Llyranor

EDIT: oopsie, that was to myself

I love GW. Its PvP aspects are awesome. Its main flaw is level-grinding, which is ALREADY much much less significant than in MMORPGs.

It doesn't matter how good one can be with the controller. If you throw away auto-aim, of two individuals with equivalent skill with both devices, if you pitch one with a controller against the other with a kb/mouse setup, chances are the latter will win. It doesn't matter if the controller can do a decent enough job, when there's a superior alternative available. That makes the controller obsolete.

That sounds pretty cool. Very cool indeed. Having grown up on console RPGs before tackling PC RPGs, my approach and expectations to RPGs is a bit different. Frankly, I'm pretty much dissatisfied with the way EVERY game in the industry so far has implemented storytelling (though I can enjoy them regardless). I'm not very fond of quite many gaming conventions, and feel they really detract from the storytelling. As a storytelling medium, I feel gaming can go a long way, ultimately having the potential of being more involving than books or movies. "If I wanted a story, I'd read a book." is a valid argument, but that doesn't mean it is the only right perspective. I think many game stories suffer BECAUSE they are games. And yet, it shouldn't be this way. Xenogears' tedious gameplay made me not appreciate the game as much as if, say, it were an anime. Its game elements, effectively, got in the way of the story. Of course, the argument could go either way, and I suppose many gamers may feel that it should be the story that doesn't get in the way of the gameplay. Again, I don't see why it doesn't have to be this way for EVERY game. Even the beloved Torment falls victim; there were moments where I felt its nature as a game detracted from the story ("Why did I have to H&S my way through that area again?"). And yet, one reason why I loved Torment's story so much was BECAUSE it was a game. I felt many choices TNO made were my own - it being a game effectively made me identify with the protagonist that much more. It made the ending that much more touching as well. PST, I suppose, is an example of gaming having the potential of being the ultimate storytelling medium, despite its flaws. On the other side of the spectrum (as opposed to the completely linear nature of books where you can only be passive), there's PnP. Pretty involving, with the story having the capacity of adapting to your every actions. Some PC RPG devs try to mimic this, but I personally feel this isn't what we should be aiming for, as it's a futile goal. Why opt for a lesser alternative when you could just as well play PnP and have *absolute* choice? Instead, I feel gaming can be used to enhance storytelling, in a more structured way than PnP (structure can be good for a story, it can reflect what the writer wants to project to you, all within the controlled setting of an RPG), more akin to a book - the difference being that YOU are the protagonist, as opposed to you wishing you were. If we take lessons from both PC and console RPGs, we can promote storytelling more akin to console RPGs (I'm not praising so much their actual stories as their methods of telling it), and add in a roleplaying element to involve the player even more and to ENHANCE the story, then you get the best of both worlds. Granted, I'm not a hardcore PC RPGer as much as many others, and so don't value roleplaying for THE SAKE of roleplaying as much as others may. Instead, I value roleplaying in the context of storytelling in order to reinforce and enhance the latter. Cutscenes (not FMVs) in console RPGs seem more cinematic. For example, when the party gathers and discusses what to do next. Character/party interaction = good. The downside, of course, being that the player doesn't actually interact. On the other hand, you see the protagonist interacting more realistically to the other characters and to the environment. You rarely see this in PC RPGs. In PC RPGs, too often for me is it that you're either being spoonfed/led by the nose, or it's you who drives everything. A cutscene involving the PC where control is taken away from the player is BAD, when this wasn't the case a minute ago. That's poor storytelling, given the context of the PC being controllable otherwise. Sometimes it's the opposite, you and you alone are the driving force for whatever happens. 'Chosen One' syndrome. Save people/cities/worlds completely on your own while the rest of the world remains passive and awaits for your rescue. You're free to do whatever you want, to the DETRIMENT of the story ("I don't care if my vault needs a water chip, I'm going to kill this dragon, and it makes sense only in a gaming context --> this would never be acceptable without proper justification in any other medium"). Initiate a deep meaningful conversation with an important NPC? No problem! Suddenly the world shuts down and it's a 1-on-1 convo. Worse still, it's a Q&A session ("Who are you?" "What is your job?" "Have you heard of this name?" "What can you tell me about this water?") --> this is completely unrealistic and is NOT how the natural flow of a conversation should go; it feels segmented and is accepted ONLY in a gaming context. I'd be pretty pissed-off if dialogue was so segmented and unnatural in a novel. And in the meantime, your party members shut down and say nothing. Which brings me to another complaint - party members. Be it novels or movies or even PnP, characters have actual personalities THAT DON'T SHUT DOWN at random moments. In console RPGs, party members say nothing when not in 'cutscene mode' (ie. when talking to random NPCs). In PC RPGs, they often say nothing unless directly talked to. Sometimes you'd be lucky enough to have some random banter initiated btw 2 NPCs, but this is minimal. TOO minimal. Some people may be satisfied with it - I'm not. Sometimes they'll even add in to a convo you're having with another NPC. If you're lucky, it might even be a two-liner. Again, NOT ENOUGH. Even the famous convo with Rav** in PST was pretty much just btw you and her. Your party members were just passive bystanders. That being said, characters from PC RPGs have the potential to be really fleshed-out. I love talking to Dak'kon and Morte, discovering more about them, etc. Now, imagine if their personality was reflected in other parts of the game, in a manner that would be more akin to realistic behavior. If you talk to some NPC on the street, to investigate something or look for useful info, your party members should jump in if they have something insightful to add, and I won't believe that they never have anything insightful to add. Heck, it shouldn't always be insightful, it should just reflect normal interaction. If you come across something new, I'd expect the party members to be curious as well, not just the PC (akin to RP's "Not just seeing the sights and greeting the locals: we want to do our best in creating a place where the player can interact with everything " comment). The party members are not the PC's slaves (but they could be!), the PC is just ANOTHER character in the party. S/he should have as much say as the others (not being led by the nose with no choices --> complete linearity; if this were the case, the story wouldn't be taking advantage of the gaming nature of the story to enhance it) (also, not having complete control over the choices of the party - other members' opinions should be as important as yours --> your should be able to discuss amongst yourselves in a civilized manner.... if you want to). The world does not revolve around the PC, and the PC does not resolve solely around the world. They are separate entities in a relationship where meaningful interactions are possible. Of course, all I've PMSed about has exceptions, but the bulk of the medium is still suffering from these problems, and what's available so far is just not good enough. Someone has to try to for at least just one game, maybe, to rectify them. This is what I'm attempting, perhaps. I'm not trying to design the ultimate RPG. I'm trying to design a story, that HAPPENS to be from a game, and not a game that happens to have a story. A story, perhaps, that can FORGET it's from a game (and avoid gaming conventions that detract from proper storytelling as much as possible), but never forgets that it can be ENHANCED *because* it's from a game. If the story sucks, I'd want it to be because my storytelling skills suck, NOT because it's a game story. And that is the message I'd want to deliver. Hmm, maybe it's also this different approach that attracts resistance to the way I'm tackling the intro. Chapters can go on in novels, for example, where nothing plot-wise "happens", and yet those can remain compelling, offer insightful character development, etc.

DEFINING GAMING MOMENT

The moment a game's enjoyment is impeded because of a lackluster control scheme (especially when there's a superior alternative) is the moment I say no to the genre. But that's just me.

In terms of pure action, I'd go with HL2. That, and all its mods give it mega-longevity, whether it be pure visceral mayhem via HL2DM (gravgun + mp = win) or coordinated tactical teamwork via CSS (it *really* depends on the server, though once you find a good tactical server where teams cooperate and coordinate their plan via mics = win), and all the upcoming mods. I can't wait for the upcoming DOD:S, either. In terms of memorable campaign, though, Call of Duty. Some pretty defining gaming moments in that one. I won't forget the time where the assault on Red Square begins and a beautiful orchestral score picks up as legions of your comrades charge desperately at the enemy machinegun fire. It was just.... beautiful *sniff*

Bah, what I really want is for Day of Defeat: Source to be released already (I believe Sept was the latest expected date). I also want some sort of update on Team Fortress II

<3 MCA \o/ ^^

There is no spoon... Yet. That is to say, the basic goal which we have set up - and I think Volourn would agree here - is that we will do our best in creating a module which we like. For the record, my admitedly ambitious plan is to combine the uniqueness of Torment's gameworld, and Arcanum's take on technology. And a fair bit of their storytelling and roleplaying. I could go on about the plans we have and the ideas I've been developing but we would be discussing just that: ideas. I wouldn't mind presenting them but they are still at their infancy, and if there's one thing I would like to avoid is to hype this before development has even begun (not that I'd hype it after it's begun, though). Then again, with Volourn on board that might be hard - his name alone will propel this module's fame into great heights. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not so much interested in the ideas as the philosophy behind designing such a mod. What would be your focus in terms of storytelling and roleplaying?

"Failure" could teach you lessons that "success" would not. Effectively, this could mean you would learn different "abilities". This is in a way how I'm implementing the journal system. It just doesn't automatically get updated. After a mission/quest, the PC goes to write down what has occured in the journal. It wouldn't just be an objective process ("Today I killed Mr. Volo!"), s/he'd go about reminiscing about what s/he would have learned from that mission, what to retain for future, self-doubts, etc. This might affect XP and such - if you haven't learn anything from the events that came to pass, it should make senses that you get less XP. One could learn different lessons from the same event, depending on perspective. This might eventually affect the ending, but that's another story. Case in point, rewarding failure when appropriate = good. It's much better than simply making the player reload because s/he didn't get what s/he wanted.

I'd be interested to know a bit more about your project, how far you are in it, etc. Haha, you're finally officially teaming up with Magical Volo, eh? Magical Volo as main coder, R00FLES. That being said, LilacSoul's script generator is a boon. Good thing I have some skilled programmers to abuse, though.

I think the trick would be not to make it feel like 'Academy syndrome'. Making it as thrilling/compelling as the rest of the game, making the player FEEL like s/he is in the 'full game' already, but with the character creation process as a SIDE-effect of the scenario. It would need to be made both un-tutorial-like, and un-OOC, as well as conducive to replayability.

From Sharpei_Diem in RP's RPGcodex thread: I was thinking this had some merit, and points out why people consider character creation is an 'OOC experience'. What if, upon starting the game, there would be no character creation screen, no 'OOC experience'. You'd start off in whatever scenario, in full-fledged "roleplaying mode". As situations are presented to you, you get the choice in how to go about them, how to solve them. If the PC has a penchant to talk his way out of things, or just likes to hide and sneak around, is it not because the character (who already exists prior to the game actually starts, after all) is more proficient in said methods of conflict resolution? If the player opts to have the PC solve each of the problems in vastly different methods, is it not because the player expects the PC to be more of a generalist rather than a specialist? You'd be effectively roleplaying. No stat-assigning required, it'd all be done behind the scenes. There is no 'learning' process - the PC does not become good at these skills because s/he uses them in the game during a 'tutorial', s/he uses them because s/he already found him/herself good at them before the game ever started.

That is true.

Interesting thread, and sounds like a nice character creation process. I'll looking forward to playing your NWN2 mod (which, btw, does not have a FPS view, though I'm sure you could emulate it via making the PC cutscene_invisible). I get the point of replayability being an issue, as the others have pointed out. Some of comments you said in the thread: I think that's where our philosophies in terms of 'character creation' might differ. Growing up on console RPGs, character interaction has become a pivotal part of my expectations in RPGs (though I'm completely dissatisfied with the way both console and PC RPGs have handled themselves as a storytelling medium, but that is a story for another time). The purpose of boot camp wouldn't be purely 'character creation'. When in school, for example, you aren't just there for learning - it's an entire social entity in itself, and so many others things occur while there. You would be effectively actively playing your character. This would in effect be like a 'mini-hub' (or a pseudo-'town', if you will). I think I see where my mistake was. Replayability in a long and arduous character creation process can be a chore. Perhaps I was putting too much emphasis in it, then. What if, you were given relatively free reign to roleplay a character that would have ended up in a such situation, and that the character creation process was a secondary effect? The focus would thus be in the character vanquishing obstacles in such a setting, much like in any other setting, rather than a direct focus on 'making' a character. Much like learning is just a toxic side-effect from going to school

Yeah, in the sense that, even upon being set up with certain instructions during a particular lesson, your ways of tackling it and thus what you would learn from said lesson would be be defined by the actions/choices you would take in order to accomplish your objective. Don't want to study? Sneak into the kitchen to steal some food. Learn the trade in the process. It would something of a balancing process, where you weigh the benefits of studying as opposed to acquiring more 'practical' skills. Ah, but you would already be in the process of defining your character not just as a gameplay entity but also as an individual in said world, developing relationships with those around. This would be the place where character development would start. Learn about your comrades - how they react to some situations, what makes them tick. What is story if not a scenario enabling you to interact with the environment and its people? You are propelled in the role of a soldier, your obstacle is to graduate - how do you proceed in tackling such a task? Sure, nothing 'happens' as in the city isn't being attacked, no one is being murdered, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Capturing the thrill of being a new recruit having just joined and going through a training session - more as a storytelling sequence than an actual 'tutorial'. Drama, emotions, plot twists - all those can be developed within the setting of a 'classroom' without resorting to external factors driving the world and the story. There is a real impact in terms of the characters. That would be the focus of such an area - character creation, but more importantly: character development. The point of replayability is one worth mentioning. I guess making it skippable would work. I think the solution could be to make the scenario *interactive*. The point isn't to spoonfed the player 'how to play'. The player already knows how to play NWN2, it'd just be a process of defining the actual character. In effect, the player would be actively roleplaying the character. It wouldn't be a 'save the world' situation, but it could a much more personal process just as well. 'Deflect your opponent's blows. Do not be lured by the desire to directly oppose it.' 1) 'I see. By deflecting it, I would redirect the opponent's strength away from myself, and potentially unbalance him/her in the process.' --> 'Yes. In doing so, you might uncover an opening, and thus an opportunity to retaliate.' A) 'I understand. I will retain this lesson.' B) 'Hmm, I'm still unsure whether simply preemptively striking wouldn't be more efficient and effective.' 2) 'Nonsense. If I cut him/her short, his/her movements would be halted mid-way, rendering the attack ineffective. This would give me the opportunity to strike as well.' --> ''You make a good point. Though, would this course of action not lead to wasted energy from your part as well. Taking a full blow head-on is no simple task.' A) 'Not if I can easily overpower the enemy. I refuse to avoid a confrontation on the mere speculation that I am too weak.' B) 'That makes sense. Still, I believe the subsequent opening would be worth such a price. If I can disable the enemy quickly, the problem would be solved.' C) 'I would know more of what you have spoken of, then. Perhaps I did not register the technique correctly. Please show me again.' 3) 'Hmm, perhaps if I simply dodged it. There would be little danger to myself, and the opponent would waste his/her strength.' --> Perhaps, but would that lead simply nowhere? You would be no closer to defeating your opponent. A) 'If the sole objective is to defeat him/her, then wearing him/her down is a valid tactic. I am not subject to a time limit, am I? B) 'Hmm, what if I dodged in such a manner that I would position myself in an advantageous position, either to permit a quicker retaliation of my part, or to put the opponent in a position where striking again would be more awkward.' C) 'Or I could try as you say. Deflecting the blow.... Is this correct?' So it wouldn't just be a process of character 'creation'. You would be defining his/her personality, effectively roleplaying him/her. Add in meaningful character interaction (fellow students would interject their own beliefs into the previous example, for example), and is this really less appealing than a tense situation where 'stuff happens'?

Overall a nice read. It was already known that MCA would be doing all the companions for NWN2. Definitely the part which has me the most looking forward to its OC.

I doubt many people are fans of the way NWN handled the tutorial. Yay academy! 'Go attack the dummy for XP!' Now, what if such a 'tutorial' was a full-blown scenario? What if character creation took 5 hrs, for example? How much 'character creation' are players willing to go through before actually tackling the 'real game'? I'm sure many RPG players are fans of character creation, but is there such a thing as too much of it - regardless of how it's being fleshed out? Let's say, in a completely hypothetical situation, you were to play an RPG where you start off as a new army recruit. Let's say the game is made from the NWN2 toolset, and that it was modded to disregard the default character creation screen, except for gender and race/appearance. Classes, abilities, skills, feats, spells would be a thing of the past, at least as they work in standard DnD. What if, say, for example, the game would start with you having already signed up your name to enlist. You would start off showing up at boot camp. You would get a brief interview with the recruiting officer, confirming your enlistment, asking you a few questions - why you joined the army, who you are exactly, your background, your areas of past expertise, previous jobs/professions, what role you would prefer having once you wear the uniform, etc. Basically, setting up a name, a background, a face for an otherwise nameless character. Much like Arcanum or Fallout, you might get some advantages and benefits depending on your background. Were you a pig farmer? +1 to charisma towards pig, -1 personal hygiene or whatever. At some point, you would be subject to a physical examination and an evaluation of your mental status by the medical staff? Again, you can list out things you've had in your past medical history, which can confer pros and cons. You can be assessed. "Fairly strong individual, but appears unkempt, intelligence seems of average or above average caliber, appears to have auditory hallucinations, etc" Again, bonuses and penalties. This would, of course, require sufficient balancing. As well, this wouldn't just presented as some sort of Q&A session or something. You'd be interacting with NPCs - the recruiting officer, the medical personel, fellow new recruits, and so on. This is where you'd be beginning to form and define your relationships with those around you - those you'd be spending time with during the 'real game'. Eventually, you would end up getting formal training as a soldier. This wouldn't consist of a tedious tutorial on 'how to play the game' (click on a spell, click on the target, get xp and a free scroll! congrats!). It would have to be presented in a realistic manner. The instructor would teach you how to maneuver efficient in light armor, how to handle basic weapons - the sword, the spear, the dagger, etc. You might get some basic teaching on stopping bleeding, stabilizing wounds. This wouldn't just be a matter of 'learning new skilsl for your character' such as obtaining new weapon feats. You are in a teaching session. There is a teacher, and there are your fellow recruits. There would interaction between NPCs presented as realistically as possible. You would learn HOW exactly these skills would be learnt, not just something purely abstract. 'Hold the spear this way, follow your opponent's movement, do not loosen your grip, etc', 'apply this type of herb to the injury, the piece of cloth you use to tie around it needs to be tightened and the knot must done this way'. There would be some give and take in terms of interaction between you and the teacher and the other learners. Depending on your preferences, you would get some elective courses as well in areas of specialty that you were deemed suitable for. Advanced wound care, specialized swordsmanship, perhaps some magic. These would be your 'class'. Depending on how you actually perform in these courses, you might learn different abilities. During a swordsfight, you might learn either 'power bash' or 'kick dirt' or 'swift feign' depending on what actions you choose during the lessons, for example. You learn when to strike, how to strike. Is it best to attack the legs in this situation, or should I got for the weapon arm? In magic, perhaps your grasp of it is limited at first, and spells you try to control are a bit random. You learn to feel its flow, understand the philosophy behind it, how to visualize and take control of it. Perhaps initially, for example, you learn how to handle fire. As you cast it on an opponent, does it heat up his weapon and cause him to drop it, does it blind him temporarily, does it miss completely, or does it hit you back in the face? As you gain 'levels' and your control becomes more refined, you get the opportunity to affect it more to your will. Perhaps you get some teachings in terms of martial philosophy. You learn how to apply tactics both during battle and before it, you learn that much of the battle's outcome comes from your preparations before it occurs. And you would get evaluated. You would get study time, you would go to the library, perhaps read more on the subjects. Your fellow recruits would be there. You would get to know them better. You might choose to slack off, perhaps offering you new abilities as well <_< Now, this wouldn't be the start of the real game yet, more of a prologue/tutorial. After all, story-wise, nothing much as happened. Though, you would be learning the ropes, your character would learn how to be a soldier, the player would learn about these new gameplay additions, and you would develop interactions and relationships with your surrounding NPCs. In that sense, the story is already flowing, it's just that nothing has 'happened' yet. Thus, this would still be character creation. How do you guys feel about character creation? Is there such a thing as too fleshed-out a process? Would too many options keep you away? More to the point of this thread, what exactly about character creation (and I mean in general - the above is just one possible example) do you really like? What features thrill you, which ones wouldn't you like to see? I ask this in terms of already existing games, possibly upcoming ones, or hypothetical/ideal games. What does well-executed character creation mean to you? I appreciate any feedback.

Apathy is death.

R00FLES!

Sounds interesting. My fav released mod (beta) so far is Plan of Attack. Get the beta at http://www.planofattackgame.com/ Basically, online team+objective-based mod. Two teams, each with a base. Each map has 3 other objectives. Each round, one team attacks and the other defends. At the beginning of the round, one member of the attacking team is randomly chosen to be the leader, and dictates WHICH objective is to be captured. There is also a 'strategy maker' in which this leader draws a plan on the map to show HOW the team should proceed in said assault. Very conducive to teamwork. Each objective grants different rewards, varying amounts of XP and money. Very fun.

I'm a consumer too!

How long did PST have in terms of dev time? How long exactly is NWN2 getting again?