[Debate/Discussion as a Combat System (Mages/Intellectual PC)]

I want this BADLY.

[Mature themes you'd like to see in the game]

Actually, what I wouldn't like is trying to incorporate everything from this thread into the game. Choose one theme (or maybe a couple, like suffering and the nature of belief in PST) and explore it thoroughly. With that I can allow for a lot of different topics. You have souls? Right, let it be the "you're a nice guy born with a lousy soul, what do you do" thing. It's not the most interesting thing in the world for me, but it'll work if discussed in detail.

[Mature themes you'd like to see in the game]

• What makes a person. Not "an accomplished person", but — what is the essense of human being. Also, general "philosophy".
  
• Gods. How do you even live in a world with gods? Like, you may be the paragon of virtue, but some haloed **** decides that you don't suit their plans, and bang! You're dead! How do you deal with it?
  
• Come to think of it, it works without gods too. You can walk the street and be hit in the head by a brick. Randomly. No one cares if you're good or bad, it's pure chance. How do you live with that?
  
• No good, no evil, lose-lose situations. Grey and grey morality. You know the drill.
  
• Also what I'd really love to see is the invocation of the "good job breaking it hero" trope. A typical PRG hero rushes into the action and offers to help the matters even if he wasn't invited. I'd like to see him do it and make the situation worse because he doesn't really understant its subtleties. That can also be the source of the main conflict!
  

[What do you wish not to see in PE]

• No (Persuade) button. If I'm persuading, write the text option persuasively, dammit! And don't indicate that I'm using the skill, I think I can figure it out.
  
• No cliche-breaking which is cliche in itself, like Brienne-like tough paladinish chicks.
  
• No cliches, by the way.
  
• No tediuous micromanagement for the sake of "realism".
  
• No general two-sided conflict. Storylines with two parties opposed are fine, but the main story has to be a bit more complex.
  
• No infodumping where possible.
  

[Update #10: Characteriztion with Chris Avellone]

Will I be the first to point out that OH MY YOUR KEYLEE AND JAYNE FIGURES ARE SO NICE? Well, they are. Happy birthday.

[Update #10: Characteriztion with Chris Avellone]

Happy birthday Chris!

 

I agree on all your points except for ego-stroking the player. I'd strongly argue that your party members always fawning over you is a horribly boring idea mostly used by most crappy RPGs Characters who you have to earn their respect and friendship or characters that can lie, manipulate, or hold information from you are far more interesting; it makes them more like real characters with their own motivations and desires instead of just being wish-fulfillment mindless sycophants that follow you around for little reason. For example, one of the best twists of Planescape: Torment was that Morte and Dak'kon were both lying to you the entire time. Also Ignus and Vhailor were interesting in part because to keep them in your team you have to pretty much lie to them because they utterly hate you but don't recognize who you are. Games need to betray or twist player trust like that more often because due to the interactivity of the medium it's more of an emotional gut punch to have a character that you believed to be a trusted ally turn out to have been using you the entire time. Bioshock is also another great example to this, so much so that it wouldn't work nearly as well in any other medium.

 

I'm hoping you guys steer way from such pandering pap because you've all proven that you make characters far better than that.

I think you've missed the point.

 

Ego-stroking (the player, not the character!) doesn't have to be positive. Morte lied to you because all his guilt, all his non-life was bound to yours and he wanted to stay with you. Ignus nearly worshipped you previously, thus being so easily manipulated into attacking you, the master who didn't love his best student as mach as the latter wanted. Vhalor dedicated both his life and afterlife to judging you. All that is ego-stroking at its best, it's what makes you the main character: you are important to them, and they show it. No one said anything about this affection having to be love and general cheering.

 

This is better shown on Annah's example, I believe. She contempted you, and what did it turn into? Right. All strong emotions blend together somewhat on a certain level. But would that be ego-stroking the player without the romance? Yup, still would be. 'Cause she contempted you, you personally, and that made you special. I think that's what Chris is talking about.

[How old is everyone?]

22.

I think my avatar says it all. Planescape: Torment.

(My second favourite game is actually Pathologic, which you can argue is sorta RPG-ish.)

[What makes a villain you love to hate?]

eh? you don't think that ps:t and motb had primary antagonists? regardless, one o' the big flaws o' motb were that most folks did not give a damn 'bout the antagonist. and please note that ps:t had a specific protagonist... which were a frequent complaint btw. "story is the story" is... meaningless. make observation that eternity is a game that will have a story is far more significant. as a game, you necessarily needs to accommodate gameplay, yes? this is why there is almost invariably a confrontation with the UBG (ultimate bad guy) that allows player to overcome via gameplay. ask chrisA... he has noted that story takes a backseat to gameplay on more than one occasion.

 

doesnt matter if you talking donkey kong or ps:t 'cause you is still finding yourself leaping over barrels/obstacles to reach a final confrontation with the ubg.

Technically PS:T did have an antagonist, but your confrontation was not with him, but with the world and with yourself. The challenge and the story come from two facts: a) everyone around you is completely nuts, and you get to choose whether to bring some order and peace to this chaos or to embrace it, b) there's a mystery drama going on about your past, and you get to solve it. Personally, my main confrontation was with said mystery. It drove my desire to keep playing. Would I be disappointed if the big boss was not a charater but an interactive thing, sensory-stone-like? If well-written, not a single bit. To me, the highest point of the game wasn't even him, it was talking to your incarnations. And it's not him you overcome in the end.

 

So yeah. The confrontation and the main character's development are important. Tying them to a single bad guy? It's one possible way to go, but not the most interesting one — IMHO.

[What makes a villain you love to hate?]

on the other hand, obsidian/bis best antagonist... wasn't. ravel/mebbeth/kreia/etc has all been variations of the same character, and all has been the player's protector and guide as much as an antagonist. bestest obsidian/bis character has appeared in all their games, and we hope this continues with eternity. doesn't need be main antagonist.... but it wouldn't be a bad idea neither.

That's actually a great thing! I'm a fan of the idea that Kreia is also Ravel (I also find her in other games, not necessarily Obsibian/BI, but that's just me). I think including Ravel once again would be an awesome thing, althougn more like an inside joke, so she really shouldn't be the main antagonist. Just, you know, a character.

[What makes a villain you love to hate?]

Nope, I think you did If a conflict is real, no one really creates it, it arises itself from a complex set of differences among various worldviews. Someone can trigger it, true, but it doesn't even have to be the antagonist. Frankly, I prefer PS:T-type villains, who didn't even do anything wrong, but the protagonist simply had to go (no hard feelings!), or maybe Firefly-type villains, who are also not really villains, but simply represent a different worldview. And I would definitely love a game where the conflict is created by the protagonist (once again, see PS:T).

I get what your say but your view is more applicable to a real life scenario than an actual story, because its the conflict that drives the villain and therefore the story. But within the confines of a simple three stages story structure its the villain that initiates the conflict. PS:T is a great example of a story without a main villain, although you could argue that the nameless one was the villain since his actions initiated the conflict and he is also the main antagonist.

So... I'm confused. You agree that it is possible to have a story without the main villain (PS:T being an example), but you don't want it? Why?

 

Motivations aside though, I think that is that the problem is writers that confuse relatable with apologetic, I prefer my villains to be consistent in their personalities.

P.S: I think I would like a pacifist antagonist if I get the chance to play as an evil overlord.

True. Relatable ≠ apologetic, and deep ≠ whiny. Well, once again it's simple the matter of good writing.

 

As for your PS: it's about personal preferences, but that's not what I meant. I think it would be rather nice for the character to be an ordinary adventurer with a medieval set of morals (like "it's ok to kill a bandit without judge and jury"), and for the villain to be just the guy with a modern one, who is horrified by the protagonist, although he does nothing over the top. I think any adventurer is a criminal from a moredn point of view; such a clash of morals would be a fun thing to play. Sut that's just an idea.

[What makes a villain you love to hate?]

but without the main villain, would we even be out on our adventure?

See, it's the point where writing is needed — to ensure the protagionist has stuff to do in the world apart from his confrontation with the main villain. If the villain's the only reason for the main character to start acting, the latter is somewhat bland, don't you think?

[What makes a villain you love to hate?]

I think you got that backwards there alphyna, is the protagonist that is bound to the villain because it is the villain that creates the conflicts and drives the story forward.

Nope, I think you did If a conflict is real, no one really creates it, it arises itself from a complex set of differences among various worldviews. Someone can trigger it, true, but it doesn't even have to be the antagonist. Frankly, I prefer PS:T-type villains, who didn't even do anything wrong, but the protagonist simply had to go (no hard feelings!), or maybe Firefly-type villains, who are also not really villains, but simply represent a different worldview. And I would definitely love a game where the conflict is created by the protagonist (once again, see PS:T).

 

Personally I don't much care for the views of antagonists, they are often destructive of the character if done improperly.

One more reason to do them properly, eh? Non-destructive, say? It's actually the adventuring party who slaughters monsters and, well, everything that moves. Give me the pacifist villain who wants to stop the main character because he goddamn murders people!

[Monsters! What makes them interesting and unique.]

It's hard to argue with the OP's post: creatures' abilities should be unique and diverse. That almost goes withowt question.

 

However, I'm tempted to answer not the post, but the topic. What makes monsters interesting and unique? Well, they're not ogres, wraiths and succubi. They are something new, original and only partly predictable due to properties they share with well-known DnD creatures. Also you learn about their strenghs and weaknesses while talking to NPCs. Yeah.

[Let's name this game.]

Simplicity is best so I'd suggest going for "The Watcher".

 

Then you could have the sequel be "The Watcher 2: Slaughterers of Souls".

Totally not confused with The Witcher by virtually everyone.

[Let's name this game.]

Anything without the word "soul".

 

There's also a funny pattern: all my favourite games (well, all two) tend to have a punctuation mark in the middle. So for PE to become one of my favourites it has to be Project: Eternity, which looks stupid.

 

Erm. Project! Eternity.

Yeah, that'll do.

[In-Game Tutorial]

wait, a tutorial button the main menu would bother you? that's...strange. last time I went for an adventure I don't remember going through a menu first. actually, I would take a GPS with me so that's not even true

Well, not bother as in "never gonna buy this game". Bother as in "this game doesn't entirely suit my obscure preferences". It won't make it unenjoyable, just a bit less-than-perfect for me. It's a subtle thing.

 

In other news, shutting up now.

[How should the UI look?]

While other options are aesthetical, what I need is a transparent and detailed mini-map. I'm a moron and can't walk two steps without it.

[In-Game Tutorial]

ideally, wouldn't we want "them" to play this game and like it so games like this can start being made with regularity again?

Absolutely, but not at the cost of boring "us" out of our minds.

A separate tutorial would work just fine, I suppose. It's just that they seem so... artificial.

but it almost has to be there. This style of game is very complicated compared to what the average gamer plays. There are lots of buttons, lots of numbers and lots of decisions to make. Make it separate or let us skip it. We will never be bored once.

We're discussing two separate issues here.

 

1. Tutorials in general. *sigh* I know it's unavoidable, but can I have my dream of a NON-TUTORING HEARTLESS DEATH MACHINE, please? It's just a dream, after all.

 

2. A separate-button tutorial. While this option makes perfect sense, I don't like it aesthetically. It just screams HEY WE'RE PLAYING A GAME HERE and breaks my immersion. Does it matter if this option is the best from more sensible points of view? No. Can I please shut up? Probably, but ain't it engaging to talk?

[In-Game Tutorial]

 

You're missing a critical point: Obsidian is not profiting off the Kickstarter. Their entire hope for a franchise, the future, is riding on this KS-funded being successful on the market to fund further games and nifty things. This cannot be done if the game is not reasonably accessible. Most if not all the hardcore old-school gamers have already popped in here--this isn't going to really take off unless new gamers are brought in to enjoy the intellectual and immersive depth of the old-school iso CRPG.

No, I'm not. Kickstarter aside, no game (no anything, for that matter) can appeal to everyone. It's a matter of choosing between something more accessible, yet a bit less interesting, and the opposite option. Generally, I prefer specialized products over non-specialized ones (but that's obviously personal).

 

It's actually funny how people here stigmatize Bioware games and everything else "Sims-ish", but fail to extend that point towards cerain aspects of PE. Bioware games are accessible. Romance is accessible. Customizing your house is accessible. None of that is accepted, though; yet tutorial-wise everything is different and suddenly PE needs to appeal to broader audiences.

 

I'm exaggerating, of course. I'm not against a tutorial, not at all. Personally I don't need it and prefer learning by trial and error, but it's clear to me that I'm part of a minority here. So no pressure

[In-Game Tutorial]

ideally, wouldn't we want "them" to play this game and like it so games like this can start being made with regularity again?

Absolutely, but not at the cost of boring "us" out of our minds.

A separate tutorial would work just fine, I suppose. It's just that they seem so... artificial.

[Please! Less classes, races, factions, companions, regions, and other features!]

If you answer each and every design decision during the creation of a game with "All of the above!" and "Lets make it optional!", the end result will simply not be very good.

Yup.

 

I never strongly object against cosmetical things like, I don't know, finishing blows (it's just an example). But there's an obvious distinction between the features that can be turned on and off without any real difference (aesthetics aside) and those which influence the core — of gameplay, of the story, of whatever. I'll never use multiplayer. I don't need it. If it can be implemented without touching the core, then sure — I understand that I'm not the only one who's going to play this game. But can it? And if it can't, I feel like I can express my opinion — hell, I think I should — so that the developers know what the audience (me being a part of it) wants.

[Finishing Moves]

Do we need it in an isometric game?

I thing voiced lines are better suite to emphasize the epicness of a fight. "AIN'T I AWESOME" for every critical hit and stuff.

 

Hell no! its annoying.. i rather see how awesome my Character is than hear he braggin.

Different strokes, yadda-yadda.

Just wanted to point out that it doesn't have to be bragging. Obviously battle phrases must be in-character.

[[Merged] Combat Friendly Fire]

It should be in, yes.

It should only be turned off on the easiest difficulty (the "don't play, simply enjoy the story" one).

[Concrete (and reasoned) ideas for HOUSING.]

On the other hand, I would love to see it customizable for my companions. Not class-based, though, but personality-based. If I could assign rooms to them and they would decorate and rearrange them accourding to their ideas of a nice place, that would really be interesting.

 

Uhm. Cool. Now maybe you will go back to your Sims. Or to watching Leliana singing at the campfire.

Well, isn't the idea of a house Sims-ish in the first place? Did you do anything useful with Breezehome, or did you decorate it with troll skulls like everyone else? I say, if you take the road, go all the way. Half-choices only spoil the game. If you give me a house (which I don't really need in the first place), please be so kind as to allow me to change its color palette. Otherwise I'll be more than content with a simple chest to store items.

[Concrete (and reasoned) ideas for HOUSING.]

On the other hand, I would love to see it customizable for my companions. Not class-based, though, but personality-based. If I could assign rooms to them and they would decorate and rearrange them accourding to their ideas of a nice place, that would really be interesting.

 

Oh noes! Bioware Social Alert!!!

I'm sad to admit, but you're right — after a fashion.

 

I see The House as a cosmetical thing. All the non-cosmetical usefulness discussed in this topic seems to shift the focus of the game into a rather strategic direcion, and I'd like PE to be a pure RPG, so I'm probably against everything suggested. And as a cosmetical thing The House should be made use of. Customizing is probably the only way to go in such a case.

 

(Frankly, I'm not a fan of The House Idea in general, but that doesn't seem to be the point of this particular discussion.)