Arsene Lupin

I kind of think the systems to emulate are (or, rather, will be) Divinity: Original Sin, where there are a whole host of variables. Pessimism and Faith, Affection and Affinity, etc. They've got variables for -everything-.

Note: I realize many of us are part of the crowdfunding initiative for both this game, Project Obsidian (which, I'll be honest, I find the most exciting all of the crowdfunded cRPGs) and InXile Entertainment's "Torment: Tides of Numenera." InXile's Torment forums have a very nice set of mechanics in place for contributing game ideas--a mechanic I have made full use of in the past several days. My basic line of thinking was this: What are the things that annoy the hell out of me in isometric RPGs? What are the things that I always want to see an RPGs but never do? That train of thought led me to propose several ideas both mechanical and aesthetic. Because both Torment: Tides of Numenera and Project Eternity are very much being developed in the vein of classic, Infinity Engine cRPGs, I feel that these ideas are applicable--and, to a certain degree, vital--to both titles. As I mentioned, these are things that I believe belong in every RPG of good standing, and while some may read these notions of mine and think, "that's obvious," or, "that's too simple of a thing to bother proposing,"--and while I may agree with those sentiments--I still believe that some things simply need to be said. I will do my best to fully articulate these ideas as best I can--which means I'll be writing as much as I feel necessary to clearly convey both my ideas in specific, as well as their emotional impetus. If you don't have the time or inclination to properly hear me out, please just avoid this thread. _____________________________________________________________________________ Let's Talk User-Defined UI Scaling Alternate thread title: The only thing I want to see (other than a Great RPG) _____________________________________________________________________________ User-Interface scaling is a big of a big issue for me, because I have a very large (30"!) monitor. Playing games at high resolution yields not just too-small-to-read font sizes, but also renders many user-interface elements too-small-to-use. I'm not alone in having this problem, but it seems to me that most of my fellow gamers focus solely on the font size instead of the UI as a whole. At high resolution, UI elements become smaller, relatively speaking. The smaller the UI elements become, the more difficult the interface is to use. This is particularly bad for RPGs and Strategy games that rely on very complicated user-interfaces. What I would like to see in Project Eternity (and all other games, always) is some degree of user-defined UI scaling (and possibly also some degree of customization regarding element placement, but that's a purely cosmetic--and therefore far less vital--concern). Basically, allow us to determine what size font we want the game to display, and ALSO let us define the relative scale of UI elements--the dialog window X big, the mini-map Y big, etc., etc. The main problem I see with this idea (other the the added work of implementing it) is creating art-assets for the UI that work at varying resolutions (I remember there was a but of a "hullaballoo" when Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition came out last year, when users were complaining that the UI was upscaled slightly when playing the game at high resolutions). Personally, I would rather have the game up-scale lower-resolution UI art assets to a higher resolution, than be forced to suffer through a UI so small I can barely read the text, or see the buttons. Several games have toyed with UI customization--like Divinie Divinity and Diablo--where the player can drag and drop UI elements wherever on the screen he or she prefers to see them. That's a nice feature, but far from the most important. I think user-defined UI scaling is important because it makes games more accessible for users with large monitors, higher-resolution displays, and those with poor vision. It also acts to "future proof" the game slightly by making the UI elements better suited for potential super-high resolutions. For example, the original Baldur's Gate can be played at 1080p resolutions... but doing so yields a UI too small to actually be usable, even on my giant monitor (setting up the game at 1080p also has the terrible effect of "zooming out the "camera" so far that the game-screen itself is unusable, but that's another can of worms). If Baldur's Gate had the ability to set user-defined UI scales, we could set the UI at, I don't know, 300%, and the problem would not exist.

Well, one of the benefits of proper perspective would be that rain would necessarily be too small to be detailed. Drain in the distance could be rendered as simply as a "haze" made out of semi-transparent lines (so no "falling" motion) w/ the "up close" layer consisting of larger, visible "rain drops" whose detail you could make out (i.e. they wouldn't have to be the same size as a pixel). And from the screenshots, it does not appear that the game will be 100% isometric. (There seems to be a clear background/foreground in the terrain, if small). But, that said, the isometric angle effects the perspective of the ground and things on it... weather effects affect the perspective of elements above ground--not the people or terrain, but the camera height & placement. ---- And regarding simulated rain, etc., like I said in my post, it's really not that hard to simulate rain--it just requires spending a bit more time on the animation overlay to create the illusion of dynamic "wind" effecting rain trajectory. Also, even the Infinity Engine games got rid of the idea of "accurate" pixel-sized rain in favor of more visible, stylized rain "streaks."

I haven't played through NV completely yet, so I can't judge (got halfway through, save broke, never mustered the will to play again). So long as the first thread is resolved (you meet Benny and get the chip, or you see Benny die and the Chip get destroyed, or something like that) it would count as a double-arced narrative. With regard to Ocarina of Time... I chose it because, even though it may not be the best example, it's the best example that the most number of gamers would be aware of. While the two arcs are very similar, everything else is very different--you're in a different setting (future) with a different goal (people instead of objects) with a different tone (post-apocalyptic) with a different protagonist, even (adult Link), and the narrative itself relies on a new set of mechanics (time-travel). EDIT: The Dragon Quest games are similar, I suppose, in that the quest is always "save the world" but how you're saving the world--and from who--and even what world your saving, change in the subsequent arcs. Hm... let me try and think of some more recent examples.... Okay, in Nier (PS3), the first arc is about trying to take care of/cure your sick daughter, and make a living--the second arc is about finding/saving your daughter. (It's worth pointing out that many games with dual-arcs use a time-skip to separate the two). In Final Fantasy X, the first arc is about going on a pilgrimage to Zanarkand; the second arc is about subverting that pilgrimage, or finding a way to AVOID resolving the initial narrative. Starcraft is a single narrative about defeating a Zerg invasion, right? But that narrative is broken into three distinct arcs--each one is fully resolved before the next one starts. First, there's the Terran Civil War, which begins and ends in the game; then there's the Zerg invasion of the sector, then there's the Protoss arc dealing with the Dark Templar and Tassadar's sacrifice and so on. ---- It's worth pointing out that different narrative arcs are not necessarily different narratives. In many cases, they're extensions of the original narrative--evolutions--shifts in the direction of a story that occur as conflicts are resolved. ---- Basically, a single narrative arc is something you can summarize with a single sentence. "Game X is about Y." Wherease a double-arc narrative requires a second statement. "Game A is about B and C." For example, "Starcraft is about the Zerg Invasion" is not an accurate description of the narrative. More accurate would be, "Starcraft is about the Zerg Invasion, the Terran Civil War, and the Protoss reconciling two wildly differenty societies for their mutual survival." The plots of the narrative arcs are not divorced from one another, but the arcs themselves are complete. (A narrative arc consists, basically, of beginning, rising action, climax, and resolution).

...I really hope I'm not developing a reputation here for talking way too much about my own, personal "pet-peeves." (My biggest pet-peeve? I hate-hate-hate the term "pet peeve"). Anyway. Dragons and lizard-men are everywhere in fantasy games. Every-****ing-where. We all know know what they look like. There are Eastern-style dragons, which are snakes with eel-tails, lion-heads, arms and hair; there are wester-dragons with massive rear legs, smaller forelegs, giant wings, and a giant toothy beak. And we all love dragons, don't we? And why not: they are THE apex predator. They are big and scary and intimidating and present a huge challenge. ...But Dragons, or rather, dragons as we know them, shouldn't really exist any more. I'm not saying we should get rid of the archetypal dragon designs altogether--but we need to modify and update the designs, at least in part, because our conceptualization of what a dragon looks like ought to be changed. (O_O) So: what am I talking about? First: what is a dragon? Where do dragons come from? The mythology of dragons is rooted in the realities of paleontology. Dragons are what we originally conceived Dinosaurs to be. In the past several centuries, what or image of dinosaurs has changed a lot. Our image of Dragons? Not so much. Oh, and have you heard the news? Dinosaurs weren't lizards, they were birds. Feathers and all. Everything from the Velociraptor to the T-Rex. So I think it's about time we updated our Dragons to reflect reality: I want dragons with feathers! Maybe not all dragons. But at least some--or better, most. I'm not saying we should get rid of the traditional dragon design completely, but we DO need to supplement it. Because, come on--the real reason we love dragons is because they're dinosaurs, and we all love dinosaurs because they're awesome.

Swen Vincke is just a great guy. If you liked him in the kickstarter videos, you should check out his blog. He talks about several aspects of game development (like the business aspect, and just how and why publishers suck) that most other people hardly address. With regard to their campaign on Kickstarter... it was indeed great. Original Sin was the first game I donated to, and it was that first donation that gave me the courage--or the will--to also donate to InXile and Obsidian, despite my better judgment. I'm particularly fond of the update music. I really hope they incorporate it into the game. Maybe only in the credits... only when they display all of their backers. Would be so cool. Love that music.

Currently re-playing Divine Divinity (almost done) and Planescape Torment (halfway done) and playing Final Fantasy VI for the first time (just started). I plan to play Arcanum next, as it was a game I actually bought in Taiwan at an open-air market a long time ago and played a lot of... but never finished. (I've still got the packaging, it was so cool to me: got a full manual in English... and another full manual in Chinese). Which should leave me ready to play-through Baldur's Gate II: Enhanced Edition whenever it comes out, and/or the next big cRPGs--Wasteland 2 and, the one I'm currently crazy-excited for, Divinity Original Sin.

I've noticed that most Western games do single arcs--regardless of the story--whereas Japanese developers seem particularly fond of double-arcs. Basically, the difference is a single-arc is a single narrative thread whose resolution ends the game's story--in Baldur's Gate II, the main arc is to find and defeat Irenicus (for whatever reason) and once you complete the arc, the game is over. But many Japanese games have built up a tendency/reputation/tradition of doing double-arcs. They are particularly prevalent in the Legend of Zelda and Dragon Quest game series. Basically, the game will establish its narrative arc... but once you play through that arc and it is resolved, a new, larger narrative arc begins. I realize it's become a bit of a cliche, but I really enjoy double-arcs as they create (and, indeed, are depenedent on) the illusion of an unexpectedly big world and or/story. That is, the player is conditioned to expect games to revolve around single-arcs, so as they play through the game they recognize the narrative arc they're pursuing, and expect the game to end with the resolution of that arc--defeat Irenicus, end the game. Double-arcs invert that, by telling the player, "You thought that was the end of the game? Hell no! Your journey is only just starting!" Some great examples of this are The Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time, where you begin with the archetypal narrative of exploring the whole world to gather magic stones from each of the different races in order to thwart the plans of the villain. (Which provides an excellent contrast, as Dragon Age: Origins used this same exact narrative arc... and ended the game with its resolution). Once you resolve that arc, however, CONFLICT happens and the stakes rise and a new narrative arc begins--and you realize that even though you had explored the whole world, you'd really only just begun the game. Dragon Quest titles are similarly structures, which revolve around the archetypal narrative arc of "defeating the demon king." Defeating the demon king and resolving that main narrative arc, however, is usually only the first of two or three different narrative arcs, each one building upon the last. .... So... have I articulated double-arcs versus single-arcs well enough? What do you think? Would you appreciate a double-arc in Eternity? Or would you prefer a more mystery-oriented narrative arc where the essential conflict and contours of the story are not readily apparent until toward the end? (Planescape Torment is a great example of this, as you spend most of the game not really knowing what the narrative arc was). Personally, I prefer either style... but I've grown to hate explicit single-arc games (like Dragon Age) because all-too often the narratives are too simplistic and too-obvious, and I think that the joy of exploration--of venturing into the UNKNOWN--is something that is vitally important to both the design of the game world AND the construction of the narrative.

I don't remember enough about Arcanum (really need to re-play that one) to vote, and never got into Zehir... but between Fallout and Baldur's Gate... I can't make up my mind. In practice, I like BG style exploration better--but in theory, I like that Fallout-style world maps present a game world where you may or may not know everything that there. For example, between points A and B in the world of Baldur's Gate... you know, or potentially can know, everything that exists between those two points. But in Fallout? There could be whole cities you're just walking past becasue they're not relevant. It makes the game world much more open to expansion content. But, since most WRPGs focus on small segements of larger worlds, I don't think Fallout-style maps are really necessary--because if you always expand the map by going outside it. What really irks me is JRPGs, where you can explore the whole world, and the implication is that everything that exists in the world is in the world map. It makes the game worlds feel smaller than they should. In Final Fantasy VII, for example, it seemed silly that the entire planet only had one city, and only 5 or so different small towns. If they had done a Fallout-style worldmap, or a less direct representation (ala Romancing Saga, or most SRPGs) it would have been better, because then you could still travel the whole world without feeling like you had SEEN everything there was to see in the world. .... Honestly, I think this problem-of-presentation applies more to the GAME WORLD than the WORLD MAP. In Baldur's Gate, for example, the titular city is only so big, and you know that because you can explore the entire city. Bethesda games are like that, too. Cities have finite sizes, and you can explore the whole city, but because of the games' inherent limitations, those cities are small. TOO SMALL. I think the illusion created by Fallout-style world-maps needs to be implemented in games at the "real-world" level. The idea is to create the illusion of a massive city without actually constructing a massive city. A few games have done this well--but I'll limit myself to examples everyone should be familiar with. In Half Life 2, this was accomplished by making progress through the larger cities extreme linear--you couldn't explore the whole city, but you could see the vast cities and structures beyond. Diablo III was much more deft in approach: there were locations where you could see a huge city in the distance, but could only explore certain specific areas of that city--but because that backdrop was always there, and because of some excellent ambient sound effects, they really managed to create an illusion of being in a large, well-populated city. I don't think there should ever by an RPG where a player can say, "I know everything that is in this city," or "I have seen everything that is in this world/continent/area." The real world is massive, and I really appreciate it when games try to create the illusion that their worlds are equally massive. .... But that really doesn't answer what kind of world-map I want to see in Eternity, does it? Hm... well, I'd have to say I'd like a hybrid approach. In Fallout, you could easily fast-travel between any two locations. In Baldur's Gate, you had to go the long way. I would like fast-travel between a small number of locations (like, say, ONLY between cities/towns/villages--you'd hitch a ride on a cart or boat or something). But I also really like seeing the "path" the party takes through the world map, as in Fallout, rather than simply clicking on an icon and immediately being transported to a new area. It's the "Indiana Jones" kind of thing. And, of course, I also want to see random encounters along the road.

Note: I realize many of us are part of the crowdfunding initiative for both this game, Project Obsidian (which, I'll be honest, I find the most exciting all of the crowdfunded cRPGs) and InXile Entertainment's "Torment: Tides of Numenera." InXile's Torment forums have a very nice set of mechanics in place for contributing game ideas--a mechanic I have made full use of in the past several days. My basic line of thinking was this: What are the things that annoy the hell out of me in isometric RPGs? What are the things that I always want to see an RPGs but never do? That train of thought led me to propose several ideas both mechanical and aesthetic. Because both Torment: Tides of Numenera and Project Eternity are very much being developed in the vein of classic, Infinity Engine cRPGs, I feel that these ideas are applicable--and, to a certain degree, vital--to both titles. As I mentioned, these are things that I believe belong in every RPG of good standing, and while some may read these notions of mine and think, "that's obvious," or, "that's too simple of a thing to bother proposing,"--and while I may agree with those sentiments--I still believe that some things simply need to be said. I will do my best to fully articulate these ideas as best I can--which means I'll be writing as much as I feel necessary to clearly convey both my ideas in specific, as well as their emotional impetus. If you don't have the time or inclination to properly hear me out, please just avoid this thread. _____________________________________________________________________________ Creating Immersion Through Weather Effects Alternate title: The Benefit of Proper Perspective in an Isometric Game Rain perspective is one of those little things that every game seems to do wrong, but that no one really seems to notice or care about. But it's something I always notice and--the more I see it, the more I care about it. Most of the time you see rain in a game, it's not really rain. (This applies to all forms of precipitation, but I'll be using "rain" instead of of "rain and snow and sleet and hail and drizzle"). In many 3D game, and virtually 100% of isometric games, rain is depicted with a clever optical illusion that makes use of two different semi-transparent animation overlays. First, you have the "ground" animation layer--this is, as you might imagine, a layer on the ground that shows the impact of the precipitation. For rain, you'll see little raindrops hitting thr ground, maybe some steam rising, things like that. (This layer isn't necessary for all kinds of precipitation; snow, for example, falling on a snowfield requires no "impact" animation). Second is the precipitation layer--this is usually applied directly to the screen, and is the most visible element. Usually, rain is depicted as constantly falling in parallel trajectory from the upper right of the screen to the lower left. If you've played many old RPGs or RTS games, you know exactly what I'm talking about. Rain looked like this: And it looked terrible. Isometric games are supposed to present the game world from a top-down perspective--the "camera" is placed high in the air and aimed downward. So why is rain depicted from the same lateral perspective that Morte and The Nameless One down below would see it? Isometric games need to depict rain (and other forms of precipitation) in the proper perspective--and in a 3D perspective. There are two ways to do this. First, a game could render weather in full 3D--this is more work, but allows for more dynamic weather effects like wind and random thunder/lightning lighting effects. But the same effect can be achieved the same way rain was depicted in the older isometric games--using the exact same optical illusion! All it requires is a little bit more work from the artists in charge of creating the animation overlays, and a very small amount of new work. Here's a quick mock-up of what rain should look like (and should have looked like) from an isometric perspective: Since you are looking down on the action from above, the rain is falling away from the "camera" toward the ground. Because of this perspective, the density of rain in greater along the periphery of the screen, and lessened in the center--effectively framing the game-play rather than obscuring it. This effect would be be created by using two different animation layers for the falling rain--larger droplets "up close" that are more detailed, and smaller droplets that are "further away" that are less detailed. Furthermore, you easily create the illusion of wind by having the the say back and forth--the "close" rain would sway back and forth more than the "far" rain, and the speed at which the swaying occurs could easily be increased or decreased to simulate stormy or calm weather. Implementing this kind of more accurate effect accomplishes several very important things: It increases the realism of the game world by accurately depicting what rainfall would look like from the camera's (player's) perspective. The proper perspective would naturally result in the rain effects "framing" the action, thereby infusing the game with a nice atmosphere without obscuring terrain to the detriment of play. It allows for weather systems to be much more dynamic and visually stimulating, which is important in a game where the player is "removed" from the action through the isometric perspective. The game naturally becomes much more immersive, as the accurate perspective (especially when coupled with wind effects, sound effects, lighting effects and character effects--like fog appearing near creatures' heads to simulate visible breath on a cold day, or steam rising form the ground) makes the player feel like he or she is "really there." Because the camera angle of an isometric game is fixed, it is vitally important that all of the visual and audio elements contribute to the player's immersion in the world. Attention to detail is what makes these worlds come alive, what makes them so compelling and interesting and worth exploring--and well-thought and well-implemented weather effects are a vital part of crafting that detail.

Note: I realize many of us are part of the crowdfunding initiative for both this game, Project Obsidian (which, I'll be honest, I find the most exciting all of the crowdfunded cRPGs) and InXile Entertainment's "Torment: Tides of Numenera." InXile's Torment forums have a very nice set of mechanics in place for contributing game ideas--a mechanic I have made full use of in the past several days. My basic line of thinking was this: What are the things that annoy the hell out of me in isometric RPGs? What are the things that I always want to see an RPGs but never do? That train of thought led me to propose several ideas both mechanical and aesthetic. Because both Torment: Tides of Numenera and Project Eternity are very much being developed in the vein of classic, Infinity Engine cRPGs, I feel that these ideas are applicable--and, to a certain degree, vital--to both titles. As I mentioned, these are things that I believe belong in every RPG of good standing, and while some may read these notions of mine and think, "that's obvious," or, "that's too simple of a thing to bother proposing,"--and while I may agree with those sentiments--I still believe that some things simply need to be said. I will do my best to fully articulate these ideas as best I can--which means I'll be writing as much as I feel necessary to clearly convey both my ideas in specific, as well as their emotional impetus. If you don't have the time or inclination to properly hear me out, please just avoid this thread. _____________________________________________________________________________ The Manners/Morality Dichtomy: An Appeal for Tonal Dialog Options in Project Eternity Alternate thread title: A Consideration of the Sanjuro/Yojimbo Archetype _____________________________________________________________________________ In most roleplaying games, there seems to be a very rigidly defined relationship between manners and morality. In short, when you see dialog options, the "good" path is written in polite language, and the "evil" path is written in rude language. Essentially, these games are constructing a false equality between manners and morality. Good characters must necessarily be polite characters; evil characters much necessarily be rude characters. And I hate it! When I approach a roleplaying game, I try to construct a model of what kind of person I want my character to be--what kind of person I want to roleplay. I take a personality type I personally admire, and try to apply that personality type to the decisions I am presented with in the game. Usually, the personality type I choose is Toshiro Mifune. Toshiro Mifune was a Japanese actor who became quite famous for his roles in multiple period films, most notably those directed by Akira Kurosawa. You may have seen him in such classic films as Seven Samurai, Rashomon, Throne of Blood (a fantastic re-telling of Macbeth), The Hidden Fortress (which you may have heard of as George Lucas' "inspiration" for Star Wars), Yojimbo, Sanjuro and Redbeard. Mifune's characters' personalities are all essentially the same, and perhaps best exemplified in Yojimbo, Sanjuro and Redbeard. (The latter of which, I must mention, I regard as the absolute best film ever made). In these films, Mifune is the hero of the story--but he is gruff. He is ill-kempt, ill-mannered and ill-groomed. He is curt and dismissive and, at times, insulting. Judged by his words, he is not a character at all--he is no better than the vermin who serve as the villains and/or antagonists of the films. But the worth of man (or woman) is not in what they say, but what they do--and the ACTIONS of these characters are the very definition of heroic. The Toshiro Mifune character is -my- quintessential hero archetype--completely unfettered by social obligations, but possessing a powerful sense of morality and self-sacrifice. Yet in all my years (decades) of gaming, I have yet to play a single game where I've been able really role-play as I want to, thanks in large part to the pervasive manners/morality dichotomy I mentioned earlier. I want to be able to play a game where I can do the right thing, but say the wrong thing. I want to be rude and abrupt and abrasive, but I don't want to be evil. I want to be able to play a game where other gamers and say the right thing, and do the wrong thing. There are a number of different ways to implement this. The worst way is to remove tonality from dialog altogether--giving the player so little voice that he or she is forced to imagine that voice. "Will you do this, player?" An NPC says. "Yes," the player can say; or "No," the player can say. In several interviews, Chris Avellone has discussed the process developers go through when constructing player dialog options. He states that they generally create multiple character archetypes in their mind that the player might want to roleplay, and then write those characters into the dialog options. So the ideal solution would be to simply (greatly) increase the number of archetypes involved in a game--but to do that requires an insane amount of additional work and reactivity which, simply put, is not feasible in any game development project. So, what do I suggest as a reasonable method to implement more versatility and malleability for player voice in an RPG? In Planescape Torment, certain dialog options measured the player's intent--you could agree to the same task multiple says. These intent options were indicated with brackets. For example, an NPC might ask you for a favor, and your affirmative dialog options would look like this: [Truth] "I'll help you." [bluff] "I'll help you." [intimidate] "How much will you pay me?" (And, of course, you'd have analogous options for the denial dialog). Dialog Intent options gave Planescape Torment's dialog system a great deal of depth, and allowed players to better react to the other characters in the game as they saw fit, rather than simply conforming to specific archetypes. I propose doing something similar. Rather than gauge intent, I want dialog options that gauge tone. Are you being rude? Are you being polite? Are you bored? Are you interested? Players could determine not simply what they say, but HOW they say it--which makes it, to my mind, hugely important to the experience of role-playing. Tonal dialog options also have the potential to better implement realistic choices-and-consequences into RPGs, which is something I think all RPG gamers love seeing (which I'll get into after defining this idea a bit more). Adding tonal dialog options would slightly increase the complexity of dialog trees, but at the same time, allow for the player to almost completely customize his or her in-game reactions to characters. For example, I would suggest at least six different basic tones: [Polite] [Rude] [Dismissive] [Eager] [bored] [interested] Of course, even for a yes/no question, six different tones would yield twelve different potential responses! And that's too many to implement, I think. I do NOT think it's necessary for every dialog option to have tonal dialog options, and I do NOT think that tonal dialog options should always include all six tones. Tonal dialog options should be applied to dialog on a case-by-case basis, with potential tones chosen that make sense in the context. It simply doesn't make sense to be [Dismissive] while accepting a quest, after all. [Polite] and [Rude] are general dialog options, which could be applied to any encounter and perhaps work best when the player is asking a question. For example: You walk through the arch of a large, ornate doorway. Inside, you see workers and servants scurrying about their own tasks with haste. In the back of the main chamber, you can see a large man sitting wearily behind an equally large, oaken desk. He is still and silent despite the hustle and bustle of activity around him. Curious, you get the attention of a nearby worker: [Polite]: "Who is the man sitting in the back?" [Rude]: "Who's the fatass sleeping on the job back there?" Different characters should respond differently to different tones. Most would be more cooperative with polite characters and less cooperative with rude characters--but not all. [bored] and [interested] work best for exposition--dialog scenes where the player is attempting to either receive or convey information. For example: you wake up on a stone slab in a mortuary, and a flying stone skull starts chatting with you. He offers to tell you all about the strange place you now find yourself in. If you ask him to keep talking to you in an [interested] tone, he might give you more details, but if you ask for the same in a [bored] tone he might omit certain details because he perceives that you don't really care. (This way, if players are bored by long-winded explanations and dialog, they can convey that sentiment in the dialog without telling the NPC to stop talking, or skipping the dialog altogether). Conversely, if you decline more information in a [bored] tone, the NPC might get angry at you--you are, after all, spurning free-offered help/advice--which might impact your future relationship with that NPC. [Dismissive] and [Eager] would seem to best fit accepting and rejecting quests. If you're dismissive, the quest-giver might see you as rude, and (if you are declining a quest) not offer you the quest again or (if you are accepting the quest) give you a smaller reward for completing it (less gold, a less valuable item, etc.). Being [Eager] to accept a quest might yield you a better reward, and being [Polite] while declining might make the NPC willing to offer you the same quest again. Of course, no one tone should be the "good" tone or the "bad" tone. Each NPC should react differently to the player's tone. For example, if you accept a quest from NPC Alpha with the [Eager] dialog option, he may feel like it's something so easy for you that you don't have to think about it, and therefore give you the lesser reward, whereas had you been [Dismissive] or [Rude] he would have doled out a greater reward as he thinks the quest was something you had to go out of your way to do, or wasn't easy, and therefore wishes to show his appreciation. I believe every dialog encounter should have at least two different tones for the player to choose from. These tones do not necessarily need to be clearly labeled (we should be able to discern tone from the content of the text) unless they are also tied character statistics that impact how NPCs react to the player in general. (I.E., if you consistently choose [Rude] dialog options, your character's Rudeness Stat would increase, causing some NPCs to refuse to interact with you--or require some coercion to do so--etc., etc.) I also think Planescape Torment's intent dialog options (the [Truth]/[bluff]/[intimidate] stuff) is also important, but less so, as the truth of falsehood of a statement should be something the player can conceive of in his or her imagination, and the game should only recognize the truth or falsity of a statement by the players' subsequent actions. (I.E. whether or not your statement is the truth or a lie should not be dependent on what you say, but rather what you do--your actions determine the truth of your word). I think this mechanic would be an excellent way to consider dialog options and player interactivity, as it would broaden the potential for player role-playing and allow for meaningful choices that impact the narrative at a very immediate level, that can be unpredictable without annoying the player.

Or the obvious counter, Planescape Torment. Most people agree it's one of the, if not THE best cRPGs ever made... yet those same people also admit that the combat is terrible. (Which is weird, considering how well every other IE game did combat).

I got ToEE on GOG a while ago, but haven't started playing it yet. What are the must-have mods for it?

I got into the whole kickstarter thing a bit late, but I was (quite pleased to be) able to contribute to the development of Project Eternity via the "Slacker Backer" thing. My understanding of crowdfunding is that, due to my contribution, I am now one of several thousand producers of the game. And so, while I have a great deal of faith in the extremely talented men and women developing Project Eternity, I still feel somewhat obligated to point out what I think are the most important, and most-overlooked elements of RPG gameplay. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) Magic. Obsidian has been very clear about their desire to recapture the feel of the old Obsidian Engine games. To me, that feel was (in part): "kick-ass wizards." In IE games, mages were "glass-cannons," they always had to be protected, but were absolutely crucial to gameplay. Magic was the most powerful weapon out there, and there were tons of fantastical and astonishingly powerful and useful spells, and the price you paid for that was that Wizards were the most vulnerable class in the game. After the retirement of the Infinity Engine, there seems to have been a trend toward "equalization." E.G., all RPC character classes are made mostly equal, so that players don't feel unduly punished or rewarded for choosing one class over another. To me, that just makes the game boring. Uneven class balance is best, IMHO, and part of what made the Infinity Engines such a joy to play. Basically, I just don't want to see a magic system like Skyrim or Dragon Age, where lore-wise mages are incredibly powerful, capable of doing all kinds of wondrous things, but inside the game mechanics are either equal to, or inferior to a half-wit with a club. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Narrative/World Structure I have no doubts that Obsidian will be able to deliver a fantastic story and characters. That's not what I'm talking about when I say narrative/world structure--this is more about the physical layout of the narrative. Basically, the player should never be able to see the full form of the narrative/game until he or she finishes the game. This does NOT mean "twists" to the plot, but rather a more naturally-evolving plot, the winds and shifts and whose ultimate form does not become apparent until you reach the end. Am I articulating this well? Maybe some examples. In Dragon Age Origins, you are almost-immediately told to go gather four magic jewels (i.e. armies) and use them to defeat the evil demon king (the dragon boss). And that's exactly what you do in the game. You're able to see the full structure of the narrative from beginning to end... and that's terrible. Compare that to the more naturally-evolving narrative in, say Dragon Quest VI. Here, the hero's initial quest is to pick something up in a village... but the shopkeeper is missing, so you have to search to find him... and you find him hanging off the edge of a cliff... you save him and fall down the cliff, and end up in another world, then you have to figure out how to exist in that world, then how to return to your own world... the movement of the plot is much more natural. Just as it's important for gamers not to know what's "over the next hill" when exploring the physical properties of a game world, so as to not ruin the joy of that exploration, so, too, is it important not to know what's "over the next plot point" when exploring the game narrative. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) Epilogues This is something I'd rather think of as, "too obvious to mention," but it seems to have been forgotten in most modern RPGs, most horrifically Mass Effect 3. Think Baldur's Gate 2. After we play a game, we like seeing what happens to the world in the years and decades after we leave it. How did our adventure--and, if possible, our decisions--affect the world? And how were our friends, companions, and enemies changed by that experience? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) The difference between Villains and Bosses A boss is an enemy that must be killed--a villain is an enemy that must not necessarily be killed. I think it's important for RPGs to keep in mind that, with a complex, considered conflict, that the solution to the conflict cannot--and should not--always be "murder." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) "Alignment" D&D or no, most RPGs--especially recently--have taken the idea of "alignment" to heart--characters are either inherently good, or inherently evil. This is not human, nor is it terribly interesting. Every important character in an RPG, most especially the villains, need to have reasons... justifications for their actions. The best goals for a villain are the same as the goals for the heroes--the conflict would arise from the methods the villain uses to accomplish those goals. For example, one of the absolute best villains I've seen in gaming is Marcello, from Dragon Quest VII. The entire game establishes a dichotomy between the rulers and the ruled--the nobility and the commoners. All of the nobles in the game are self-serving, often incompetent, and very selfish. Their actions work universally to the detriment of the common people in their care. Marcello is a noble's bastard, so he also has a very personal dislike of the nobility. His ultimate goal is to seize power of the church (think: become pope) and use that power to abolish the nobility... a cause that, to me, seemed to be far more compelling and justified than anything the PC-party was trying to accomplish. In fact, Marcello--despite being fairly sever--was also ethical, he achieved his power peacefully (through the force of his charisma and extreme competence). But, in spite of all this, he was still a villain to be defeated--because he was being manipulated by the "Evil god," who would inevitably transform Marcello into a despot. This kind of think makes for a much more compelling villain than, say, Sarevok, who was an evil murder who simply wanted to become an even more evil, even bigger murderer. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) Unforseen Consequences This ties in a bit to #2--basically, that for exploration of the game and story to be fun, you should not ever be in a position where you know what's going to happen. At the smaller, local level, this manifests best as unforseen--and/or unintended consequences. CD Projekt Red is very adept at this. I'm getting tired, so I'm not going to explain this so much as the others, but basically the idea is that the player should be surprised by what happens during dialog choices/quest lines. The Firkraag quest(s) in Baldur's Gate II are a great example. When you first enter the area, you are attacked by orcs. The "choice" you make is to fight and kill the violent monsters. The "unforseen consequence" is that both you and the orcs were under an illusion spell, and what you thought were bloodthirsty monsters were actually noble paladins. This is sort of the same thing as #2, just on a much smaller, more immediate scale. Where #2 enhances the WHOLE experience of the game, this idea applies more to the hour-by-hour flow of the game.