Jump to content

Kate_wise

Members
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Kate_wise

  1. I don't want rape, incest, child killings, etc for the sake of having them. I do want the devs to be free to put them in if they serve the story.

     

    A Song of Ice and Fire (A Game of Thrones) is a good example.

     

    I agree (and particularly the ASoIaF ref) ... I chose the second option in the vote. I feel like these elements should be present in the world. I think if you limit what can exist and go on in the world then you also undermine the representations of good and evil struggles (and inner struggles). It's almost disingenuous to have some evil behaviours represented and not others - it makes the world less realistic with less serious consequences. One of the reasons I respect Game of Thrones / ASoIaF is that war is represented properly - as a horrible, terrible thing that changes people, changes the world, leads to some awful actions. To have a world where battle and fighting is only presented as glorious or good vs evil ('look out they are trying to destroy the world in an abstract way') would be disappointing and difficult for me to feel emotionally involved. To have the full range of good and bad consequences to events in this world, along with its psychological implications and the motivations it leads to, is what I would look for, anyway.

     

    That said, I have chosen option two because I believe (similar again to Game of Thrones), horrific extremes should be implied rather than explicit. It's going to be isometric so let's face it - it will all be conveyed by text. We don't need that kind of explicit detail.

  2. The issue of a "morality system" and "companion relationship" counters are really two different questions -- one talks about how you actually are and one talks about what your companions think of you. I've fanatsized about quite complex systems in the past, involving 5 different measures, all independent:

     

    * "Reputation": This is what the "general public" thinks of you (vs. the morality of the region that you are in -- likely "good")

    * "Morality": This is what an omnicient diety would think of you, vs. his / her morality (almost certainly "good")

    * "Likeability": On a per companion basis, this is how much the part member likes you. It goes up when you do things that they agree with without prompting, and down when you do things that they don't like.

    * "Respect": On a per companion basis, this is how much the party member respects you. It goes up when you do things that they don't agree with, but you convince them it is the right thing to do -- it goes down when you start to do something that they don't like, but stop when they protest.

     

    "Reputation" is what determines the prices you get / whether ot not the guards attack you / etc.

    "Morality" is used to determine what power / abilities you are are offered, and (ideally) what dialog options / quests you see (if you aren't already dark, you can't see the "most dark" options, for example).

    "Likeability" determines if a party member is loyal -- if they hate your guts, then they may leave, be less effective, or generally not be helpful.

    "Respect" determines if a party member can be corrupted / redeemed (or otherwise changed -- for example, changing a class) -- if you can consistantly convince a companion to substitute your judgement in favor of their own, it is a short step to changing their judgement so that you agree.

     

    With all of that being said, though, I don't think this system is a good fit for a "mass market" RPG -- it is probably more appropiate for something like a visual novel or "Choice of..." game. To make it work, you would end up branching each and every companion at least once, and possibly several times, and having to deal with all the potential combinations that might be in the party at one time (for banters / interjections). That's way, way, too much work unless the whole point of the game is a relationship simulator, and I don't think PE is going that far in favor of "deep companions"... :)

     

    Aww... the forum tells me I've used up my quota of 'likes' for today... I should stop being so agreeable.

     

    I like this suggestion you've had, and just to elaborate - the reputation should be national, regional and by faction too. Very complicated I guess but we can dream!

  3. Every backer has his own opinion about what should be implemented and what not. Romances seem to be quite a demanded feature,

     

    There are 36,000 backers at the moment. Your lucky if there are 20-40 people posting about romances.

     

    the game appeal to modern audience perspective it doesn't seem to be a complete waste of resources.

     

    The whole point of PE is to be an old school RPG. Which interests those that liked the old school rpg.

     

    The devs do heavily mentioned the Baldur's Gate series and PS:T when they talk about their plans and vision for the project. Interesting character interactions, including romance, was one of the reasons, in my opinion (and yes, it is only my opinion!), why these were popular.

     

    I understand your concern about distribution of resources but for me, I'd say well-written immersive character interaction is something I hope for in this project as it really breathes life into the world you are exploring. Romance is a part of that and can create some interesting situations and increase player-connection to characters. By all means, not every companion should be a romanceable, but having charisma, flirtation and establishing alliances and connections would be a great thing to explore in this project, particularly when connected to the ideas of factions, etc.

     

    It's true there are only however many people posting about romances in these forums but please don't use this as a way to back up your argument, because most of the 36,000 backers in general are not here on the forum. I would say you can't really argue that any opinion is more commonly held just because it is expressed here.

     

    I also just think it's amazing that there are 36,000 backers so quickly, and that they probably span across a lot of different game preferences but united by the inspiration kindled in the idea of going back to isometric. Hurrah!

    • Like 1
  4. Yeah, I completely understand the need to not be too specific when it comes to the 'stretch goals' but I think a lot of people are getting the wrong idea that the margin of money between each stretch *only* pays for what you have specified in the goal, which I know to not be the case as is pinned at the top of the forum.

     

    I think it's absolutely incredible what you are trying to get together, and I can understand the dilemma you probably faced at the beginning about what to put as the initial starting funding money.

  5. Just taking the Baldur's Gate mod, Virtue, that was trying to put another spin on morality/social perception. I liked the idea that they split it into two: reputation and virtue... I have a feeling that as mentioned above, because there will be some kind of 'soul system', there may be a split similar to this.

     

    I like when your actions have consequences within the game. Make someone too angry thru action or dialogue and they won't deal with you anymore, or having to choose sides in some faction/group conflict. And I do like it when having charisma or charm skills or even what I'm wearing (a uniform, badge) etc. can be influential in some way during a conversation/situation.

     

    What I don't like, however, is when you're playing, say, a Thief, who successfully steals items when no one is looking ... and somehow everyone everywhere still automatically knows you've done wrong and your rep goes down or whatever. Or in terms of alignment in some games - the notion that everyone I meet will magically know what "alignment" I am upon first sight, before I've even opened my mouth, always feels a bit silly.

     

     

    I really like this idea (and the uniforms, etc) in relation to reputation. Having an 'outer face' that can work well for more intelligent evil/selfish types as well as the virtuous, and then contrasting this with an inner 'soul' facet. Through 'strong soul' deeds such as standing up to injustice, not caving into cowardly actions, striving to prevent wrongdoing you can have a soul that gains extra powers... or perhaps these could be split a bit too, so that you can get an jaded or cynical kind of character whose soul strength then lies in 'mental powers' as they are best a being rational and logical.

     

    Having 'evil' deeds that may be interesting or have their own rewards but corrupt your soul - perhaps making it weaker but also imbuing your soul with 'tainted powers' and abilities to corrupt others as well...

     

    Hmm! Rambling as usual.

     

    There could also maybe be a limit to how corrupted your soul gets before your reputation in certain factions/ with the general populace (ie citizens) declines regardless of how intelligent and how manipulative you can be, because the 'taint' starts affecting you too outwardly, perhaps damaging your charisma. Ie. characters can sense your corrupted soul or can see it in your eyes.

     

    On the flip side, if you have a strong soul, through pure good deeds ,etc, than a more Paladin-esque soul ability like being able to detect/evaluate someone's soul would be an interesting ability and could help solving quests in another way to spying/coercion/errand-running ,etc. Call it 'Insight' or something?

     

    I'm off on tangents again... :)

  6. I think romance can be good if it's done right. I'm not particular fond of choosing certain dialogue trees and bam instantly that character is in love with me. It's like playing Sims and you just chat chat, flirt flirt, hug, massage, then woohoo. It's not a very realistic take on romance and why most players are turned off by it. I think if there is a romance it should be surrounded by an event, and an opportunity arises which lead to feelings. Perhaps the character and the love interest is stuck by themselves somewhere and gone through some sort of hardship that may lead to mutual feelings. Maybe a character's sidequest and a particular decision lead to it. Perhaps like a hard mode to a side quest. Of course it should be absolutely optional.

     

    Yes! I like the idea that different romances only open up through your responses to certain quests, or perhaps your alliance to a certain faction (if for example you ally yourself with the city guard then that leads you to have a one-to-one chat /encounter with an NPC that leads to greater intimacy than if you only encounter them 'outside the faction'.

     

    As long as it's well written, makes sense, does not take away from the story or characters I'm all for it.

     

    Also options like harlots, certain major characters maybe getting feelings for the PC ect would be nice if also done right, but again either do it well or don't do it at all. PS:T, BG2 and DAO(to an extent, the approval system kinda muddled it up a bit) did it very well.

     

    Absolutely - I think the fact that major characters could have feelings for the PC, including just being attracted to the NPC which would make them behave more nicely or give information more freely, etc would be great. Ways in which the NPC can use flirting and charisma as part of his/her repertoire... Again this always also connects to friendships and rivalries, etc. I'm sure a lot of us would appreciate the immersion that being able to form alliances, romances, flirtations and social manipulations lends to a game.

  7. I like the idea of having a spectrum of lawful versus lawless/rebellious and then another spectrum that is more altruistic/empathetic versus selfish/ ends oriented. Sometimes the end-game part is less of an interest to me than how one gets there... for example within quests, are you able to uncover the information through subterfuge/charisma or through spying/ thief work or through bullying the weaker or through using the law to search a place, etc, etc. I like the idea that although perhaps solving most quests ends in the same way, the method of solving them (and thus the time taken/the difficulty/the effort involved) is variable.

     

    If you need to investigate a particular house for example, intimidation could be the easiest route, but if they are innocent is this the most moral way? No. Breaking in and spying is perhaps less amoral because you are looking for evidence first but obviously you are breaking rules and invading someone's privacy. However, choosing the most 'moral route' of gaining a search warrant or similar may not be possible (and this could open possibilities of developing a relationship with the law-enforcing faction, where if you have helped with other law enforcement you are more likely to be assisted in other quests with legal back-up).

     

    Instead of having necessarily much of a different end-result as variable, you can have a reward in relation to less-effort completing the quest; gaining more skills in your thievery (and perhaps actually getting to the bottom of the investigation); gaining more trust within a law-enforcement faction, etc... Doe this make sense? I am babbling a bit!

     

    I also love the possibility that @duskwind suggested that a betrayal of a companion (or even just failing to win them over) ends up with them turning up at various points and 'messing' with your plans. Again it doesn't require a divergence in plot, but just a complication perhaps...

     

    Or you could have a quest where for example there are a string of murders and if you have developed a relationship to a particular NPC you become aware of the murders earlier or have access to more clues earlier which means that you manage to stop them resulting in fewer deaths. (Maybe this could be one of the contingencies to calculate whether or not you solve the quest before a major player (like a Lord or something) that will actually affect the plot is killed).

     

    Oooh sorry just the idea of having intertwined and meaningful consequences really gets me thinking!

     

    Also some more political manoeuvrability in the fashion that Dragon Age 2 was *attempting* would be fantastic and may be where some of the development is headed if they have factions, etc! I think Game of Thrones/ A song of ice and fire can be a source of a lot of inspiration, particularly for examples of greyscale decisions where none of the choices are obvious or where choices have veiled consequences.

     

    Okay ramble over for now! :)

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...