Lephys

In terms of what your character will know and what he won't, I'd just like to point out that they've mentioned intentionally designing the narrative such that your character is sort of an outsider, and is there fore unfamiliar with most local stuff. I don't think that's going to mean that "you know nothing, Jon Snow." But, you're not going to be intimately familiar with local customs and non-global deities, teachings, histories, and lore, most likely. That being said, I think it's a good idea to have your character's basic knowledge base in some sort of codex. Is it something you would actually have written down and carry around with you? Probably not. But, I accept the abstraction, sense the only alternative to the game using text to tell you all the stuff your character knows would be to use audio, which would simply be the same thing but more expensive, and less easy to pick information out of (you can't glance at an entire audio entry at once and find just the bit you're looking for). But, yes, the game basically just needs to intelligently compile your character's codex. Finding something of significance/worth looking into and digging up info on it should be two separate things. Now, maybe you get part of that info from the person who just led you to the significant thing/person, or maybe all of it (if it fits for that to happen), or maybe you know hardly anything and have to go look through a library or talk to some people who might know about it, etc. Maybe some of it is in your basic knowledge base (that you just know from character creation), and the game simply indicates that an existing codex entry might be helpful. The other thing is, all instances of this shouldn't just be "find out all the infos" in a quest objective. Ideally, it should be variable; you have to dig up SOME minimum amount of info, to know where to find something/how to harm it/etc. But, how much of the info you actually dig up and/or pay attention to (as a player) should often affect what options are at your disposal in approaching the situation. The game just needs to say "you need more info than you have now to find this person and handle this situation," but it doesn't need to tell you about the existence of 3 different bits of info that will provide you with 3 optional approaches to the situation. As in "(optional) Go find The Threads of Eternity in the library and read it," "(optional) Talk to Phillip the Scholar in Edgington," "(optional) Locate the Shard of Belaam for Phillip to study." I've seen a lot of games do that. But, all the player really needs are clues. Talk about the library. If you want to go look through the library and find an applicable book, you will. Mention that a scholar lives in town. If you want to track him down, you will. Point out that it's not necessary.

Figurative camping out for the update? Lame. I'm quitting my job right now (as I'll be fired for leaving work in the middle of my shift anyway) and driving to Obsidian HQ to start a one-person line outside their offices. I'm going to actually pitch a tent, stake it into the sidewalk, and build a small fire upon which to roast marshmallows and dutch-oven up some apple cinnamon cobbler. Then, I'll have my laptop open, using Obsidian's own wi-fi network, to view the update when it drops. I'll be the first to see the update by like TWO SECONDS! 8D! I'm too legit to QUIT! (except for my job: see above) Seriously: This thread is great, and I has an excite. @_@

Star Whatazen? Star CityZen. I think it's that new space yoga game. o_o

I think if you build/renovate the Tea Time Veranda, you get a Classiness bonus when resting.

Firstly, no I'm not. Nowhere in any of that have I intentionally set up a false argument to knock it down as if knocking down the actual argument. In fact, all I was doing was clarifying my own argument. So, unless I can somehow strawman my own argument, I don't understand why you think my examples are somehow strawmen. Secondly, I have no interest in arguing with you as to the most significant meaning of "the discussion." I said things, and you said things in response. I'm not aware of the forum rule that requires my words to represent some kind of thread-council-approved collective stance on the thusly-approved issue. If you're arguing against me, against things I've not even specifically said or supported, then that's most likely the obstacle here in our mutual understanding. See, perfectly lovely paragraph you've got there, and I couldn't have said the last bit better myself. There seems to be an awful lot of arguing going on here for you to then make an example that expresses my sentiments almost perfectly. And TBH, I AM interested in playing Expert Mode, which is precisely why I desire so strongly to know that it isn't going to obfuscate the tactics straight out of the combat.

Oh, I fully think we should have delayed consequences. We just shouldn't have them to prevent save scumming, is all. I mean, I guess technically, it does "prevent" (extremely heavily deter) the act of save scumming, itself. So, that's not false. But, it doesn't do anything for the reason anyone wants to prevent save scumming, which is finding out mystery stuff, then re-doing something accordingly. Which, with long-term stuff, and looking it up, simply bypasses the save-scumming process entirely.

*shrug*... Honestly, it made pretty decent sense in Mass Effect. I mean, you had very good communicative technology, so, if you so chose, there should've been easily-accessible information compendiums at your fingertips. But, in Dragon Age, you kept finding things and somehow instantly gathering history and lore about them. The fact that you had to close out of them to opt not to read them was the biggest problem, really. But, that and, in a world using "medieval"-style technology levels, you wouldn't just have a bunch of extra information floating around in a book that you carry around all the time. If you've learned something about an enemy, then I can assume you've added an entry with that information into your compendium. But, I honestly think there should at least be some method by which you acquire the information, and most of the just history/lore information should be in books and/or libraries and such (or told to you by people who are obviously scholars/historians/priests, etc., if you choose to get info from them.) I don't like it when the information is "gamily" paced and forcibly just pops out at you every corner you turn. And you shouldn't just acquire the entire history of all goblins, ever, just because you bump into a goblin, for example, or get an entire encyclopedia entry on Lord SecretlyTheBadGuy just because you encounter him. You just stop, and look in your magical codex, and boom, "He secretly stalks the gardens at night, doing shady things, and here's his family lineage, and here's all the stuff he's done since acquiring his title." No, I want to find that stuff out when it's relevant, and/or I'm searching for it. I want to have no CLUE who lore SecretlyTheBadGuy is, until I start trying to find information on him for some reason, and come to realize "Hmm... that's awfully shady how his family wasn't prominent before he rose to power...", etc. Not just get a codex entry in which I read "Strangely, almost no one knows about the history of the SecretlyTheBadGuy family lineage..." So: 1) No arbitrary presentation of knowledge. 2) No omniscience factor. Then I'll be happy.

If it gave you no indication, whatsoever, that any of your foes was entirely uninjured as opposed to seconds away from slumping onto the ground under their own weight, then yes, I think that factor is a bit nonsensical. Just a bit. And this isn't about whether or not I like what we're talking about. If it was, then my re-iteration of not-liking it would be just as pointless as your "once agains" telling me that toggle options will allow me to make it suit my own liking. If someone wants to play the game blindfolded, and they like that, then more power to them. That doesn't make it any less absolutely irrational. Imagine, if you will, a sports competition. Baseball, lets say. You're playing baseball, with all its rules, but you don't have any idea where the lines are, or where the bases are, and you can't even tell when you've hit the ball, or how far it went, and you can't see who's on the bases. You don't even know what the score is, or what inning it is. Now, obviously, you could still PLAY baseball, and someone could still win. But, how is hiding ALL of that anything but detrimental to the actual act of playing baseball? Again, I'm not saying that you can't hide ANYthing. But, simply switching to "injured, badly injured, near death," etc., from "120/250 health" is enough to obfuscate, without taking away necessary feedback that contributes to your ability to actually make significant, tactical decisions, and not just blindly use trial-and-error until good things occur. If you don't know exactly how much damage you're doing, and how much health something has, and how much faster your target is than you are, then you've still got to have some sort of relative idea. Game example: Accuracy. You don't know what the target's defense is, but you still see your own attack rolls. So, when you see "55", and you miss, you know their defense is higher than your accuracy. How much higher? You still don't know. You keep attacking, maybe you roll a 67, and you STILL miss. Okay, now you know it's pretty ridiculously high, and you might want to switch targets. That kind of obfuscation is fine by me. You're obscuring the details, but still conveying valid feedback. Now, imagine you don't even see your rolls. Okay, you swing at something 5 times, and you miss. Did you just get terrible rolls, or is its defense 100 higher than your accuracy? Who knows? Let's just keep guessing, shall we? 8D! Because tactical combat is most tactical when all your decisions are guesses. See, that's what I'm saying doesn't make much sense. Eliminating all feedback, because Expert Mode. I don't care what it's called, or who likes it, or how much I don't have to use it. IF it obfuscates to that degree, then it makes no sense according to the game's own design. Lastly, to use Iron Man Mode as an example, what if, in Iron Man Mode, you just got NO saves? Your game data was persistent, so long as you never died OR exited the game? That would be silly, right? So, you still get the ability to save, because the point of the challenge of the mode is to have to beat the entire game without dying, not to beat the entire game in one sitting. Just like with Expert Mode. The point of an extreme "you don't get spoonfed technical combat data" mode is to prevent you from pausing at the beginning of combat, planning everyone's first moves based on EXACTLY how susceptible all the foes are to all the attacks, and just roll from there. Not to prevent you from ever having any clue what the hell's even going on, and just guessing, 24/7. So, Ironman without saving? Overboard. Ironman WITH saving? Not overboard. Expert Mode with 100% obfuscation? Overboard. Expert Mode with partial obfuscation? Not overboard. Higher Difficulty mode that makes all enemies invulnerable? Overboard. Higher difficulty mode that just gives all enemies an HP boost? Not overboard. I hope the pattern is evident. Granted, I don't expect the details of Expert Mode to reduce the game to nought but guesses. However, I am curious to know exactly what amount of obfuscation we can expect to see in that mode. We'll just have to see how it works in a detailed fashion when they release that information. I'm not judging Expert Mode. I'm just observing its potential to be irrational.

Except that the delayed consequences can just be looked up on the internet. And the person who's reloading is reloading why? Because getting the results they want via the choices presented to them is the most important thing to them. So, again, they can just look it up if they're that worried about it, because you can't prevent people from communicating things 4 hours after the game releases. In which case, again, why work to prevent someone from diluting their own game experience? If someone wants to buy the game on disc, then use the disc to make a shiny mobile for their baby's crib, they can do that. Just like if someone wants to buy a specific book online, then just burn it for fire fuel, they can do that. If they want to argue that they're using the book the way it was meant to be used, then I'll tell them "no you aren't," all day long. But, who am I to attempt to prevent them from doing that? That's the thing about save scumming, and this whole "There's no wrong way to play a game!" argument that some people love to toss out there. You're correct. You can do whatever you want with that game, and it's not really "wrong." It just isn't "right." In other words, there IS a way in which that game is intended to be used. Why? Because it was designed. It's not just some random object. A tree doesn't have a specific way to be used, because it's just a raw object. But a game? It's designed by people, for people. So, yes, the designers DO get to say how it's "supposed" to be used, and if you want to use it a different way, then congratulations. If you want to buy something that utilizes chance and unknowns, specifically to circumvent all the chances and unknowns and just make exactly what you want happen, then by all means, do it. But why act like rolling with what chance dealt you, and dealing with the consequences of unknowns (like what's ultimately going to happen in a given situation, despite your best efforts and intentions, as based on your choices) is somehow not the intention of the system? The fact is, saving your game wasn't put there so you could go "No, wait, I didn't want them to NOT-give me that magic sword, *reload*". And the only reason that you can save anywhere is for your own convenience. So that you never get 15 minutes through a forest, then have a real-life emergency, and have to lose that progress simply because you couldn't save it at that moment in time. So, if people want to use it for whatever, then cool beans. All they're doing is missing out on the intended use of the game (even if they don't care about it), and using a product inefficiently (like buying a garden hose to use as rope, instead of just using rope).

That's when you could just rarify the actual source of that particular on-hit ability. You know, "this can only be produced from the shell of a dragon egg, but it must be processed and crafted directly into the metal." Boom. You didn't have to find a Bow of Flame Resistance, a Sword of Flame Resistance, 7 different armors of Flame Resistance, etc.... You just found one thing, and it can be anything you want. Therefore, an (insert whatever item you want to craft here) of Flame Resistance is still a rare thing (arbitrarily using "flame resistance" as an "out of the player's league" type property), but you're not just rolling the dice on whether or not you'll find the type of item you actually want from it. Anywho... I suppose this is getting mildly off topic. (My bad.)

It is a very nice point of reference, at the very least. There's good stuff in there. Ideally, I'd like to come up with a basic system to use as a reference point for analysis and tweaking that would actually fit into P:E (i.e. no durability, etc.). But, I'm not really sure how beneficial that would be, and I don't know everything about P:E's system (and its restrictions) to know exactly what would fit and what wouldn't. So... Hmm... I might look that thing over and see if I can't figure out a way to best adapt the durability-related stuff. There might be a good way to abstract the durability (into a "things don't actually degrade over time"). Not sure... *ponders*

Noted, but I honestly believe you're thinking of it as more complex than it really is. Like I said, imagine the finished product being like the hydration or radiation gauges in Fallout: NV. If you're going to have the "oh no, you're tired!" state in, then it's not a question of whether or not to represent tiredness, so we're already past that. So then, it's functionally the same as the radiation or hydration stuff: it moves by tiny increments, but only when it hits certain thresholds does the penalty take effect/change. So, the game can keep up with exactly how long it's been since your characters last rested, and how much rest they've gotten, and you don't have to. You just look at a nice, intuitive presentation of that information, and decide between a few options for resting and travel (speed, route perhaps, etc.). Most of the old games already had a slider for resting, with one-hour increments. So, being able to pick how much rest you do while traveling wouldn't be any different really. Every hour is going to add an hour onto the trip, and is going to relieve some amount of weariness. It's abstracted, but that's quite literally how tiredness works in reality, in a very simplified form. There's only so awake you can be, and only so weary you can be. Again, it all only really matters if travel time ever matters. If it doesn't, then you don't even have to represent accurate resting times, and travel times are just for funsies (and maybe to determine the odds of random encounters -- a 2-hour trip is less likely to run into something than a 15-hour trek through a forest).

Just for what it's worth, a quest being optional doesn't mean that it can't affect another quest. And a quest doesn't need to lead directly to another quest to affect it. I think most of the whole quests-being-pertinent-to-one-another notion brings to mind games in which quests (especially optional ones) just open or close doors. But, you know, sometimes they just crack a window. @Rabain: You say in reality not everything is linked to everything else. And that's true... but, a hell of a lot of it sure affects everything else, to some degree. Basically, just because the farmer doesn't need the pig directly for some further quest, we could look at WHY he needs the pig. Was his livestock stolen by bandits? If so, then helping the farmer is tied to the bandits. Maybe you go steal it back from the bandits, or maybe you don't even track them down, and you just get him some livestock from elsewhere. Well, when they find out he's just replenished his stock of animals, why wouldn't they try to take THOSE, too? They're bandits. It's what they do. So, that's even MORE of a chance that it's going to become an issue to deal with, and that you're going to run into the bandits. Etc. Or, maybe the local lord is cheating people out of their money. Or, maybe there's just a shortage of something in that village/town, usually because of factors external to that village or town. In other words, if you fill the world with little quests that are in NO way affiliated with any other factors or elements in the world, whatsoever, then that's a pretty bland game, if you ask me. Who wants to play "Just go around helping the random people with their completely subjective desires that have literally nothing at all to do with anything else in the entire context of this story"? What is the player... a genie? I don't mind the occasional "this person just would like it if someone did this thing for them" quest. But, "occasional" is the key word, there. Maybe that eccentric guy is rich and will give you something nice. Or maybe that person just really seems to be in need of help, even though it's just something that's their own personal problem. Maybe someone needs a smackdown, because they're just mean, and that's that. But, I don't want a narrative experience chocked full of just a bunch of standalone situations that don't go beyond the whims and desires of people, in a complete vacuum from any and all external factors and circumstances. Basically, it's just as silly to forcibly make quests completely separate from everything else as it is to forcibly make them directly tied to everything else (i.e. "This farmer wants this pig, but it turns out it's the PRINCE'S PIG, and it turns out the PRINCE'S AID is an evil necromancer who's the main bad guy, and he's holding the prince captive, and the pig is the key to it all!")

Mechanics: I kind of think of it like Magic: The Gathering. I want to know about how all the different things work, but I still want to have to play the game to see what cards are available. In other words, they can tell us almost everything about the actual mechanics without revealing all abilities, weapons, ore types, etc. So that, much like in Magic, when you get a given card, and read it, you'll know what it does and how you can use it.

Is it not possible that they simply "invented" the idea without the knowledge of the idea's prior (and superior) existence? Anywho, in line with what Sophos said, with the whole soul thing at play, I hope the cosmology is kept relatively simple, overall.

Yup. For the "why are they letting a vote decide instead of sticking to their own vision of the game's design?" question: "This vote is for advisory purposes only and the final decision will be made by the development team through the careful consideration of all factors."

True that. But, at the same time, I often found myself going to one place, exploring around a bit, then traveling somewhere else (several hours of in-area exploration, since the last rest) for maybe 10-16 hours of travel time, only to arrive with several characters immediately fatigued and complaining about sleep. I realize that what they were doing with the game was pushing the extent of the technology at the time, so they had a pretty full plate, but it just would've been nice to at least have the option of resting during your travel, or not. I mean, you're either going to travel to a safe place to rest (non-wilderness, so no ambushes) manually, or you're going to "stay out past your bed-time" in the wilderness and travel straight to another un-safe place. No point in giving you the option of doing so, but requiring you to become fatigued just because of the travel time, THEN manually fix that fatigue. That could be another factor on there: ambush/encounter danger (while resting). Maybe some kind of Survival skill factors into this (and travel times, etc.) You can actually have a pretty complex (taking a lot of things into account) world-map travel system, while still resulting in a quick and simple, intuitive interface that just makes travel a bit of an interesting thing rather than just something you keep doing out of necessity but don't really have any significant control over (beyond your destination). That's kind of the beauty of PnP gaming. Sure, you're rolling a bunch of dice, but you get to make choices that affect things like which dice you get to roll, how many dice you get to roll, what modifier you get to your roll, what the goal number is you're rolling for, etc. It's like chance is a stallion, and you get to tame it.

"No, really... the street name for these head-crusher traps is 'Doozies.' o_o"

My bad. In response to Cubiq's (paraphrased) "If that's your opinion of how the game should be played, then simply play the game that way," you asked (also paraphrased) "Why tempt the player?". Which I took to mean "why should the game even tempt the player with the allowance to play NOT the way they think is best, which, in this case, is by seeing the effects of a choice, then reloading a state before that choice, and doing it over in a different way?" If I've misunderstood, I apologize. Could you please explain what you actually did mean there, so I can compile that knowledge into my code so as to better avoid misunderstandings in the future?

That's understandable. There are necessary considerations, as always, but the two are not mutually exclusive. "Oh, thank goodness! You stopped the assasination! I owe you my life! Here, have some instant gratification rewards! Now, if you're up for it, I'd rather like to find out who sent that assassin, and why." Boom. Just a generic example. Again, obviously some quests aren't going to directly lead to other quests. BUT, helping some little local farmer with a simple problem COULD produce enough of a factor change so as to lead to another quest further down the road, or at least a significant change to a future quest. Simple example being that farmer's immediate problems were dealt with, so they got a good crop yield (etc.) and were actually able to travel to a big hub city to sell their crops after the harvest (which might've been weeks away at the time of the quest you helped them with, so by the time you arrive at that big city later, you bump into them, where you wouldn't have if you didn't help them). All I'm saying is, there's almost always a reasonable and beneficial way to take a quest beyond just a little isolated "do something then get something for it" package that doesn't extend outside of its own little space. See, on the complete other hand of the "I feel like I'm working" sentiment, I feel like I'M just working if 80% of the quests in a game consist of little 1-for-1 tasks and rewards. Fetch the cat, get some gold. Slay the beast, get a weapon. That's the problem I have with MMORPG quests. Sure, they all pretend to tie together, in the lore and all, but they don't actually really tie together. They're all designed as like freelance jobs, and your payment is exp, money, and loot. One job, one reward. One job, one reward. It hardly ever feels like you're contributing to something outside of that one particular job, until you actually start on the next job.

My favorite thing about all this is that, with the knowledge of their intention for Crises to be far more complex than any other game's just-plain-combat -- what with potential skill checks, environment interactions, strategic conflict resolutions without killing anything, the implemetation of things like effort, possible dialogue mid-"combat," etc. -- people are STILL actually arguing not just that "I like RTwP better," but that "turn-based wouldn't work well... when I'm doing 17 more things than in a typical RPG during 'combat,' I ESPECIALLY want a real-time system! 8D!" The other thing I don't get is the rounds. They are an objectively terrible idea. For one thing, in real-time, everyone's able to move around 24/7, yet all the ACTIONS are confined to 3-second rounds (at least in the IE games that did that, they were). That's just to START your actions. Things like spells actually required cast-times before emitting projectiles, then striking. It was objectively rubbish to try and coordinate AOE spells on a 3-5 second metronome while everyone's constantly moving around in real-time. *shrug* It always turns into a big subjective battle, though, I suppose. Let's just compare turn-based to real-time, in a vacuum, then pick our favorite, and argue that our preference is better than other people's preference. 8P Also, for what it's worth, I'm not 100% certain they ever said "whichever system wins, even if its just by 1 vote, we'll implement THAT system, no matter what." I mean, how are they factoring in the "indifferent" votes? Those wouldn't even matter if it was just a flat out "most votes wins!" thing. I think the vote just further helps their decision, rather than decides for them. I'm sure if it ends up being 15,000 to 3,000, they'd go with the 15,000. But, if it's close, they might still go with the loser. *shrug* Or maybe they said "this vote decides, no matter what." I don't recall. Again... still makes me wonder what the "indifferent" votes do.

... unless it unnecessarily replaces a lie tag. The lie tag doesn't HAVE to be replaced, but it would be preferable (from your standpoint -- which, again, I understand) and subjectively pleasant for it to be replaced. Which, again, the only reason I don't opt for that to be the definite design to go with is that the indication that something is a lie is, itself, a game-to-player indication, and not some in-character bit of information. If it was a decision between "Do you not see this +1 sword I'm wielding?" and "Obviously you must've ignored the weapon I'm carrying. Such a blade is earned, if you take my meaning.", then I'd say, yes, the actual in-character speech should not be referencing out-of-character, this-is-just-some-software-running-on-your-computer game mechanics. It should directly reference what they're abstractly representing in the virtual world. But, your character's interaction with another character is in no way making reference to deception. The ONLY reason for the indicator is to make it clear to the player that the option being presented to you, for your character to say, is information your character knows to be false. It's for the same reason I don't see any need for the weapon-description tooltips to say "The sharpness of this blade could probably slice straight through a coconut, but would have difficulty cutting through solid oak" instead of "8-11 damage." In a way it would be pretty cool, sure, but nothing demands that immersion (for lack of a better word) if the description isn't taking place purely within the virtual world (which it isn't, because the game's talking directly to the player; none of the characters are going to view the weapon description sheets. It lives in the UI, and not in the actual game world. Just like a [lie] tag.) My mistake. I agree that it is partially a matter of taste (whether or not to use immersive-style description or just a gamey tag), and I don't think it's dumb to prefer/desire the description in lieu of the tag. I only meant that the description is not objectively necessary, as all it does at that point is be pleasing to a given user (such as yourself). There's nothing wrong with that. It's not wrong just because it's subjective. Part of the job of a video game is to fulfill subjective desires. Hence customization and the like. I just evaluate stuff like that (Hmm... IS this actually objectively necessary, or isn't it?) rather than guessing or just plain not worrying about it, for I am an android. 8P

I just want to say that the characters, themselves, serve to support/advance the story. So, even something that "just" develops the character and doesn't tie directly into the story still ties IN-directly into the story. Unless the narrative doesn't take advantage of character development... in which case... shame on you, narrative! *finger waggle* Also, everyone knows Minsc is a coffee drinker. u_u

I'm curious as to why you'd ever want a quest to explicitly NOT lead-to or tie-into something else. I mean, you can still have short quests that potentially tie into other things, immediately or hours later, and longer quests. And you can have shorter quest "lines" and longer ones. Ones that are mostly immediate (like investigating what's going on in a city, maybe even before a certain deadline), and ones that span almost the entire narrative. But, why insist that some little quest or another NOT be in any way a part of something greater, to any degree whatsoever? I mean, I'm not saying every quest should forcibly be part of some grand scheme. But, all schemes need not be grand, or even schemes, for that matter. But, opportunities, the development of scenarios, and the choices of NPCs and the like are not immune to cause and effect.

^ Fair enough.