Michael_Galt

Okay, so this is something that I just thought of while responding to something in my Arcanum thread, but I think it's good enough to warrant it's own thread. It has to do with "game world reactivity". I apologize if there is a more "correct" term for it, but I don't know all the vocabulary associated with gaming. Basically, the discussion was about whether it is "acceptable" for the equivalent of months/years to pass in the game world, vice days/weeks. I am of the opinion that it is, because it is more "realistic", in that very few events are accomplished in days or weeks. The Civil Rights struggles of the 60s/70s took years, wars typically take at least months, Bruce Lee didn't become a master in weeks, it took Columbus over a year to "find" the New World, etc. So, I just like for the game world to have time progress a little more quickly, because it ultimately makes it feel "more authentic". Not only that, but I get a greater sense of accomplishment out of it, when I think that my character has literally spent months or years working to "defeat the threatening evil" or "subjugating the lands", or whatever. But this isn't directly about days/weeks vs. months/years. This is about how the game "reacts" to you. Below is the method I thought of and really like, though I don't know how feasible it would be to program, as it sounds pretty complex. I made a poll of the various other methods I could think of off-hand, so I'd love to see what everyone else thinks about it and why. For me, it doesn't have to all be continuous, never-ending adventure, where I'm going from fight to fight, finding the next NPC to get a quest from. I like for their to some sort of sense of urgency to the main quest, but I prefer to be something that is encouraged through game mechanics, rather than being forced on me. So, instead of, "you need to complete this within 24 hours" (which might be nice occasionally, as there are things that if they aren't taken care of immediately, will result in disastrous results- like Paul Revere not making his ride, for instance), it goes like this: if it is not completed within 24 hours, the game "responds" by doing x; if it isn't within 72 hours, y; if it isn't with 96 hours z; etc. Basically, as time goes on, more bad things happen as a result of not "attending to" the issue. So if you don't take out a group of bandits like you have been contracted to do, merchants start providing fewer goods. Then, they become unwilling/unable to participate in trade. Then, bandits begin attacking inside the village, and so on. That way, there are direct results from choosing to accept quests and not completing them, or possibly even from just being made aware of them and not taking some sort of action one way or the other. You could potentially even have triggers that are independent of that, where they just begin as soon as you get to an area. So, all the "quest" options for an area are on a countdown. As soon as you get to that area, the countdown begins. If you don't find out what the actual "quests" are, either by stumbling upon them or being told about them, it doesn't change the "escalations" of the situations. So if you begin wondering why it is that there are more bandit attacks, or abductions, or less goods, whatever, you will find out there is a quest related to it.

This. For me, it doesn't have to all be continuous, never-ending adventure, where I'm going from fight to fight, finding the next NPC to get a quest from. I like for their to some sort of sense of urgency to the main quest, but I prefer to be something that is encouraged through game mechanics, rather than being forced on me. So, instead of, "you need to complete this within 24 hours" (which might be nice occasionally, as there are things that if they aren't taken care of immediately, will result in disastrous results- like Paul Revere not making his ride, for instance), it goes like this: if it is not completed within 24 hours, the game "responds" by doing x; if it isn't within 72 hours, y; if it isn't with 96 hours z; etc. Basically, as time goes on, more bad things happen as a result of not "attending to" the issue. So if you don't take out a group of bandits like you have been contracted to do, merchants start providing fewer goods. Then, they become unwilling/unable to participate in trade. Then, bandits begin attacking inside the village, and so on. That way, there are direct results from choosing to accept quests and not completing them, or possibly even from just being made aware of them and not taking some sort of action one way or the other. You could potentially even have triggers that are independent of that, where they just begin as soon as you get to an area. So, all the "quest" options for an area are on a countdown. As soon as you get to that area, the countdown begins. If you don't find out what the actual "quests" are, either by stumbling upon them or being told about them, it doesn't change the "escalations" of the situations. So if you begin wondering why it is that there are more bandit attacks, or abductions, or less goods, whatever, you will find out there is a quest related to it. This seems like such a good idea, I'm going to make it into another thread.

I didn't say that was. There are a lot of modern RPGs that give you turn by turn instructions now, so it is virtually impossible for you to not be able to find your objective. This I don't like. In Fallout, you have a PipBoy. That is an "explanation" for that mechanic. But in a fantasy setting, besides magic, it shouldn't "work" like that. I do want the ability to annotate my map, so I can use it as it's meant to be. I use maps all the time in real life, and draw and write on them. I am also not saying I unreservedly love the Arcanum map. I do wish it was drawn out more. But, that being said, I do like being able to dictate the exact path for my party to take, and then just leaving them on autopilot. You have to be careful that you aren't making a path that has physical impediments in the way (like barrels, or stationary NPCs, or lampposts, etc). If there are these things, your party will get "hung up" on them and stop altogether. That is something I wish was ironed out. You had to be careful with building your path. 2. Yes, I will fully concede I thought this was a weakness of the story. I have played out Arcanum in my head, and I always have a backstory explaining why I was headed to Tarant. 5. To me, I think that is a winning feature. I don't like the compressed timelines that most RPGs operate under. In many cases, you go from zero to hero in a matter of weeks. This does not happen. It takes over a year to just train a special forces soldier. Bruce Lee didn't become a master in a month. While I don't think that they need to stretch it out to "realistic" timeframes, I prefer to see that months have passed in the gameworld, vice a few weeks. To me, it makes it more believable. It also makes me feel a greater sense of progress, because it isn't, "Wow, just last week I cleared out 6 bandit camps and now I'm fighting demons! Time flies when you're having fun!"

Map stuff- I actually liked the "connect the dot" method, since it allowed you to create circuitous paths that otherwise would have been difficult to accomplish in a normal RPG- I mean, you could literally make your party go through a specific door. It just gave more flexibility. And as hormalakh mentioned, you were forced to actually explore and find things. I actually LIKED having to search around for stuff, because that is what you really do when you're looking for things. "Wait, did I take the first or second left after the 4-way?", "Damn, all these houses are some sort of beige color!", "She said it was right near the monument, but I'm not seeing it!" I very much dislike being spoon fed my directions, like I'm wearing a Tom-Tom in the game...

I don't know if this has already been posted in here, but I loved this: Also, the only reason the romance bits in Mask of the Betrayer worked was because George Ziets helped me with them since he was able to describe what love is to me and explain how it works (I almost asked for a PowerPoint presentation). It seems like a messy, complicated process, not unlike a waterbirth. Don’t even get me started on the kissing aspects, which is revolting because people EAT with their mouths. Bleh. (Chris Avellone) Hilarious. This was also very informative, and I liked getting a "glimpse" of how the developing actually works. Pretty cool. Given your vast experience with designing and developing RPGs, are there any lessons or experiences you'd take from those previous games to avoid in Project Eternity? Awareness of scope. If you don’t know the scope, find out the specs for each part of the design and development toolbox (build a small level, a medium level, a large level, write a 15 node dialogue, a 50 node, a 150 node or more companion, build a weapon from start to finish, build a critter using the full range of animations, etc.). Then use a stopwatch to time each task until you know how long each one takes, and use that as a gauge of how much work you have in store – then seriously consider cutting it down to 50% or 75% of that amount to account for X factors during production. Second, always ask “why the player should give a ****?” with every design decision, lore choice, and faction design. When fleshing out the world, keep in mind the player’s role as an agent of change, not your personal presentation. While you do want to put yourself and topics you’re passionate about in a title, that doesn’t mean crap if the player can’t interact with it in a way that empowers them. Examine pacing and expectations. As an example, Torment was an extremely dialogue heavy game, and I do believe (I can hear pitchforks and torches being gathered) it could have benefited from more dungeon exploration, more combats, in addition to the dialogue depth it had. I tried to correct that when doing Targos in IWD2... I started off with a lot of fights and exploration rewards that immediately highlighted the threat the city was facing, then moved into dialogues (punctuated by a few fights), then a blast-off at the end.

Yeah, I was going to point out that all the attributes actually impacted the gameplay, but it's been a while and I was too lazy to replay or remember specific instances. I really hope they use a lot of features from Arcanum in PE. I liked how weapons and armor degraded too. The harder the armor, the more it took to damage it, but it still degraded. And if you didn't get a skilled smith to work on it, then it would lose overall endurance. It was a pretty brilliant system. It was one of the reasons I hated the various golems and elementals, as well as machines, since using melee weapons on that could result in your weapon breaking, which is pretty "realistic".

Personally, I think that it should be more a factor of cost, similar to Morrowind/Skyrim. Light armor could potentially be just as protective, based on the material. And the finer/stronger the material, the more costly it is. A bronze cuirass wouldn't be as good as an iron cuirass, which wouldn't be as good as a steel cuirass, which wouldn't be as good as a folded steel cuirass, which wouldn't be as good as a... you get the idea. Also, just like in the Bethesda games, it should be realistically "heavy". Iron might be stronger than bronze, but it is also heavier. So maybe you decide against "upgrading", because you don't want to "weigh down" your character. I think that the different armor types should have definite benefits besides "AC"/"DR", similar to the D&D system. You wear thick, padded leather armor, and while it might not be great against edged weapons, it better protects you against blunt weapons. You have your awesome "titanium plate mail", and while you are pretty resistant to physical damage, you become more susceptible to elemental damage, specifically cold, heat, and electricity, since metal "conducts" all of those. Maybe if you are wearing robes, you actually LOSE resistance to fire, since you are now more combustible. Let me make it clear- I don't think there should be any light/med/heavy armor proficiencies. That's just silly. It should be based off of your strength, endurance, and dexterity. If you are fit, then you can wear it. It should fatigue you at a rate which is related to your composite fitness. If you are strong, but don't have high endurance or dexterity, then fighting in heavy armor for extended periods should be more difficult than if you DO have high endurance and/or dexterity. I don't care if that armor is made out of leather, steel, rock, whatever. It should be weight that matters. It might be okay to have an armor proficiency or two as a whole, which basically just mean you know how to fight in armor "appropriately". Meaning, you know how to use it to your advantage, since you have trained in it. So, at a basic level, you know not to waste your time or energy parrying a specific attack because you know your armor can withstand it. Perhaps more "armor proficiency" gains you bonuses to your "AC"/"DR", since you innately use your armor to its greatest effect, rather than just wearing something that serves to prevent you from being cut/bashed/pierced. So, in summary: make it about materials, weight, fitness, and training.

I like essentially fixed, provided you can min-max, which I'm sure will be the case. I also think that it should be an option to increase a stat, or multiple stats, at the cost of experience points, or something along those lines. Occasional quest-related increases OR decreases should be possible, but they should be really difficult to obtain. As in, it is a sequence of tasks for a quest, and it generally isn't revealed beforehand that you will get a stat increase in something, but a surprise. I know tons of people read game guides, so they'll just meta-game to get to it, but I personally don't ever read guides, unless I'm absolutely stuck and can't progress further (and it's important). So for me, it WOULD be a pleasant surprise but not unbalancing.

Does anyone know if Chris Avellone has played Arcanum yet?

I concur. Now to see if it has been...

Awesome. This is great. The more I read, the more sure I am that I'll be one happy customer come April 2014... This answers many of the questions I had, as well. Great work- love the organization of things. The music sounds great!

Yeah, that I think is the whole problem. NPCs really aren't meant to be that important in Arcanum, so they aren't much emphasized. I think all of them had interesting "back stories", but after you got them in your party, they generally didn't do or say much. I had QUITE a few different playthroughs, and I don't really ever recall a whole lot of interaction from them. I think Virgil was one of the few that had conversation triggers all over the game, with Magnus and Raven having a few as well. I imagine that it just boiled down to the small staff they had on the game and relative lack of resources.

I prefer Arcanum or IWD 2 portraits. I don't care if they "change"- we're not talking about the passage of decades here. I want to have a good idea of what my companions look like, that is all.

I like the "preset with class" base, along with "immediate access to a merchant". Basically, if you pick a paladin, you start off with base level medium armor and 1-2 weapons, based off your proficiency. I say 1-2, because I account for 1 melee and 1 ranged weapon, though 2 melee would be acceptable if you didn't select proficiency in a ranged weapon. If you pick a class that is less "gear" dependent, then perhaps you end up with more money/potions/scrolls/etc, as a way to balance that out, so you aren't economically "disadvantaged" because of the potential value of the "base" gear load. Then, following the "initial issue", you "go to" a merchant screen, like in Arcanum. You select whatever additional things you would like to purchase before the game even begins. If you don't want to buy anything, you just have more money saved up for when you actually get in the game.

That works too, but is essentially the same thing. And now, we pretty much have confirmation that their will be a variety of "moral" choices to pick from, which is excellent.

Umm, I'm pretty much positive I have given my cats cow milk many times in the past...

Seems like the solution is to "pick 4" for one playthrough and "recruit" someone of your choice from the Hall. Then, you do the same the next game. Or, you actually operate "under capacity", rather than having a full 6.

Either paladin or monk. Kinda depends on how they are implementing them in the game. I've always been a "sucker" for the "planar" races, so will be going with the Aumunu (or however it's spelled). Then, if options permit, I'll try for an "evil" elf cipher.

Or, as a compromise to having actual cats, we could have an annoying character in both of the large cities, that mainly speaks in "meows", while keeping a very straight face... "Oh, look what we got meow. A real meowty group of adventurers. Meow. What the meow are they going to do to help the poor people of the city? They meowt kill evil meownsters, meow?"

Yeah, I just don't realistically think they could write and script all the myriad of options, obviously. Now, if they just picked 1-2 of those various "evil" choices and fleshed them out, that would be a good compromise. Clearly there is no way for them to account for everything. I also think if they gave the option for the action, and didn't try to "explain" the action, that would leave more room for "role-playing", and less likely someone would get upset because they forced them to "violate" their internally recognized reason for an action. I would LOVE consequences. Not BG consequences, which was just poorly designed in that regard (entire city's guard came crashing down on you), but something that scaled with your "evil" acts. Bounty gets bigger, more and better skilled mercenaries attack/ambush you. At a certain level, city guards automatically recognize you and attack. Perhaps certain characters actually INITIATE business/quests with you, because you have now passed the litmus for not being a law-abiding citizen. Make some quest that allow you to "redeem" yourself, or to at least get the authorities to look the other way. That would be the right way to do it. Yeah, I'm not saying those two are anywhere in the league of prior dictators, kings, what have you, just that there are people alive today, that are quite wealthy and powerful, that didn't pursue their power in some "sneaky", "clever" way. They murdered and raped people left and right. There are a lot of people that seem to be of the belief that those types of people just don't exist in real life, therefore those types of choices shouldn't be in the game. And while I won't argue that their "scale" will never be at that of some of the great tyrants, I am fully confident that each man is responsible for the deaths of thousands, and neither is dead yet. I don't think that if you put them in the same room as Hitler or Stalin or Mao, that you could REALLY say, yeah, you guys aren't as bad. If they had access to the same resources, they might be just as bad or worse, in terms of net negative impact. A variation I thought of was that helping the invaded citizenry fight back as a kneejerk reaction would not necessarily be the best choice for those people's well-being. Perhaps the invaders would bring down severe, brutal punishment when you leave. Or perhaps the invaders would bring safety, health and prosperity to this occupied territory, and the descendants of the occupied people would think their ancestors were mad to not want to be part of this great empire. I like this, as it shows more ways to incorporate it into gameplay, which was really what I was getting at. But you're talking more macro, and I want macro AND micro.

Well, I must say, I am impressed with the robust discussion here. I'm even MORE impressed that everyone has managed to keep it civil. Yay! I think, for the most part, the point has been effectively made that there really needs to be true alternatives in available quest solutions, optimally. I am pretty comfortable with expecting that will happen, based on who they have working on the game, but we will see. I wish we could see some of the developers' internal discussions of these types of things, that would be truly interesting.

Yeah, it is the game I have most replayed besides BG2, for that very reason. Playing each character was different, though, the story was too short to make it as different as it could have been, with more quest options and a longer game.

Or, their "motivation" for doing something is BECAUSE it is bad. That might be the entire reason they derive pleasure/satisfaction from doing it. They know they are breaking the rules, violating people's sense of what is "right". Like exhibitionists that feel the need to have sex in public. If it didn't attract any attention, while they might still enjoy the sex, they wouldn't derive nearly as much from it. Maybe you don't necessarily believe in violence, but you think it would be "fun" to beat a pacifist, only because they are morally bound to not fight back with force. Some people do "bad" things because they can, because they feel they have no other choice, because they feel they aren't really bad things, because they feel they're necessary, and sometimes, just because they ARE bad. Maybe you have no real "problem" with crosses, but you enjoy breaking ones on the side of the road because you know it brings anguish/anger/frustration to the families that erected them there in memory of their loved ones. You likely won't even get to witness it, and they might not even notice, but you do it with that hope in mind. If you didn't realize that most people label that act as bad, and "desecrating", you wouldn't derive the pleasure. This is chicken and egg here. Not asking for the writers to "define" evil, but to allow what could easily be "considered" evil to be legitimate options, with the same level of focus as on the "good". If there are 2 "good" options, there should be 2 "evil" options.

I don't think thats what they are saying at all, they are just saying that there is no alignment system, there will be (probably) options you and I will consider evil, but you have no alignment to justify this with. That said, they do have a reputation system, which is probably more realistic. People react to who they think you are, not if you are evil inside. I'm all about reputation systems, and agree that a fair number of people fall into the category you describe (of not wanting an alignment system). But if you fail to provide ruthless/greedy/violent/power thirsty options, you are essentially making it just good or neutral. I want there to clearly be options that make people think, "That isn't neutral at all!" Very much disagree with this. By nature, the logic is broken. Any abstract concept is "man-made". By your logic, any abstract concept is "invalid". The ENTIRE reason for abstract thought, and categorization of things into different areas ("good", "neutral", "evil/bad") is to "make sense of the world" and to "communicate ideas". So yes, it's already been stated that to some extent, those things are "subjective" to your culture and society, as well as personal beliefs. But, by nature, that means they DO exist, since all cultures and people have these beliefs. As to people not doing things that are "evil", for evil's sake? That is patently false. There are plenty of people that would and do. Serial rapists aren't trying to bring any good into the world. They don't rape people because someone will kill or torture them for not doing so, they do it because they enjoy it. They enjoy being in control and subjugating someone. Sadists don't excessively harm people without cause because they are trying to prevent something bad from happening, or because they are trying to "help" that person- they do it because it makes them happy to see someone suffer. People that knowingly sell products that don't help people, but actually harm them, might be motivated by money, but they likely also enjoy the fact they are propagating something negative in the world. There are people that LOVE to make other people FEEL miserable, and that is the pursuit in itself. There is no net positive out of it. There are PLENTY of people that like violence without a purpose, besides to exercise their power over others. Is that part of the purpose (to spread intimidation)? Yes, but that is not necessarily the only or primary reason- it might just be icing on the cake. Same. I don't understand the "if you don't let us be the bad guy, you are forcing us to be good" argument about RPGs. Playing a homicidal maniac to me just means that you are trying to find cracks in the game that you can complain about. It seems pretty self explanatory, in your own words, "If you don't let us be the bad guy, you are forcing us to be good." If there aren't options besides "fighting evil", rather than joining it, or taking charge of it, or creating a different threat, you ARE being forced to be "good". Ofcourse. However the above is an example of hamfisted, ignorant and selfish evil. Its easy to place in a "black and white" context. It requires no real reflection or thought to condemn it. The above is how most percieve "evil" and it is terribly simple. Its also rarely the evil that is the most successfull. The more successfull evil we see in our world is the one where evil camouflages as good. For instance if I were to play an "intelligent evil" Lawfull Evil character, my outward appearence would be close to, if not identical to, Lawfull good. Its "Palpatine" before he becomes "the Emperor". And even if the above were true (IE strengthening his position) some organisations you dont leave unless you are dead. Some organisations you either live up to your reputation or die horribly. Does it make it better? No... perhaps not. But if you have the choise between seeing your wife and children killed and killing someone else, most opt for what is behind door number one. Just as your example was an easily constructed example of "grey". My point is that each is equally valid. I'm not arguing for alignments, I'm arguing for options. I don't care what the justification is for being able to do "bad" things, I want the option to do them. If you want to do bad things and say, "Well, my character had his entire family killed and was kidnapped by bandits. Those bandits are holding his sister as blackmail to ensure that he does what they want. THAT'S why I need to kill this "chief nun of the abbott" that is doing nothing wrong, and is actually helping people. I don't WANT to, but I love my sister and promised I wouldn't let any harm come to her. Blood first." Great. My character will say this, "Yeah, I disliked the fact that she was sanctimonious. People need to turn to my god if they want help, so I can't let her live." Or, "She was known to have a lot of money, which is why she was able to do all the charity work she did- fortunately, now that money is mine." Or, "Heh- I hated those people she was helping. Let's see how well they do without her around now..." The act was the same, the motivations were not. As to the "most successful evil we see", I don't think that is the point. In nice, shiny America, middle-class land, we don't see a whole lot of egregious evil. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or hasn't happened in the past, or couldn't still happen. It just means it's less common now. Here are two good examples of "modern" evil, though there is no shortage of other examples that could be provided. These two cover quite a few bases (brutality, violence, enslavement, sexual predation, etc). http://www.huffingto..._n_1826236.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Kony.

Yes, I forgot about this. To be honest, I also felt like all the various areas succeeded EXTREMELY well at conveying different cultures and atmospheres. I'm not going to name all the locations, since I don't want to spoil anything for someone that might still play it, but I loved that there were cities that were dilapidated, others that were well-kept and clearly wealthy, but there were distinctive qualities about them all. I DID have a preference for a certain city that was on the coast, to all the others. And the dwarven areas very much "felt" dwarven, with the architecture and layout and such. On a similar note as there being no "divine compass", I liked that you could naturally find something on your own, by accident, if you were wandering around, exploring (like in Fallout). It was certainly easier to have someone tell you where something was, but it wasn't precluded as an option if they didn't.