alanschu Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 Ah, that's sort of what I was thinking (I think). Instead of "give person X object Y" a simple derivation to "tell person X about topic Y" which would then allow you to interact with the character a bit more, and perhaps offer a better variety of options to complete that quest. And I'm certainly placing a high value on actions having consequences. I'm also conceptualizing ways that the "chapter break" could occur. It's likely the place where I plan on bringing the branching paths together, so that I can have a bit more control over the story without it spiralling out of control.
alanschu Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 What's the module about? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> To be honest, we're still in the preproduction phases, so even grand ideas like "What's the module" about haven't even been finalized. Initial concepts are a fantasy world (since we're using NWN2 for the module). But right now my friend and I are leaning towards a very racist world (at least in the part of the world where the game takes place in). For the most part we're looking at mechanics for the game. We want the focus to be on skills and attributes, and not the class. So if a Fighter has the required skill values, he could bluff his way into a thieves guild, even though his class doesn't have to have "Rogue" anywhere in the title. The advantage the Rogue would have however, would be that the Theiving skills are class skills, so it'd be more likely for a Rogue to travel that path. We also like the idea of utilizing skills and attributes as rolls and checks in dialogue. One thing we are also in favour of is no more of this "If you're evil you get to keep the phat lewt instead of returning it....but if you're good and return it you'll still get the phat lewt, or perhaps even fatter lewt" stuff. We would like real consequences for the player's actions. Excessive "niceness" could make some parts of the game more difficult since perhaps you spared someone that will later be a thorn in your side. But at the same time, sparing a different person could net you an ally that will make things a bit easier than it would be otherwise. Any comments or criticisms and especially ideas for what you'd like to see in a game (this goes for anyone) are greatly appreciated EDIT: We're both big fans of PS:T, so we are planning the game to be have very deep party members and interactions. And no "being friends with everyone" stuff. This likely goes more with the racist nature of the world.
EnderAndrew Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 Kill the hero in the end, with no reservations, but don't make it a big martyrdom. No Neo being crucified. In the end, you did what you set out to do, but got shafted along the way, and die. Dead serious.
alanschu Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 That's almost exactly what I was thinking, particularly for anyone playing Good. I love "non-hollywood" endings. At the very least, make things not so happy for the protagonist, if we can't get away with it not seeming like a martyr. Which also reminds me, we also want to explore morality, sort of similar to how Kreia does (although I was thinking of this before playing KOTOR 2, and my friend agrees and he hasn't played KOTOR 2). Sometimes, being the good guy has things that just turn out bad for you. Sometimes having the best intentions can have very dire consequences. Likewise, sometimes being the evil prick can backfire on you as well
EnderAndrew Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 I really liked Serpent Isle's focus on Chaos vs Order. I think it makes for a much better axis than Good vs Evil. Don't neglect that. Balance makes a better middleground than Neutrality.
alanschu Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 You'll need to remind me a bit. It's been years since I played Serpent Isle, and only because you mention it do I remember references to Chaos and Order (as they were in Serpent Isle).
EnderAndrew Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 The Ophidians (ancient native people of the Serpent Isle) worshipped either Chaos or Order. They had their own virtue trees like Brittania had their virtues. The teleportation storms and chaos in the world was caused by an imbalance in the world. The Avatar's role was to return balance between Chaos and Order. Both are flawed, and must be tempered with each other.
alanschu Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 Ah, the too much Chaos and too much Order being to extreme and ultimately bad. If I recall, wasn't there a whole bunch of like "Discipline without Emotion is Oppression" (the attribut names are wrong) in the various books about Chaos and Order?
EnderAndrew Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 Exactly. I'm trying to find the virtues of Chaos and Order, but here is a bit on the background of the Serpent Isle and the Ophidians. http://www.notableultima.com/rhetorical/ophidians.html Edit: Here you go! http://uxo.stratics.com/content/history/ophidian_culture.php
alanschu Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 Yay Google! EDIT: I'll delete mine before Fionavar does. Save him the trouble.
alanschu Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 Hmmmm.....those ideas are pretty deep I haven't though much about an implementation along those lines, so I'm not sure precisely how to integrate it at the moment. I might just end up "borrowing" the concepts, but not have a full fledged Chaos vs Order idea. At the moment, any implementations would just be carbon copies
alanschu Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 I think possible combinations of a simple Good/Evil model, combined with the Chaos vs Order model might work. Although I guess we sort of already have that with the Lawful/Chaotic and Good/Evil in D&D. But to go to my first point, I like the idea of having "bad" guys that do things that they feel will actually be for the greater good. That sort of moral ambiguity is more interesting to me then the "I'm bad d00d, I will r0x0r j00 because I'm powerhungry" crap. EDIT: On a side note, that Ultima Odyssey MMO was cancelled wasn't it?
EnderAndrew Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 Yep. Twice now EA has spent 3 years working on a sequel to UO, only to cancel it and take a big loss.
alanschu Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 I like the idea about having the villain be someone that is close to you, but not be apparent from the get go. However, I guess I'm also a little bit "anti-twist" though, so I have some small reservations about it. I'm "anti-twist" in that it seems a game HAS to have it for it to have a "good" story (in the eyes of the people). Although if I could do it in a way that it's not so much of a twist, but the PC slowly realizes that this guy is the cause behind the chaos or something. I'm also curious how I can make it work, as I don't want to have a game that is too structured. I'd have to create a situation perhaps where him being with you is something that makes a bit of sense. I'm not adverse to "trapping" the PC somewhere, due to unforseen catastrophic circumstances. I don't feel that the player should have the ability to have every opportunity available to him. Some things are beyond the control of the player. For example, I think it's stupid when people think that they should be able to avoid the Leviathan in KOTOR. Sure it's a plot device to progress the story....but being able to avoid being captured, despite the fact that you are absolutely buggered, is a bit silly IMO.
EnderAndrew Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 How about this for awesome replay value? Don't have a villian. Have an antagonist. Pick a faction (say out of 3). You drive said faction, and the other two factions become antagonists. There is no pure evil, cheesy villian. Each faction really believes they are in the right. You have three potential antagonists, and 3 possible combinations of 2 that you can run into depending on what faction you choose.
alanschu Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 I was actually thinking something along those lines. I think it would work well because the "factions" could simply be races, given we are planning to have a fair amount of racial tension in our world. If I was to go with this idea though, I definitely would make sure to not restict you to joining the same faction as your race though. It just wouldn't be as easy.
EnderAndrew Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 I think it works better than Good, Neutral, Evil. What races are you considering?
alanschu Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 Note: (I had a small edit in previous post). Given we're working with NWN2, the races that you could play would be the ones the game supports (unless I could find a way to lock some out). The main races of the world are likely going to be the big three (Humans, Elves, and Dwarves). This is mostly because of familiarity of the experience. They are more prevalent in fantasy, so I think it'd be easier for a gamer to accept as being an appropriate fantasy world, rather than Gnomes ruling the world. Although I guess that'd be different :D We're considering how we could work in the Halflings and Gnomes into the equation. Although we've likely put the Half-Orc at the bottom of the Totem Pole for each of the big three (i.e. They are liked the least by all). We were thinking on having a unique approach to the game with the Half-Orc. Alternatively though, I was just now thinking of perhaps having each of the big three having a "partner" of sorts. Pair Humans with Gnomes, Dwarves with Halflings, and Elves with Half-Elves. The poor Half-Orc is still chastized, being they are the easiest to conceptualize as being "monstrous." It could help clean up the PC race issues.
alanschu Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 I guess that would work. I just pretty much randomly paired them as I wrote it :D
Recommended Posts