Crusty

Regenerating stamina. Unfortunately.

The big disconnect I'm finding with the pro-romancers here is that many of you probably share my stance in principle, but arguing for romances as a game feature in practice. "It adds to companion depth" "It adds to interaction" "It adds to roleplaying decisions" Whether or not this is the case, the prism you're viewing romance is as a game feature. Regardless of whether it would make sense for the characters, make sense for the narrative, or make sense for the themes. The reason why even people who are anti-romance like the way they were handled in Planescape: Torment was because they were woven into the core narrative themes of the game. Romances were used as a storytelling device. Not as a "let's make characters deep by letting you enter into a relationship with them" device. It's why I throw terms around like "wish fulfillment" and other people resort to the "dating sim" argument. Because when you try to argue for romances as a game feature, you inevitably follow the mindset wherein romance is the end goal, not the means. And why would romance be the end goal? To provide the player the satisfaction of fulfilling a romantic fantasy within the context of the game. Wish fulfillment. I mean, there was that guy earlier talking about how romances should be more naturalised in PE and then got a laundry list of Dating Sim gameplay features, with several pro-romancers nodding your heads going "good post!" I really do hope people get what I'm trying to say here, because I'm not even against the concept of romance for PE. Though, I suspect I'll just get the usual "lol forever alone" or "you must hate love" or "but romance is in 90% of mature stories" retorts.

Geez, and people get offended when the dating sims line gets thrown around. Reads like a feature list for Love Plus or School Days or other games like it. Also, rape? Really?

Planescape: Torment had 2 possible romances with companions and one in the past (with Deionarra). Yes, but the romances served a thematic and narrative purpose, they weren't there so players could "roleplay" shacking up with their party members. Which has been my entire point ever since getting into this debate. When people go "I want romances because they let me roleplay" or "they mean deep character interaction", they're arguing for romance as a game feature and as a wish fulfillment fantasy, not as a natural extension of a game's narrative themes. I'm against that shallowness.

No to experimentation! No to fixing that is not broken! No to changes for the sake of change! Do not forget basis of Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale and Planescape Torment. Just put all your effort to story, fine-tuning and quality control. Then why are you arguing for a game feature not present in Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale and Planescape: Torment? (I'm being just a little facetious since he obviously means BG + BG 2, not just BG. BG 2 had romance, but essentially 4 out of 5 IE games did not feature a player interactive romantic subplot focused on wish fulfillment with companions out of the box)

You know, I had not considered this and it's a good point. Considering Obsidian's limited budget and timetable, it might be difficult to accomodate both. How about a compromise, then? Romance for low INT characters only.

If we have a "How to survive sleeping with Cadegund" thread, I think we can get a permanent moratorium on romance threads. Get cracking.

I'm just going to copy-paste my thoughts in the other thread. I need to regen my stamina before I'm comfortable with re-engaging in a romance thread. ------------- The kind of love and romance we've seen guys like Avellone and Ziets provide in games like PS:T, KotOR 2 and Mask of the Betrayer seem adequate to me. There is love in there, just not in typical video game romance fashion. Kreia's love for the Exile, for example. I like Avellone's stance in that everything regarding characters and writing ought to have some sort of narrative or thematic drive and purpose. If love or friendship is apart of that, then fine. But the notion that we ought to be having romances for the sake of having them, or that it makes characters "deeper" is the same kind of mindset that gets us BioWare romances. I'm not saying that romances in games always end up in the sexual wish fulfillment direction theirs do. They don't. But the motives for having romances is critical in how they are implemented into the game. In the case of "I like romances and they should be in because it means deeper character interaction", we're arguing for romances as a game feature, not as a narrative or thematic hook. That encourages the kind of stuff we see in BioWare games where the ability to romance a variety of characters becomes more important than the character themselves. Romances as game feature. Romances as sexual wish fulfillment. Let's not even get into the "game has limited resources and Obsidian's "15 person team" is going to be in full crunch mode for ~18 months to get this done as it is" argument.

Actually yes, cause love - is one of the core emotional things in this world. Only 'foreveralone' guys don't understand this. There are many forms of love. Love of family, love of country, etc. To shoehorn the concept of love as purely a sexual or romantic gesture, I think, is very sad.

You know, I never thought about it before. But I hope Dragon Age 3 is a resounding success for it's fanbase and provides them entertainment with the base game, DLCs (both single and multi player) and expansion packs, for years and years to come.

That is great and all, but you've simulatenously missed my point and proven it at the same time. Maybe you should read it again. You're arguing for romances not because they have any specific narrative or thematic importance, but as a game feature for the purposes of wish fulfillment. Also, you're confusing plot with narrative thematics. Whereas games are able to have non-linear plots unlike the layout of typical films, the prevailing themes of a game's narrative can still be present regardless of plot divergence and player initiative. An example: Planescape: Torment.

I have absolutely no doubts that due to the lack of information on how the system actually works, Shrek brings up some very valid points and concerns regarding how the Health/Stamina system will be implemented. Still... Darklands is Mass Effect 3.

The kind of love and romance we've seen guys like Avellone and Ziets provide in games like PS:T, KotOR 2 and Mask of the Betrayer seem adequate to me. There is love in there, just not in typical video game romance fashion. Kreia's love for the Exile, for example. I like Avellone's stance in that everything regarding characters and writing ought to have some sort of narrative or thematic drive and purpose. If love or friendship is apart of that, then fine. But the notion that we ought to be having romances for the sake of having them, or that it makes characters "deeper" is the same kind of mindset that gets us BioWare romances. I'm not saying that romances in games always end up in the sexual wish fulfillment direction theirs do. They don't. But the motives for having romances is critical in how they are implemented into the game. In the case of "I like romances and they should be in because it means deeper character interaction", we're arguing for romances as a game feature, not as a narrative or thematic hook. That encourages the kind of stuff we see in BioWare games where the ability to romance a variety of characters becomes more important than the character themselves. Romances as game feature. Romances as sexual wish fulfillment. Let's not even get into the "game has limited resources and Obsidian's "15 person team" is going to be in full crunch mode for ~18 months to get this done as it is" argument.

That's only if a) combat and gameplay has no bearing on narrative and the general experience (i.e has no worth outside of XP) and b) combat is not fun/engaging. Also, minimising trash mobs is rarely a bad idea. I'm still thinking there will be (or should be) a variety of "challenges" similar to New Vegas which are mostly combat oriented that serve as milestones which will grant players XP and Perks or bonuses outside of quests and task. i.e: Killing a Dragon, clearing out a deadly non-plot related mine, slaughtering an indiscrimate number of wolves, drenching your sword arm with the blood of X enemies, etc.

What made the Stamina/Health system so well designed in Darklands was that they were actually your Attributes in Endurance and Strength. The Attributes were used for a variety of mechanics, such as encumbrance, weapon requirements and the like. It was a system in which getting hurt meant more than decreasing numbers, it also affected your ability to be effective. There were several levels of encumbrance, reducing your Agility and your Attack Speed, while Strength modified your ability to wield weapons effectively (like in Fallout). The end result was a system that was able to accurately simulate the effects of getting injured and/or fatigued without having having to create additional systems (ala Dragon Age's crappy injury system). The beauty of it was in how everything was interrelated and how well it was geared towards simulation. That's why regeneration works. Because Health/Stamina are more than just numbers, the influence those stats carry goes far beyond whether a character is alive, unconscious, or dead. Over time, you regained Endurance and Strength. You healed from injuries and from fatigue. As you regained Strength and Endurance, the burdens of carrying your equipment were not as debilitating. Your ability to wield weapons with the same force as before your injuries returned. MicroProse knew exactly what the **** they were doing when they made Darklands. I certainly hope that Josh Sawyer puts the same kind of thought into the systems of Project Eternity as the ones that were in Darklands. But if there's a developer outside the original team who I'd trust to get it done, it would be Sawyer. But for those of you who are potting it as "instant regen" or "health jr." or "streamlining" or some such nonsense, I suggest you actually play and understand the game he references as inspiration before you make such off the mark statements.

Fallout: New Vegas has a set of challenges that are mostly combat oriented (but also include non-combat activities) that reward the player XP (and sometimes Perks) when they carry out an activity a certain amount of times. i.e Kill 100 Super Mutants. Why not have a variant of that to supplement the goal-oriented XP system (which I support)?

I think you're misunderstanding him. To clarify JE Sawyer's comments, Darklands doesn't regenerate Endurance naturally during combat IIRC. What he could be referring to is the rate of which Endurance recovers over Strength when using potions like Essence 'o' Graces. Strength is what he calls as Health, btw. i.e You have 10 END and 10 STR, using 1 EoG restores 3 STR, but 7 END. What happens is that after combat encounters, your party regenerates a large amount of endurance lost and a small amount of health. These values vary from encounter to encounter, but it's instantaneous, not over time. This happens just before and after you get into the loot menu to share the spoils of battle. It's an abstract way of communicating to the player a small period in which the party is able to plunder the stuffs of fallen foes, escape the vicinity, receive thanks from innocent bystanders and/or reflect on the events that had occurred. Time also passes in these events, meaning that a 2-3 minute battle could end up being a 3 hour period in-game. Basically, it's the unseen 2h and 57m where the regeneration happens. Because Darklands handles most of it's interactions in a menu based CYOA-esque system, the entire process is abstract. It's the same out of combat as well. Navigating around the city assumes that you wouldn't be sprinting all around town, so by taking things as a slow/steady pace, you would regain your END/stamina. This is also true for world travel/exploration. Health can also regenerate during all of this, but it's at a much less lower rate. I assume that the reasoning behind it is that your character naturally heals from injuries over time (I believe regenerating STR is linked to your Healing skills). Then there's also camping/the Inn where you can spend a full in-game day resting, regaining STR, earning moniez, foraging for food/guarding camp, making potions, etc. It might sound a bit cheap, but the reality is we're talking about traversing a quarter of the overworld map to regenerate 5-10 STR which can be lost in a single encounter with wild boars. And as for camping, it's not like rest spam because the entire gameworld operates with time in mind. Your characters get older (and weaker if they're at a certain age), many story events and quests also are limited by time. i.e High Sabbats. Camp spamming to fully regen after every encounter is not a viable strategy, because there are consequences for doing so. (In addition to the above, camping has a risk of hostile encounters which goes up every time you camp in the same area) What he's thinking about is probably not running around in circles to regen END/HP, or having them regen in combat (that would be stupid IMO). But something similar in terms of making it abstract. Perhaps Fast Travelling to a District on the other side of the City would take several hours and offer the group some regeneration of their END, for example. Or on the larger scale, something like taking a boat to another city.

It could be put in the Expert Mode as an optional feature. Besides, Obsidian isn't planning to do a 1:1 replication of the IE games. You only have to look at the Cooldowns debate to see that. r00fles!

Basically, yes. My suggestions speak to two different things. The first is that certain types of environments would place burdens (or benefits) on all actors (party and NPCs) in a way that makes sense and adds for variety of gameplay experience. I'm not talking specifically about dynamic weather, although that would be nice too. rjshae's idea of having weather conditions affect things like FoW is also an element that comes to mind. Perhaps not as in weather, but a marsh or swamp area would be damp, dark and foggy. That would certainly influence FoW/LoS. If you're going to scale PE's version of Mt. Everest, you ought to prepare accordingly. The second suggestion is to implement some level of destructible and interactive environment. This would help broaden party tactics and encourage thinking that is less direct and more "out of the box". Destructible environments could also play a role in puzzles and exploration, hence my example about burning thick vines and discovering a secret path in the forest. Now I don't think both ideas are likely to make it in, or are a necessary addition, the first idea could comfortably be put into Expert Mode instead of something all players should have to deal with. But I do think both ideas would make the game more enjoyable.

I was reading Tim Cain's Q&A on Reddit today and this quote stuck out in particular: It got me thinking, well, maybe spells can combine, but what about with the maps and environment? I'm not necessarily talking about Silent Storm level of destructible environment, but wouldn't it be fun if the environment played an effect in how you played the game and you could use your abilities/spells to manipulate it for better or worse? What if you were in a mountainous region of the gameworld? Temperatures are freezing cold, the wind chilly and the snow becoming more and more bothersome. It stands to reason that your party (and any enemies) would have to deal with the environment as much as each other and plan accordingly. Fire spells become ineffective, frost spells become more deadly. Fatigue wastes away much quicker, movement speed is slower and abilities that focus on conservation of movement/energy become much more useful. Beyond environmental effects, there's also potential for having environments that interact better with certain types of souls, as well as having environmental interaction have involvement in combat and puzzles. Using physical abilities to demolish small fences and walls, hurting enemies on the other side and/or creating tactical openings. Using fire spells to clear thick shrubs and vines in a forest and discovering a secret path, etc etc. It's not high up on my list of priorities, but I think it would be a very enjoyable and interesting aspect to add to the game. Any thoughts?

I think a lot of personality can be handled naturally through the game mechanics rather than complete pre-fab plotlines. Like, when you create characters, there would be a variety of traits you can choose from which effects their behaviour and AI. A curiosity trait that causes NPCs to run and open chests when they see it unless ordered to hold (and get hit by traps). A kleptomanic trait that has party members steal from others (Wasteland had this dynamic IIRC). And the like. To me though, the flaw with the OP's idea is that the plotlines would have to be repeatable or handled procedurally. It's impossible to have each story scripted like normal story branches as there are potentially/presumably an unlimited amount of characters that can be created with the Adventurer's Hall. Add to that, I just don't think it's a good use of resources. As long as you can create characters from scratch, that's all that matters.

The war. Give me a break. War. War never changes.

What a weird thread.