multiple possible antagonists

[Gromnir]

weren't our idea, but we wish it were. as is so

[213374U]

Yeah, it's a great idea. I remember that before K2 was released, I theorized (silly me) that maybe something like that would be done regarding Atris. And well, considering that at some point in development they were considering making Atris a party member, and on the other hand you have the "Snow White Evil Witch" model for Darth Traya, maybe I wasn't so far off. But I digress.

 

Again, I think it's a nice idea, definitely a step towards achieving not only a world that is responsive to the player, but an adapting plot. I don't see it happening anytime soon, though. Seeing how we are getting progressively less and less (quality or otherwise) writing in CRPGs, this would be a huge undertaking that may or may not pay off financially. From what I can see, devs today aim more at creating lots of "play and forget" titles, than games that you can keep replaying for months. It isn't a completely stupid strategy, either. At least in short-middle term. Bizness is Bizness...

[Azarkon]

I thought that this was the point of non-linearity, and that non-linearity was rejected because of its "exponential" growth factor? I suppose the reason Bio chose to use one antagonist instead of many for the different endings is strictly due to the resource factor. That is, if you have ideas for two great villains, why make one game? (Speaking practically, not idealistically, in which case yes, multiple villains alongside multiple endings would be great)

[Darque]

hmm, I've suggested something similiar on other boards, so this gets a from me

[Gromnir]

?

 

not see how you get to "exponential" growth from our suggestion.

 

obviously you simply cannot have limitless or even dozens o' potential UBG (Ultimate Bad Guy) possibilties, but 3 or 4? most of his/her minions can be left unchanged, but change the UBG can make big difference to story and game as a whole.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[BattleCookiee]

Good idea...

 

Could also be like DX:IW was abit (only more expanded ofcourse). All the 4 persons/groups you could side with were not really "good" so to say, and it was your choice to choose the lesser evil and destroy the oponent of those...

Edited January 29, 2006 by Battlewookiee

[Enoch]

Do you mean that the facts of the situation would change based on the player's actions (e.g., one of 4 possible people have been torturing puppies; whodunnit depends on how the player investigates), or do you want there to be multiple possible goals for the player to decide upon in the game, with an antagonist for each goal (puppy torturer = fozzle #1, kitten torturer = fozzle #2, etc.)?

 

The first approach would be easier to pull off in terms of resources, but you would have to be careful to make the difference between the opponents more than illusory. There is also the danger that the game would seem 'rigged.'

 

The latter approach, though, also has drawbacks. It could devolve into 3 or 4 totally separate games. You would need some commonality in storylines, themes, quests, locations, etc. that pop up regardless of the PC's character and choice of enemy. It also seems like it could lead to a less-than-fulfilling ending because the player might feel that h/s couldn't do everything they wanted (what if they like puppies and kittens?).

 

That said, there is some potential here. Personally, I'd find something like this fascinating to play if done well.

[Shadowstrider]

?

 

not see how you get to "exponential" growth from our suggestion.

 

obviously you simply cannot have limitless or even dozens o' potential UBG (Ultimate Bad Guy) possibilties, but 3 or 4?  most of his/her minions can be left unchanged, but change the UBG can make big difference to story and game as a whole.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't think having the primary antagonist shift is a good thing, in my opinion. Its not that it isn't doable, but having the primary "bad guy" fade out and having a new fade in can be an awkward transition in a story. It wouldn't be impossible, but there are only 3 ways I could see it being done:

 

Inexplicably: You find what you thought was the big bad dead. The new villain(s) appear shortly after and go off on some tangent about how former big bad as a moron who failed, so the subordinate acted to ensure victory. This, ofcourse, will involve heinous amounts of over the top villainous laughter.

 

Betrayal: Someone you know, perhaps one of your "close friends" turns on you. This will, ofcourse, result in you being captured rather than killed. These often do not and will not make much sense, but that person betrayed you so you're damn sure going to kill them.

 

First impression, wrong impression: Group X is bad! Terrible even! Oh wait, now they aren't... so now what? It must've been the one you were working for! Get him!

 

Yes, I am aware there are good versions of these stories, and other ways to do it. I just think it is often done terribly, and distracts from what could otherwise be an enjoyable plot.

 

I have ideas on how it could be done, and done well, but it requires no small amount of effort on the scripting/programming side.

[Kaftan Barlast]

instead o' doing multiple back stories for protagonist as bio were choosing to do, why not has multiple potential villains/antagonists?  depending on how a player approached early portion of game, the villain choices would change.  villains is static and more easily controlled by crpg writers, and story could change significantly based on the villain/antagonist you would ultimately face.  much replayability and it affords much better basis for writing story.  an elegant solution. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I see two problems with this approach:

 

If one is to have several story archs to represent the different villains, then one must either have enough content for 4-5 archs which requires maybe a full extra year of development(which publishers wont give you). Or, one will have to thin out the content you have over these 4-5 different archs and thus resulting in a much shorter and less appealing game.

 

The other problem is that with several villains, all content in the beginning and middle of the story will have to be independant of the general story or "clean slates" to make it possible to fit it with the end of the game.

[Gromnir]

why would there need be a shift? no clear antagonist is set until player interacts with environment for a brief time, then antagonist is solidified for remainder of game.

 

sure, if you wanna does a 180 personality switch after the first 20 minutes o' gameplay then you is gonna be maybe stuck combating a Noble villain rather than a Sinister one, but so what? is still gonna be a viable antagonist, maybe not ideally appropriate, but compared to the single UBG option how is that any different?

 

if developers wanna keep simple and resource

[Pope]

somebody, out o' the blue, suggested that instead o' doing multiple back stories for protagonist as bio were choosing to do, why not has multiple potential villains/antagonists?  depending on how a player approached early portion of game, the villain choices would change.  villains is static and more easily controlled by crpg writers, and story could change significantly based on the villain/antagonist you would ultimately face.  much replayability and it affords much better basis for writing story.  an elegant solution. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When the first artwork of KotOR2 was released, that's what I believed would happen in that game. If you were light side, you'd have to fight Masked Sith Guy, while if your were dark side, you'd fight White Haired Chick.

 

That'd still only be two possible antagonists, but it'd be more than every other RPG released up until now.

[Shadowstrider]

There are more efficient, and better ways to change the feel of a game with each play through.

 

If you're having a large-scale conflict keeping the true leaders of the bad guys secret is possible. That doesn't work so well in all stories, however. In BG2, if Irenicus had been a mystery, the game would have pretty much sucked (and I didn't like the story much, as is).

[J.E. Sawyer]

I like the idea of the player deciding who the antagonist is by weighing the actions and motivations of the movers and shakers against their own character's goals. But I guess I wouldn't view that as the same thing as Gromnir is suggesting.

[Gromnir]

"The other problem is that with several villains, all content in the beginning and middle of the story will have to be independant of the general story or "clean slates" to make it possible to fit it with the end of the game."

 

untrue. see above. much of a crpg story is not happening along the main story arc anyway. got loads of sub-quests, right? but regardless, you still not need four or five completely different story arcs.

 

stop the horde.

 

1) go to goblin fortress and discover try to discover plans

 

2) now that you has learned plans and possibly killed lieutenant, you gotta accomplish 2 of 5 goals to slowdown/ prevent (or for evil folks: subvert horde to your will) invasion

 

a) block ice fang pass

b) subvert the alliance 'tween the red dog clan and the howler tribe

c) etc.

 

is typical crpg stuff, no?

 

if a Sauron evil guy is behind the invasion then you is gonna learn something slightly different at the goblin fortress than you would with a Noble villain. the lieutenant at the goblin fortress in sauron situation would talk 'bout a new age of darkness and his dark master's plans... yadda yadda. on the other hand, the lieutenant of the Noble villain would express regret at having to elimintae such a worthy adversary as yourself. add more differences as you progress through game, but the choke points is gonna be in same places.

 

drop in some villain specific journals... add a few timed encounters tied directly to one choice of villain or another...

 

at a few key points you can has some change made to game.

 

am not envisioning a game that completely diverges from point A into 4 unique games. is not feasible. however, you can has a macbeth and a sauron and other villains, each with very different motivations and dialogues w/o substantially changing 90% of a game.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited January 29, 2006 by Gromnir

[Gromnir]

There are more efficient, and better ways to change the feel of a game with each play through.

 

If you're having a large-scale conflict keeping the true leaders of the bad guys secret is possible.  That doesn't work so well in all stories, however.  In BG2, if Irenicus had been a mystery, the game would have pretty much sucked (and I didn't like the story much, as is).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

its only needing to be a real secret for the first 20 minutes of gameplay... after a player chooses an antagonist through his actions, then there ain't no need for keeping faceless... unless you want a sauron thing.

 

if josh is thinking of a single villain that changes as the player changes, then so be it... but that seems far more difficult to achieve than what Gromnir suggests. run into that same vagueness problem you gets with a mutable protagonist... which is exactly what Gromnir is trying to correct.

 

pope seems to be getting the idea.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited January 29, 2006 by Gromnir

[J.E. Sawyer]

if josh is thinking of a single villain that changes as the player changes, then so be it... but that seems far more difficult to achieve than what Gromnir suggests.  run into that same vagueness problem you gets with a mutable protagonist... which is exactly what Gromnir is trying to correct.

No, I'm thinking of having multiple powerful people who are trying to accomplish different things related to the same central plot. There may be one person against whom all ire is directed because of his/her activities, but later the motivations of that person may cause the protagonist to feel sympathy toward them and against his/her detractors. So, if the Master from Fallout had some legitimate beef with Vault 13 for intentionally aggressive actions, the Overseer might become the antagonist. It's not so much that things change as it is that a cast of powerful characters grows into a set of people at odds with each other with the support/defeat of any one of them resolving the main plot.

[Shadowstrider]

So, all you want is a list of possible antagonists and a list of several issues with different options. Each option is associated with one antagonist. Whatever villain's column has the most tallies is the "winner" and becomes the villain.

 

I don't like it, but yeah it could work.

 

Editted for typos.

Edited January 29, 2006 by Shadowstrider

[Shadowstrider]

Villain 1/ Villain 2/ Villain 3/ Villain 4

2/1/5/2

 

VILLAIN 3! NO WHAMMIES.

[Gromnir]

seems much harder to pull off, but it sounds great to Gromnir. am all for being able to choose an appropriate faction as part of gameplay and story development choice. little bit harder for Gromnir to envision writing appropriate compelling dialogues in josh's suggestion as you still seems to have a more fluid and dynamic story resolution process goings on, but benefits to gameplay might outweigh problems for story development.

 

*shrug*

 

regardless, change focus of development from trying to make a vague and indefinite protagonist more compelling, to creating multiple possible villains/factions seems like a good direction in which to be heading. protagonists is 0 sum, 'cause the more you develop, the more freedom you takes away from player.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Shadowstrider]

I think you would like the documents I'm working on now, Grommie. Nothing so simple as "choice X corresponds to villain X, with Y going to Y." It does have a similar effect on gameplay, without the predictability factor.

[Gromnir]

Villain 1/ Villain 2/ Villain 3/ Villain 4

2/1/5/2

 

VILLAIN 3!  NO WHAMMIES.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

is no real different than any other crpg. kotor/kotor2 light v. dark quests gets triggered by what? toee opening vignettes were even worse. those were based simply on character generation choices... and yielded no real divergence anyways.

 

*shrug*

 

compared to the typical manner in which limited crpg bifurcation takes place, 20 minutes to an hour of initial gameplay to be resulting in games which affords at least some meaningful reason to try replaying seems a vast improvement.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[J.E. Sawyer]

The reason I'm not as fond as having a "murky" antagonist that gets defined somewhere along the way is that I don't feel the player is necessarily making an informed choice. Having different gameplay experiences is cool, but unknowingly making very important choices doesn't necessarily seem great to me.

 

I'm playing Animal Crossing: Wild World on my Nintendo DS right now. There are often cases where the animals ask for your opinion on something (their clothing, what sort of movie you think they'd star in, etc.). You have two, maybe four options total. There's no way to know what effect each response is going to elicit, so it's kind of frustrating.

[Gromnir]

I think you would like the documents I'm working on now, Grommie.  Nothing so simple as "choice X corresponds to villain X, with Y going to Y."  It does have a similar effect on gameplay, without the predictability factor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

no offense, but we think you ain't looking at this from a writer's perspective. predictability is exactly why villains in crpgs can be developed to a much greater degree... they is static. you cannot write a compelling character that is unknown to the writer. come up with all kinds o' wacky randomness and then tell somebody else to write good dialogues to match the situations... and advance a story that is meant to capture the imagination of the player. HA!

 

end up with 4 very different villains who signifficantly alter the choke point encounters and the ultimate resolution of game? is a bad thing?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Shadowstrider]

I don't care if the outcome of the choices are predictable or not. Some should be, others shouldn't.

 

If you murder someone on the street, and don't know them at all, you shouldn't see it coming that his father is the big bad who will come after you for killing his son. IC choice = IC consequence.

 

I don't like that if you pick a string of choices, you get the same villain everytime. If you're pitching the idea on a dynamic enemy system, they should be unpredictable.

[Gromnir]

"The reason I'm not as fond as having a "murky" antagonist that gets defined somewhere along the way is that I don't feel the player is necessarily making an informed choice. Having different gameplay experiences is cool, but unknowingly making very important choices doesn't necessarily seem great to me"

 

understood. however, consider kotor2. that game offered some early dialogues to "fix" whether or not revan were male v. female or good v. evil. weren't really murky at all. not need be shy 'bout clubbing folks over the head with the choice.

 

as it stands now, you get no choice at all. an albeit somewhat murky choice v. no choice?

 

HA! Good Fun!