Aristes

Hey, congrats Tigranes! Hot damn, man! As for myself, I voted this evening and the wife and I were set to go to the movies when someone backing out of a parking place hit our front bumper. I called it into our insurance just in case the lady comes back later to say we were at fault. All in all, a very minor incident. Only scraped paint on either bumper. Meanwhile, it was too late and the wife was too frazzled to go to the movies and so we went to a local Korean restaurant. mmm MMMM MMMMM Great food. I go there often. Probably the only Korean food in the area. Several sides of kimchi. I always order the mandoo for starters. I'm hungry just thinking about it. We'll have to see the new Star Trek flik some other time.

Unfortunately, this article isn't convincing me to change my mind about the DLC.

Personally, I hope you're a killable NPC. Hey, they said you would be in the game. They didn't say what part you'd play!

Actually, Meshugger, I thought you did a great job with a shorthand review of Bush. I mean, folks will be writing volumes about his presidency in the future. Trust me, when you're president, folks will be writing about you for a long time, no matter what you did in office. That doesn't matter. I still found your short piece kind of touching in a strange way. I don't agree with everything in your report, but it's a good enough place to start. Really, it's probably about as good a place to finish also, since all the volumes that folks write about Bush will never really resolve any of the issues. They'll have sources and endnotes and quotations aplenty, but we've never really fully understood any of our presidents as it seems to me. Don't get me wrong, I want to have those volumes because I enjoy reading them. I just don't think they ever bring closure.

I've heard that idea before, Darque. I think it's interesting, but I also think the writers want to keep us guessing, which is an aspect I don't really like. You might ask, "but isn't that the whole point of LOST?" I started watching LOST with my sister in law. She had the first and second season on DVD and was rewatching the whole series. I watched the first season DVDs on my own, the second season with her, and the third season with her as it aired. I finished all three seasons at about the same time. Talk about confusing! Anyhow, the upshot is that it's kind of a social thing. So the whole cliffhanger idea isn't my main reason to watch it. I don't even watch each episode as it airs since I'm not staying with my brother and his wife any longer. It might be a week or two before I bother to watch an episode. What I've noticed about the past few seasons is that I tend to really enjoy the beginning of the season, I'm disappointed by the mid-season, and I dig the season finale in a big way. Now, however, I see a chance that I might really enjoy all of the last season because the writers will no longer be forced to go to ridiculous lengths to 'keep us guessing' for another few seasons. Everything ends this season and they can start resolving some of this stuff. As long as this isn't the usual bait n switch, we've already had the story tighten up considerably. I'm sure they'll throw some wrenches into the story just to keep us guessing, but that's okay as long as the story progresses. Anyhow, I agree that the main villain is probably ol' smokey.

Yeah, I'm happy using linear and non-linear, but I don't want to get stuck on a 'linear' argument, so to speak. I guess you might say I was conceding the linear point. I also despise arguments for only the sake of 'winning.'

Bhlaab: I don't begrudge other folks enjoying the NPCs. I just think of them as a distraction in the worst sort of way. They get killed far too easily. Either you invest the time in keeping them alive or they get killed off. Investing time isn't so bad, I guess, but it makes combat irritating. The have never added significantly to my combat because, while they might help kill something, usually combat resolves fairly quickly in my favor anyhow. Joinable NPCs without some means of controlling them are almost always irritating to me. In something as simple as Left4Dead, NWNx, or just about any game in between. I also favor the idea of the Lone Wanderer over the idea of some yutz leading his tribe of misfits across the desert. Well, add the fact that I think I really did overstate my case and I don't really care about the NPCs as long as they leave me alone. Gromnir: I think there will always be some sort of give and take as regards resources, technical ability, and player desires. If the design team could create a viable world in which decisions had a meaningful effect and this effect was reflected in dialogue and NPC reactions, they would love to do it. If they could anticipate every possible choice and provide for it in descriptions, dialogue, and narrative, they'd be happy to do so. If they could offer a world in which there was no set story because they could count on the player to be happy with whatever his imagination could supply with an honest to goodness sandbox, both the player and the designer would jump for joy. You see, I don't really disagree with you. At least I don't think so. What I'm getting from you is that it is a choice between linearity and non-linearity. Subsequent choices, such as resources and skill, feed into that. Almost like classical rhetoric if you ask me. The question boils down to two sides. I've been lurking long enough to have some idea of where you stand as regards linear v non-linear. I don't presume that folks really care about my preferences at this point and I don't have strong enough opinion to argue much about it anyhow. Mostly, I like the idea of impacting the world, but I think impact can be achieved either through a 'linear' or 'non-linear' game. In that sense, I'm happy either to decide things about myself or decide things about the story. However, assuming that the design team wants to go the 'non-linear' route, which is almost certain, I think it's useful to find some ways to mitigate the demands on the writers as much as possible. That's where I see floating text, in game consequences outside of dialogue, and scenic vignettes as helpful. Nevertheless, it's a CRPG. You can help lighten the load on the writers, but dialogue is the vehicle of story telling. The big thing for me is that I read everyone's post and I try to think about what they say. So my opinions evolve from time to time. You might even say I occasionally 'change my mind.' *gasp* I don't want folks kicking sand in my face for being wishy washy or anything, but I'm mostly interested in a good game and, fortunately, I can find some good in a lot of games, from buggy ol' Vamp games like Bloodlines to silly little sandbox romps like Fallout 3. So, I'm arguing for non-linearity and ways that I think might help the process, but I'll play and enjoy a linear story quite cheerfully.

I agree that the presidential advisors are certainly all over the map. Of course, our presidents don't illicit trust, either. That link is fascinating, Enoch.

I, for one, wish we didn't have joinable NPCs in any of the Fallout games and I pray to heaven that I'm not forced to have one in New Vegas. In fact, unless there is tactical reason to have a party, such as for a DnD based game, I don't want them at all. However, there will be joinable NPCs in New Vegas. We can be almost certain. For my part, I don't really care if they're included as long as I don't have to join with them. Failing that, I want them unobtrusive as possible. As for the linearity of the ultimate design, I believe all CRPGs are linear. Sure, they might include a bunch of side quests and areas. They might pull the ol' bait and switch. Still, there will be a main story and it will be linear. I'm demanding the illusion of non-linearity. I think they can escape non-linearity in the early game, but I just don't see how they can escape it in the late game. The balance, as I see it, is finding creative ways to hide linearity. Moreover, I thought Sawyer was talking about the difficulty of keeping the dialogue trees as compact as possible while still reflecting in-game events. That's tricky. I wonder what they'll do.

I hate to admit I've gotten a bit confused about the discussion. I don't think that Obsidian needs necessarily to go to a funneled story driven approach, although I'm sure pretty much all CRPGs end up there eventually. While they'll have to tighten up the ultimate bad guy, there is plenty of opportunity to create potential allies and enemies, especially in the early game. If they plan it right, then the effect the PC has on the landscape in the early game will still have consequences and will provide the underpinnings of the plot in the later game. On the other hand, aren't there things in real life that happen despite the best plans and are consequences of events outside our control? You eat healthy all your life, go to the doctor regularly, excercise faithfully, and you can still have a heart attack. You can involve yourself in any number of machiavelian plots, masterfully interweaving your schemes, only to have some event beyond your control throw all of them to hell. I can trust the design team to construct the end game boss and setting, but I just hope that they give us plenty of room to maneuver in the early and mid game. Then give some reasonable weight to our earlier decisions as we finish the story.

I loled at the teamspeak statement. Funny. Yeah, I get your point, though. Still, it would be great for a large scale world as presented by an MMO. Too bad about the MMO, though. The story really takes a dive once you're dealing with tons of players.

That is unfortunately true.

I would like a Call of Cthulu sort of MMORPG. Something like Mythos where folks go insane and whatnot. The 1920-1930s would be fine by me also. Either that or the modern paranormal that someone suggested up above.

The big thing about GWB is that he ran two successful campaigns for president. After invading Iraq and not finding WMD, he still pulled off a victory against a well funded opponent. Sure, folks can say that he was a puppet and whatnot. The bottom line is, he's the guy who got the team together and took the white house. I think he made some extremely bad decisions. On the other hand, I think that he also showed himself as one of the most disinterested politicians of modern times. This compares with the politician who governs by which way the polls blow. Bush had policies he believed were good and pushed them through, rather effectively, I might add, regardless of popularity. I don't think he looked particularly stupid. His actual looks weren't really any different than other politicians. His manner of speaking was southern and he fumbled words here and there. I've known honest to goodness nuclear scientists who sounded weird. When I say know, I mean met them personally and conversed. When I say sounded weird, I mean variation in accents and all sorts of stuff. Some of them even did stupid things. At the end of the day, though, I don't think it's a matter of intelligence. It's a matter of good policy. Since those play out long term, we have a while to wait before we see where it leads. My personal feeling is that he's been a fairly bad president, but that some of his policies might still work out in the end. If Iraq continues to work towards democracy and becomes a beacon of Islamic democracy in the middle east, then I think Bush will have earned a place near the head of the table in ranking US presidents.

The major portions of meaningful choices end game wise are front loaded? I don't mind that at all. Kind of sounds like the vignettes that Troika did for ToEE, only far more reaching. Actually, the idea encourages me to take a second look at Dragon Age. For my part, I still kind of like the idea of throwing a wrench in the works midgame. Have, oh, I don't know. Evil Santa chose this time to attack the NV area. The PCs choices up to now decide the shape of the factions, and so his meaningful decisions aren't completely tossed out the window. With the slate wiped clean, the PC now has an enemy. The only thing about that is that it doesn't leave a lot of time to develop the antagonist. EDIT: I don't care about the decisions regarding the Ant. being front loaded. I'm sure there will be plenty of other decisions throughout the game as well.

I agree with this whole heartedly. It's probably too soon to judge Bush. Just remember, bringing up Adams, that a lot of contemporary historians gave him little credit for his policies. In fact, history was relatively unkind to him until more recently. Now, of course, there is renewed interest in John Adams. Also, John Quincy, first because of his father and then because of his own talents, had impact on the national and international level before he became president in the first place. My attitude towards Carter has dwindled mightily over the years, but I can say that at least his desire to serve his country and fellow humanity has continued to be apparent. I disagree with most of his public actions in the political arena, either as president or after he left office, but there is little doubt that Carter tries his best to do the right thing. ...And maybe he'll get the John Adams treatment by history someday also. The thing to remember is that a lot of presidents do great things for their country that are obscured by the politics of the day. Bush is no differnt in that respect, so I expect that history will come to judge him fairly warmly. His mistakes will be the footnotes and his successes will be the story. I think he's an intelligent person but somewhat less than a genius. I agree with the fellow above who pointed out that some of the smartest people have been the worst politicians.

I think it's possible to provide a choice of protagonists and let the PC decide. However, It's impossible to let the PC choices drive the antagonist at this point. Maybe with better technology, but even then it would be tricky. The antagonist requires a certain level of dramatic development that is probably not attainable through Player choice. In my example, to which I cling out of lack of any better choice, the PC can decide to work for all the factions, be friendly with some, and actively ally with one. The PC might also decide to throw in entirely with one or actively strive hardest against another. He might also decide to be 'neutral,' for which he certainly deserves to be pilloried. Anyone one of the factions or a combination of them could serve to be the protagonist because the PC can create his own drama by investing himself in their continued success. However, because none of these factions is either dangerous or overtly evil enough to warrant strong antagonistic feelings in the player, the design team still needs to dish out some big and ugly. On the other hand, the exact nature of the final boss didn't become clear in FO 1-3 early. With the emphasis on exploration, the team can start with simple hints of a bad guy and let the PC discover more as the game progresses. Sadly, the player will still be funnelled down a set path to the final boss. Sure, there might be choices, but the PC must resolve the conflict with the antagonist in one way or another in order to create the ultimate climactic ending. I, for one, didn't think the ending of FO3 was bad because the final boss was weak. I'm tired of games where the value of the final boss in only measured by how irritated I am by the end of the final battle. What I found frustrating about the ending in FO3 was the choice at the very end, which I won't spoil here just in case. So, assuming someone like a good amount of exploration (not someone who rushes the crit path or meanders for 100 hours before even trying to find it in the first place), the first half of the game could be playing around with the factions, the next quarter could involve some experiences with the antagonist, and the final quarter could more or less be dedicated to resolving the conflict. Finally, maybe the design team could insert the PC in a fairly static environment with different faction, have him spend time there, and then have some dramatic event that completely changes the environment. That could not only screw with the PC world view and force him to reassess everything, but it would probably completely screw up the factions as well. EDIT: So, here I am cleaning up redundancies and correcting typos and I say to myself, "why do I care?" End of edit.

I don't think Avallone is the end all be all of CRPGs anyhow. Not that I like making comments to serve as sharkbait for fanboys, but he's a solid writer with some cache in the industry. His work is uneven, but I've had a lot of fun playing games he's done, so I guess I'm a fan. I was impressed with Gan a hell of a lot more than Kreia. Since Kreia is hugely popular, I guess the problem must be with me. As I get older, I lose patience with CRPGs because of the dialogue. Most of it isn't worth reading, so anything that cuts down on the amount of dialogue but still gets important story ideas to the player are good in my book.

That's funny. I was literally thinking of making that exact statement when I first read Morgoth's post. I was too lazy.

Rug?

Well, I'll gladly make you pay Tuesday for pissing me off today. lol Anyhow, I think the point about the outcasts is well made. The outcasts who spoke with the PC didn't make a very compelling case for their side. They didn't even try. Between the red/black power armor, their sneering contempt, and their overt hubris, the Outcasts might as well have snatched a glowing lightsaber, lifted a hand in front of the PC's face, and said that he'd failed them for the last time.

You know, I've never played Tactics. I should try it sometime. Still plugging along in Witcher. Very good game. I've been having a lot of fun. I have some complaints, but mostly I think they hit the nail on the head. Combat is not particularly difficult, but it's still fun. Respawns, the bane of CRPG existence, are a pain in my everloving backside. There are some continuity glitches in dialogue, but we've come to expect that as gamers, haven't we?

Frankly, my post are ponderously long and sometimes confusing. I wish I could restrain my more exhuberant impulses. Still, my posts also tend to be more strident than I feel. I'd like to figure out if this is feasible in the first place, assuming the design team is willing to give it a shot, which is unlikely. Increasingly, I believe there is no chance in hell that we're going to get anything even resembling the Jefferson faction system soon.

Yes, I think the consequences should be big. However, I think the text need not be so. Maybe a state checking for floating text. Some time ago, while I was lurking around here or maybe some other board, I saw a post by Sawyer saying that a very small amount of floating text could properly convey an idea outside of dialogue. Also, I think consequences should be apparent and could be handled... procedurally? I think that's what they call it when the program handles something instead of forcing the design team to script that specific event. For example, if the PC (et al) destroy the source of the monster infestation, there will be no more respawning monsters in a specific area. That's a huge consequence in terms of gameplay. ...Or the PC does something that hurts trade. His consequence might be to lessen the amount and quality of goods available for trade. The design team can't avoid bifurcation in the dialogue trees. I'm just trying to figure out ways that they could keep it down to a manageable level while still convey meaningful consequences.

I first had sushi in Korea. They called it something different entirely, and I was confused when someone took me out to try sushi and I discovered I'd had it. There is a huge variety in what we call Sushi, but I can never remember all of the proper names. My brother came out of Vegas today and went to a southern style BBQ place. Let me tell you, it doesn't compare to actually having Southern BBQ in the south! I'm just getting old. If I stuff myself these days, the pounds stick to my bones and I tend to feel bloated and ill. Damn it! I want to be 18 where I can eat like a starving pig every day and still weigh less than 200 pounds at 6'2".