got what you wanted, that means that somebody didn't get what he/she wanted and had to settle for less.

Only in zero-sum situations.

Examples please.

 

[Gambler]

Okay, this is largely off-topic, but it is an interesting off-topic, and I don't want to star another thread.

With either of these alternatives, you're just delaying the upside/downside of the action.

You are thinking inside the box. My whole point is that gains and losses by themselves should not be the criteria that decides which options are included in a role-playing game. That might (or might not) be a good approach to design strategies, but RPGs are not supposed to be about choosing the "right" way to do it.

The problem is that in modern RPGs the "right" way to do it is the only way. If you do something wrong, game just cuts off the juice, so to say. Quest failed. Game over. That's what usually makes choosing "wrong" options so bad, not the in-game results (since there are none). If character fails something in a way that yields meaningful and interesting effects, than game will go on. In fact, having such possibility will make any game much more interesting. So it is important to differentiate between character failure and player failure.

Adding a high-risk win-win solution might well encourage players to go for that solution (if they can see it), in spite of their particular character's very low odds of success.

That's often the case because a high-risk solution is obviously interesting, and others are obviously boring. Again, it's player motivation vs character motivation. Entirely different things. You can make all solutions equally interesting to the player without making them equally beneficial for the character.

I think it's too often the way that games are designed with a choice between doing-the-right-thing (no material reward), and being EVIL for material gain.

But I did not propose to design any games in such way. In fact, such trade-off would be another artificial design constraint. I spoke about qualitative difference between options. Think real life.

With a wide definition of "parties" and "sides", that's true.

Not everything has to be a conflict to be interesting. And not all conflicts are between two parties. And picking sides is sometimes not possible.

Zero-sum games mean

You never heard that term being used in a broader sense?

Very rarely there might be a solution that is the best from every party's perspective, but this is hardly common. Eliminating this possibility makes very little difference.

Your statement is not justified. Examples of win-win situations are endless. If they are so rare, why people try to pursue them so often? Why are there craploads of books on conflict resolution?

Heck, when someone says "resolve conflict" that usually does not mean "to screw up one party for the sake of another." So, effectively, inability pursue win-win solutions means that player character can't truly resolve any conflict.

 

[Gambler]

Are you implying that meaningful activity absolutely has to involve conflict between several parties where you have to pick sides?

In an RPG? Yes. However, I would welcome some not-overly-lame examples proving me wrong.

Investigative work. You are hired to gather information about some subject or person. Nobody tells you why, you just do it for money. No conflict, no sides, but this could be very interesting in terms of gameplay. Speak with people, use various skills, gather evidence, etc.

This is just one example. In general, I think that information-related aspect of life is largely ignored by RPGs for no good reason.

If you got what you wanted, that means that somebody didn't get what he/she wanted and had to settle for less.

Only in zero-sum situations.

Examples please.

Examples of what? Mutual benefit resolution? Okay. Someone tells main character about possible assassination of a high-raking... whomever by some organization. Mr. Whomever has something you need.
Possible solution:
1) Work as an assassin, steal what you need when you do the job. Win-lose.
2) Trade assassination info for the thing you need. Lose-win.
3) Work as an assassin, but do not kill the guy. Use resources of the company that hired you sheerly to steal the item. Lose-lose.
4) Negotiate. Make the Organization to postpone the assassination. Cut a deal with Mr. whomever, which makes the Organization less unhappy about Mr. Whomever. Be sure to include the thing you need as part of the deal. Win-win. Everyone are happier than they were before, and nobody blames you for anything.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Your statement is not justified. Examples of win-win situations are endless. If they are so rare, why people try to pursue them so often? Why are there craploads of books on conflict resolution?

Win/win is a silly concept invented by people trying to justify having things their way. In fact, when I hear "... so it's win/win", that's the first sign that I'm getting screwed. The concept of win/win goes against the very definition of conflict.

Heck, when someone says "resolve conflict" that usually does not mean "to screw up one party for the sake of another."

It means convince one or both parties to be more reasonable and settle for less. It doesn't imply that these parties will be overly enthusiastic about it.

Here is an example. A client signed an advertisment contract with the company where I work. Later on we were offered a much better deal and being unethical bastards we took it and cancelled the original contract (the space in question is limited). The guy tried to negotiate with us, but failed. This morning I got a letter from his lawyer. I called him and convinced him to drop the silly legal threat and offered him another deal, which is what he really didn't want to do before. In other words, win/win, world peace, and free love for everyone. In reality though, the guy is pretty pissed because he didn't get what he wanted and had to settle for less. I doubt that he likes me a lot now.

So, effectively, inability pursue win-win solutions means that player character can't truly resolve any conflict.

Such are the horrors of war, my child.

Investigative work. You are hired to gather information about some subject or person. Nobody tells you why, you just do it for money. No conflict, no sides, but this could be very interesting in terms of gameplay. Speak with people, use various skills, gather evidence, etc.

Surely you are jesting. If there were no conflicts, nobody would have hired you to gather information. There are two parties here: party A that wants the info, and part B that doesn't want the info to be given to A. There is no win/win here.

4) Negotiate. Make the Organization to postpone the assassination. Cut a deal with Mr. whomever, which makes the Organization less unhappy about Mr. Whomever. Be sure to include the thing you need as part of the deal. Win-win. Everyone are happier than they were before, and nobody blames you for anything.

You should try that in the Middle East. Anyway, if the guy changes his behavior, that means he had to abandon his plans and had to settle for less. And he had to hand the thingy over. Yep, he's one happy camper right now.

 

[galsiah]

If you do something wrong, game just cuts off the juice, so to say. Quest failed. Game over. That's what usually makes choosing "wrong" options so bad, not the in-game results (since there are none). If character fails something in a way that yields meaningful and interesting effects, than game will go on. In fact, having such possibility will make any game much more interesting. So it is important to differentiate between character failure and player failure.

Sure - I agree with that. I've said before that I'm in favour of making failure an interesting possibility.

However, I think that implies more usually to situations where the player has an aim, but fails to achieve that aim. In a situation which is about choice, I don't see how it helps to have a direct choice give out-right negative results (in all respects). Perhaps it could be interesting the first time through - for a player who knows nothing about the game (not true for most players). For the second time through, it's not a reasonable choice for the player to make.

Again, I'm not saying it's objectively a bad thing - just that if you've got the development time to implement a win-lose choice, or a lose-lose choice, the win-lose choice is preferable.

This is different where a player aims to do something, but fails. In that case I'm 100% in favour of continuing with failure being a really interesting situation for the player. This stays viable for future playthroughs, and for players who've read about the game, since it's not a direct choice, but rather an interesting accident.

You can make all solutions equally interesting to the player without making them equally beneficial for the character.

Sure, but again I'd draw the distinction between a direct player(character) choice, and an indirect branching due to circumstances outside the player's direct control.
It is not reasonable to expect the player to make a choice to pursue a certain line simply in terms of interest - that line needs to make good sense from his character's perspective.

On the other hand, I agree that it's fine to have branches which are terrible for the character (but interesting for the player). The player shouldn't be expected to choose them though - they should arrise out of failure.

...I spoke about qualitative difference between options. Think real life.

Sure - real life frequently sucks and is boring. It's not a good model for RPG design.
I'm not against interesting qualitative differences. I'm just saying that choices ideally ought to be interesting on every level. A choice ought to be interesting to a player who doesn't give a damn about ethics - just as it ought to be interesting to a player who doesn't care about pragmatism. The only way to do that is to create some sort of balance in both ethical and pragmatic terms - not to give e.g. a pragmatic vs ethical decision.

Again, if you're talking about branches the player doesn't directly choose, then that's a different issue.

Not everything has to be a conflict to be interesting. And not all conflicts are between two parties. And picking sides is sometimes not possible.

Any interesting decision automatically involves conflict on some level - there needs to be a conflict between courses of action, or there would be nothing to make the decision interesting.
I don't think anyone implied that there were two parties.
Picking sides doesn't necessarily mean taking up with one faction - it just means taking a position on the conflict. Even if you're taking a new position, you're "picking sides" by forming your own side.

You never heard that term being used in a broader sense?

"Zero sum" has no broader sense. It means you sum the scores and get zero. If that doesn't apply, you're not talking about a zero sum situation.
If people use it in a "broader sense", they're misapplying the term.

Your statement is not justified. Examples of win-win situations are endless. If they are so rare, why people try to pursue them so often? Why are there craploads of books on conflict resolution?

Relative win-wins sure. Not absolute win-wins. It's very rare that every side gets exactly what they want. People persue resolutions that are pleasing to both sides, and are thus called "win-win". These solutions are hardly ever ideal to both sides - just perhaps as good or better than they were expecting.

Again - regardless of the possibilities -, the option to choose a win-win situation without some downside makes the entire situation less interesting. As soon as the player knows there's a way for him to please all parties, it makes little sense not to.

So, effectively, inability pursue win-win solutions means that player character can't truly resolve any conflict.

Unless there are many "win-win" solutions, the existence of one makes the situation less interesting as soon as the player knows of it.
If there are many "win-win" solutions, then some will give better results than others to a given party. The ones which give less good results to that party will probably not be viewed as a "win" - even if they are beneficial.

I guess this isn't true where the parties involved are unaware of the potential benefits they might have had - but this won't usually be the case.

I wouldn't say that win-win situations (i.e. situations beneficial - not ideal - to all parties) can't exist - just that they don't make for the most interesting choices. I'd say they're more appropriate for more action-based games - since there the player can pursue the win-win, possibly fail and get into a range of interesting situations. In a non-action based game, there's little interest in such a situation for a player who knows the game.

Since AoD is not action-based, and does rate replay value as an important feature, I don't see how including many win-win solutions would help matters. [[Unless, perhaps, it is often useful to the player to piss people off - certainly a possibilitiy (which would mean that a win-win for the factions were not necessarily a win-win for the player). That might be interesting, but I don't think it's necessary to get a good game.]]

 

[Gambler]

Sure - real life frequently sucks and is boring. It's not a good model for RPG design.

What I meant was that you usually take many things into consideration before doing something in real life. And they are rarely all quantifiable.

"Zero sum" has no broader sense.

Yes, it does. It is frequently used to refer to situations where someone's gain results (or is perceived to result) in someone's loss even in cases where those things are not directly connected, not precisely quantifiable, or where ratios of gain to loss are skewed. Google for "zero-sum mentality" and open some political website. In any case, you're nitpicking semantics. It's not a mathematical game theory debate.

Anyway, if the guy changes his behavior, that means he had to abandon his plans and had to settle for less.

Without player interference he would be dead, player would not have the item, and the organization would spend money on assassination and deal with consequences. Whether you consider the alternative outcome a win-win situation or not, you have to agree that neither The Organization, nor Mr. Whomever would be angry with the main character after that. And that is precisely why I quoted that interview - you said that such situations must not be. I just don't see the reason why.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Whether you consider the alternative outcome a win-win situation or not, you have to agree that neither The Organization, nor Mr. Whomever would be angry with the main character after that.

The organization wouldn't as they got the item and forces the guy to stop being a pain in their asses. The guy, however, should be very pissed off. Anyone would.

Another life example. The company had an employee who didn't do enough to justify his rather large salary. I had to offer him two choices: one - he gets fired, the other - he takes a pay cut, but keeps the job and gets a bonus structure tied to his performance to allow him, basically, to make the same amount if he works harder. He took option #2, obviously. If you think that he saw it as a win/win, you are mistaken. He was so pissed off that his performance dropped even further and I had to fire him eventually.

And that is precisely why I quoted that interview - you said that such situations must not be. I just don't see the reason why.

For a simple reason - nobody likes to get less when they want to get more. They may accept the so-called win/win scenario, but that doesn't mean they will like it. Take Iran, for example. If Iran is forced to abandon the nuclear program in exchange for whatever, do you think they will be happy about it? Someone may find a great solution for them, but it's still NOT what they wanted in the first place.