Jump to content
  • Sign Up

jarpie

Members
  • Content Count

    205
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jarpie

  1. Have you noticed how the social justice nutjobs and "We want romances"-crowd are largely the same people? Interesting coincidence...
  2. Oh yeah, because we actually make sense we're trolls. Making PE to support 3D vision etc would be like trying to make drawing in paper to be three dimensional.
  3. Well, we'll have to see how well it does in the marketplace. I agree that 3D TV is something of a gimmick, but 3D games are expected to be more immersive. (Just as stereo sound is more immersive than mono.) With a computer monitor you're closer to the display, so the 3D effect should be more engaging and cover more of your field of vision. What part of "isometric" and "2D backgrounds" you didn't get? You do know that 3D to be effective, like at all, it needs actual 3D?
  4. I can't understand what 3D gimmick would bring into PE, it's isometric game with 2D backgrounds ffs. And yes, 3D isn't anything more than gimmick, and it belongs into FPSs even if to those.
  5. Legends of Valour did this in 1992, it had bunch of english game-magazines editors and editor-in-chiefs headshots as shopkeepers in the game... and it got raving reviews in the said magazines.
  6. What about my idea that all romances ends with "black widow" and game deletes all saves when the romanceable NPC kills the player? that at least would be something what haven't been done.
  7. If you ever played BG or NWN in MP you'll never say that this is "waste of resources". NWN is whole different type of game, and yes I've played NWN in PW-servers. PE will be solely meant to be played as single-player and it wont even have modtools (at least for now) to create your own content.
  8. Because it just would be waste of resources for a feature which would be pretty much pointless for game like PE.
  9. All romances ends with "black widow" and game deletes all saves when the romanceable NPC kills the player?
  10. Merin, at least I tried to counter-argue all of your points but now you are just cherry picking and lifting sentences out of the context, probably because you can't come up with proper arguments and you yet again resort to passive-agressive patronizing tone even though we agreed we'd try to argue civilly - I was being completely polite in my replies but apparently it's not possible for you. I'll admit I've not been completely civil all the time but at least I've tried to argue with actual arguments, examples and substance. If I'd write another post with the new arguments or taken from my original posts, you would just again pick up the ones you can either lift up from the context, twist their meaning or then "subtly" try to mock my writing because english isn't my native language even though you knew very well what I was meaning.
  11. Torment never directed TNO's motives, though. At no point did Torment tell the player how TNO felt about anything, or why he had done anything. I used PS:T as an example how they can do the "flashback" to remember what one of the many previous owners of the soul did and why, if you remember they did that in middle of the conversations, so they could do similar thing in PE with the remembering what the previous owner did and why.
  12. It's late in here so I'll answer one thing quickly but I can reply tomorrow more depthly. WIth the exception of maybe Bioware the developers very rarely write other than possible friendship because otherwise there would be lot more writing to do. How I see the grander branching dialogue isn't that NPC reacts to something what you did, the branching dialogue is that first there's character as a tree, then there are the big branches such as "friendship", "rivalry", "romance" etc. which then divide to their own branches with their own responses on what the player does - friend would respond differently on you burning village than lover would.
  13. I also have to add quickly that the possible motivations you choose in the game can come up in the main- and sub-stories also and can affect how they branch out, progress and develop - No idea if PE will take this route but I'll give an example: In the very end of the game it shows what happened after the game ended in the end slides like in Fallout: New Vegas for example, and it tells that this and this happened because you made those important choices for those reasons - like in the example I gave about goldchest you chose differently and gave gold to the poor people and you became to be known as a "Robin Hood"-kind of popular figure in certain part of the gameworld and you became high ranking member in the church because you did it because you wanted to help the poor people or if you chose differently and kept the chest, becoming rich man but you were thrown out of the church as a disgraced man because you lied about your motivations; if you would've kept the goldchest and said to the priest that you intend to keep it because you need the gold, your standing with the church would've been neutral and you they wouldn't have let you join in because you're not righteous enough.
  14. They shouldn't. The idea of souls influencing characters should be left for NPCs. Maybe if they want to get meta, the player can be a stand-in for the character's soul. If the soul is influencing character decisions, you either remove player agency by declaring it for the player. Or you're making a silly distinction of letting the player choose between soul and self which is needless complication that doesn't actually explore the theme. It's just letting the player pretend he's exploring a theme he probably doesn't even understand. You're missing it. The player has a choice as to how and why do something. For example, save that pregnant woman or the king? You can save the woman because you save two lives and the king has more people caring after him, or you can do it because you hate the guy, and other possibilities that can be presented in the dialogue and the narrative. Some time later you learn that something similar has happened in the soul's past. At that point, we see whether the pc made the choice influenced by the past, and in which way, or not if he didn't get influenced. I'm missing it because that doesn't make any sense to me. The player already knows why the PC made the choice. In fact, you just asked him why. Turning around and saying "it's because of the past life" or "because of no reason, lol" based on a comparison against the writer's arbitrary script isn't something that sounds even remotely beneficial. That's where the roleplaying and dealing with the themes comes in - the player character and the NPCs can then talk about it in the game how and why the soul possibly influenced the said action and what kind of people the previous owners of the said soul were.
  15. You're not seeing The Big Picture. Without player character reacting to what happens in gameworld then the game and the gameworld will be like Bethesda's games where rest of the gameworld is just there for the player to play puppeteer and becomes completely superfluous and bland instead of giving impression that player character is part of the small world, it gives the feeling that world being there for the player and player character to toy with. I'll give you an example from my earlier post: Game gives you a choice to save either NPC A or NPC B, and if you didn't save NPC A and he was right-hand man of local leader such as a duke, he might send hired mercenaries after you, demand explanation, demand some sort of compensation, or something else what writer has come up with, and it might affect how the story progresses since you didn't save the NPC A thus not getting help from his master, and since you saved NPC B, he joins your group and you get help from his master who might be local thieves' guild leader which gives you different kind of help and takes you to the completely other route on how the game progresses, maybe different set of quests to progress in the story. And here comes the "Player reacting to the gameworld" and the consequences-part; You get the message from NPC B's master that NPC A's master is mightly pissed off at you for letting his right-hand-man die, and he will send mercenaries after you, now you have a choice either to get the message to the Master A that you are willing to compensate his loss somehow (be that huge sum of money, you're going to work for him (doing quests), letting him to kill one of your companions etc), you can wait for the mercenaries and fight them and then deal with the consequences of that action, you can sneak to Master A's castle and either kill him or threaten him with "See how easily we got to you, now back off" and all those choices can branch to the new directions and so on. If they won't write player character reacting on what the NPC says or does then you can't have well written and deep companions and other NPCs because there wouldn't be two-way interaction and the writers wouldn't be able to write good, evil, creedy, neutral and all different kind of responses to which game can then react to and keep track of what kind of character you are playing - such as in PS:T where lot of alignment shifts came from the dialogues where the TNO reacted on what the NPCs said. You are getting caught with the words and not the meaning - English isn't my native language. I obviously meant that they give a choice for the player either to save a baby or not but that should've been clear enough from my text. As I said above, the writers of the game has written a scene where the player gets a choice either to save the baby or not, after (not necessarely instantly) that they can show a "flashback" where some previous owner of the soul had to make a same or similar choice, and show his/hers motivation for the choice they made, but more on this later in my reply. I know the difference of singleplayer CPRG and RPG played with several players and GM very well - I played 3-4 years in the RP Server of the NWN where we had GMs/DMs - since you are so determined of playing your own character, you should try it - honestly. Since they can keep track of what the player has done with numerous variables etc, they can then write the dilaogue where the NPC asks from the PC why did you did this thing, and the game gives the player several choices - if you remember from PS:T they had 15-20 choices for some dialogues, you don't think that's enough to cover most "generic" motivations given the context in the game and gameworld? As I said, the game can keep track of what you have done with variables, and they can do what PS:T did that they can write the flashback in between the dialogue described as written text what the previous owner of the soul did and what was his motivation - thus they can then write the dialogue with the PC and NPC where PC says "Previous owner of the soul did similar thing for this reason" and then continue the discussion on possiblity how soul influenced the action and motivation of the player character. Since you can probably choose what kind of soul the PC has, it can also influence on what the previous hosts did and it will be increasing the replaybility. Yes, the player chooses the dialogue which the character speaks and takes the actions/options but you are not the writer of the said dialogue and the possible multiple actions. You are still playing the character and it's vartiations and aspects in the gameworld they have created, if it would truly be your character then you would've written the dialogue and would make completely your own choices. Where the roleplaying in single-player crpg comes in are the choices & consequences - how do you react to them, what choices you make, what kind of character are you playing (good, evil, creedy, selfish, neutral, etc), how do you interact with different characters and factions - which faction do you join in, which faction are you working against, which character do you help and which not, how do you react what happens in the gameworld such as the before mentioned situation with the Master A and then the game shows in the gameworld how the story/stories, gameworld, NPCs and your character shapes up in the said world depending on what you have chosen to do - and they show how your choices changes the NPCs, gameworld and the story - that's where the roleplaying in singleplayer RPG comes from. Not from the stuff you have made up in your head - the stuff what happens, happens in the gameworld because that's how games work - the player character optimally has as many choices in the game as it's possible to do and choose from, and you choose from them depending on what aspect/varitation of character you want to play from the choices/options the devs have written for you - your character can't be anything more in the game and game world what the devs have written into the game. When you play a character in PNP or RP server ran by GM, it basicly happens like in the single-player RPG but the two-way interaction can just be more fluent but the basic principle is the same - you still don't imagine stuff happening in your head what doesn't happen in the game. Since you brought up IE games and PS:T, do you remember how many choices it gave for the player to choose in dialogue? it sometimes had 15 or even 20 choices. As I said in the beginning, you are not seeing The Big Picture, they can now write as much branching dialogue as they want since there are no VOs - they won't have to care how much dialogue there is in the game from that standpoint since the biggest restriction on how much variability there can be in the dialogue has been VOs. For every important choice you can make in the dialogue there are many options to choose from - let's say 10-15, and there is unique reply from the NPC for each of them, and then you can again choose from the 10-15 options - See now how it can work? Who's to say Obsidian wouldn't do that, or wouldn't want to? What I've read about PE in the interviews and comments from the developers makes it seem that it will be closer on what PS:T and KOTOR 2 was, in KOTOR 2 if you remember at least one NPC asked from the player character why he went to the war and followed Revan and player had multiple choices to choose from - I think there were places where Kreia asked why chose to do something - and she reacted to that. I think this is very important from the devs in Kickstarter page: "Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment.", I've bolded the important part. The devs have said that player can choose from what culture the player character is from, and then the gameworld will react to it - this tells me that the player character probably won't be completely blank state like it was in Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, which you want. And why they shouldn't? They know the gameworld, characters, themes and how to deal with them better than any player would, like I said before you are playing variations and different aspects of the character (or if you prefer; possible characters), and they might want to write possible motivations for those possible characters, which then determines how the character shapes up in the story and how your character shapes up the story - as I described earlier in the post. Let's say that the story they have written calls for the motivations behind the actions your player character has chosen, for example priest of the one of the religions asks from you why you stole the gold chest from the local noble when you are trying to join their order - you can choose from lot of different options and one of them has "[lie] I plan to give it to the poor", which means you're planning to keep the chest for yourself. The game can keep track of that, and later if they find out that you have lied to them, they might kick you out of their order unless you manage to fool them but some of the choices are genuine motivations behind the actions. Hell, game can even keep track of that for later when one of your companions asks why did you lie to the priest, and then he/she reacts to your answer. See how the motivations in game can be used? I have always talked about the choices and options player can choose from what the writer has written for the player - they still do write the options for you either in the dialogue or in the gameplay itself and they choose the possible actions you can take. PS. Sorry I couldn't keep this shorter but I had to be thorough in my arguments so there wouldn't be misunderstandings.
  16. They shouldn't. The idea of souls influencing characters should be left for NPCs. Maybe if they want to get meta, the player can be a stand-in for the character's soul. If the soul is influencing character decisions, you either remove player agency by declaring it for the player. Or you're making a silly distinction of letting the player choose between soul and self which is needless complication that doesn't actually explore the theme. It's just letting the player pretend he's exploring a theme he probably doesn't even understand. You're missing it. The player has a choice as to how and why do something. For example, save that pregnant woman or the king? You can save the woman because you save two lives and the king has more people caring after him, or you can do it because you hate the guy, and other possibilities that can be presented in the dialogue and the narrative. Some time later you learn that something similar has happened in the soul's past. At that point, we see whether the pc made the choice influenced by the past, and in which way, or not if he didn't get influenced. Exactly this too.
  17. They shouldn't. The idea of souls influencing characters should be left for NPCs. Maybe if they want to get meta, the player can be a stand-in for the character's soul. If the soul is influencing character decisions, you either remove player agency by declaring it for the player. Or you're making a silly distinction of letting the player choose between soul and self which is needless complication that doesn't actually explore the theme. It's just letting the player pretend he's exploring a theme he probably doesn't even understand. They can do it similarly to what was done in PS:T where the player character remembered parts of his past life as the game progressed, and since PE World has different kind of souls that could affect on what kind of memories etc the soul gives to the player character - they could do it in discussion such as (this is just rough example) "I remember this and this thing from the soul's past doing for these reasons, and then I remember this other previous owner doing this for these reasons" - which would be affected on what type of soul player chose for example.
  18. Merin, since you are against reactivity and showing/asking motivations from the player (or want to keep them at minium at least), and especially making the player to react to the gameworld. Then tell me this: How they could deal with any themes concerning for example, friendships or how the souls affect the behaviour unless they write player character reacting to the other characters and what happens in the gameworld, also if they wouldn't give player any motivations to choose from how they can deal with the soul possibly influencing the choices you make? If for example they write that player character makes a choice, like Tale said either to save a baby or not, and then they show player character remembering the soul's past lives or talking about the soul influencing that action, wouldn't the motivations be important in dealing with the choice and not just the actions since they are dealing with the themes that does soul and its history influence the player characters and NPCs behaviour? More places/options there are for choosing potential motivations, the more in detail (in depth) they can deal with the theme of having souls influencing player characters and NPCs choices, actions and motivations - also with how the soul possibly influences your potential motivations for actions toward the companions and other NPCs - if you just show soul possibly influencing the motivations and actions of the NPCs then the player character is just an empty puppet what is completely removed from the gameworld and not actively participating in it and in the themes thus dealing with the whole theme is pointless as I explain it below. I'll give you an example: The PC and the NPCs are discussing does the soul influence their motivations and actions, and since the PC is the one doing the (most) choices concerning what the group does, then he must be one of the main points in the discussion so there has to be motivation behind the actions since otherwise the whole theme is worthless because soul would be influencing his motivations behind the actions and not the actions directly - and how they can write lines for the NPCs (like the people in the world who are studying the effect of the souls) having the view of the PCs actions unless they know the motivations also? Now, this is important - they have to show the motivations in the context of the gameworld how it (the world itself, characters etc) react to the motivations and the actions of the player character or otherwise dealing with the whole theme is moot because there would not be points of reference to which compare player character's motivations and actions vs. the gameworld for how the writers want to deal with the theme in the gameworld.
  19. The companion interaction scenes do not write themselves and are not done in two hours in between design meetings (were they might be, if you work at Bioware). On a project like PE, with limited funding and people, effective usage of manhours is essential. But we've been over this already in this thread, several times, and we obviously do not agree with one another's premises. I would also add that if you want to make romance as in-depth written as non-romance, then it would have to have basicly same amount of dialogue as non-romance branch or at least very close to what non-romance has, thus meaning that the amount of the dialogue would be divided for both and then both would suffer. If you would give romance-branch say 10% of the dialogue what non-romance branch has then you would basicly have just about 3-6 conversations, and the romance would be as shallow as they are in Bioware games and Obsidian is not doing that. Sistergoldring, don't forget that the game will be much bigger now than what it was at 1,1 million; they originally had just three races, five classes and five companions, one big city, no mega dungeon and since then they have added: three races (six altogether) six classes (11 altogether) three companions (8 altogether) another big city (plus the quests, sub-plots, etc what goes with it) 15 level mega-dungeon one extra region (plus the quests, sub-plots, etc what goes with it) one major plot (plus the quests, sub-plots, etc what goes with it) one extra faction (plus the quests, sub-plots, etc what goes with it) Expert-, Trial of Iron- and Path of the Damned-modes Crafting and Enchanting Adventurer's Hall with full party creation Player House Stronghold. Edit: Mega dungeon with 15 levels. You don't think those require quite a hefty amount of funding and especially writing since they are keeping the development time the same as it was in 1,1 million?
  20. Excuse me. One PM chain. With a back and forth, where you asked if I was ignoring you, I apologized if I had missed something - told you I wasn't ignoring you - and asked which question I had missed, you gave me a link, and I pointed out that I had responded to that post, which then you apologized and admitted your error. One PM. One chain of several responses back and forth. I don't think getting nitpicky about this is making you seem less irrational. And that last point I bolded - "the mods can check" - what, is this a contest on who's lying more? I thought you were looking for great debates, for both sides respecting each other, not trying to paint me as a bad guy? Where is "you ignored my post" and "if you'd even read what I said" debating with respect? That's accusing, based on speculation. You cannot know if I read it entirely or not, if I ignored it or not. All you have is what I chose to respond to. Acknowledged. Repeatedly. Even to you in what you are quoting and then trying to call me a hypocrite on by pulling the tu ququo - Except I give the important caveat of noting that - Yet you won't let that go - Watch what is happening as I'm even trying to address most of your points in a relatively short post? See how long this is getting? Maybe I would have, had it been a point of contention for me. It isn't. I'm not the one demanding that people read a ridiculous amount of threads to answer every single one of my points or else they aren't allowed to debate - Example 1 - "I'm going to let you give counter-arguments for rest of my message before answering yours, only fair." Example 2 - "Have fun reading and counter-arguing" Example 3 - "I expect counter arguments on all the points I've give in those posts. Enjoy!" You start off demanding that someone respond to seven quotes before you will answer them (it's only fair that they respond to everything you demand they do), and advance to demanding, excuse me, "expecting" that people must respond to a list of 6 links which go to lengthy posts. I'm not the one making post after post about "you aren't answering every point I made" and PMing others "did you ignore me, am I on ignore because I didn't see your response" even though the response had been made. Help me out here - were you done with me but just one more post, or... are you done with me now? Yeah, I sent you one PM asking if you've put me on ignore because I didn't notice your reply, and I didn't ask if you've ignored anything I wrote in the message - notice the difference. The last topic got quite heated, and I was tired of writing same points over and over again - I admit I could've been nicer but so could've been whole lot of other people too. As you were replying I modified my last post: So this is my last reply since you didn't see my modification.
  21. haha keep in mind you're a regular poster on BSN and so are most of the people clamoring for romance. Yet the people who argue against you don't post on the BSN forums. Someone quote this so Merin sees it. touche.
×
×
  • Create New...