multiple possible antagonists

[Volourn]

I like Grom's main point. Good idea.

[J.E. Sawyer]

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'm not saying that there aren't situations where you can't know everything that's going on, but that's in the hands of the writer/designer. What I'm saying is that making uninformed choices isn't really that fun because you could effectively roll a die and involve the player as much.

 

"Quick, which do you like more: orange or green?!"

 

"Orange!"

 

"Okay, your enemy is the [irish Republican Army]!"

 

"Wait what..."

[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.

<{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!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't think predictability is a prerequisite for a good villain. Not at all. If you're villain is a stark-raving madman, he shouldn't be predictable. Also, it is not that the WRITER does not know the villain, it is that the player doesn't. This, also, is not a prerequisite for a good villain.

 

Also, I did not say that having multiple villains is a bad thing, I think your idea simplifies it to the point where it isn't dynamic at all. It just varies from game choice to game choice. What if you piss off multiple people enough for them to both become the UBG? What then?

 

The idea of multiple bad guys is fine, and it could be done very well. I just don't think your way is the best way.

[Gromnir]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

which again completely ignores the story building strengths of crpg villains compared to crpg protagonists. is the static nature of villains and other npcs that is allowing a writer to makes them compelling. a stark raving madman villain is NOT really mad. the writer ain't mad. the writer knows exactly what the madman is gonna say, and there is reasons for the madman's speakings... otherwise you gets nothing but gibberish, and in spite of the ridiculous ss example of the madman villain, a truely unpredictable mad man character would be 'bout as fun to interact with as would vis is on the boards.

 

sometimes developers get so caught up in trying to makes kewl features that they forget that story offers the actual raison deter. choice for the sake of choice is rather cold and stale. morrowind had lots of choices

Edited January 29, 2006 by Gromnir

[Plano Skywalker]

the story has to be about something (unless it is a sandbox game, and those are all about exploration and advancement).

 

take, for instance, a story in which you are off to destroy the Dragon Orb.

you join a faction because they promised to help you in that quest.

come to find out, that faction really wants the Dragon Orb for itself.

so, does that faction become the antagonist? in a sense, yes

but the main antagonist is still the Dragon Orb.

 

having secondary antagonists that change based on certain barometers and in-game triggers is a good thing. but I think the main antagonist has to remain a constant (at least for any project that Corporate America is going to be a part of).

 

I think illusionary open-endedness (multiple backstories and optional party members) is the best we can realistically hope for.

[Jumjalum]

Sounds great to me, but a whole lot of work would have to be done to the world and setting to warrant the kind of attention that replaying multiple times needs. This is a really good idea though.

[Shadowstrider]

I'm not saying that there aren't situations where you can't know everything that's going on, but that's in the hands of the writer/designer.  What I'm saying is that making uninformed choices isn't really that fun because you could effectively roll a die and involve the player as much.

 

"Quick, which do you like more: orange or green?!"

 

"Orange!"

 

"Okay, your enemy is the [irish Republican Army]!"

 

"Wait what..."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

LAWL!

 

I'm not going to disagree with that. Obviously, it is absurd. I don't think anyone is saying "small choice = big consequence."

 

Big choice = Big consequence. No one is going to throw around choices willy-nilly that would effect something so big as the UBG, without SOME information.

[Azarkon]

I'm not saying that there aren't situations where you can't know everything that's going on, but that's in the hands of the writer/designer.  What I'm saying is that making uninformed choices isn't really that fun because you could effectively roll a die and involve the player as much.

 

"Quick, which do you like more: orange or green?!"

 

"Orange!"

 

"Okay, your enemy is the [irish Republican Army]!"

 

"Wait what..."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agreed. I hate it when I'm supposed to make dialogue choices where I'm not aware of the consequences (unless this is tied into the storyline, in which case the player's ignorance should be made obvious). It doesn't even have to be as extreme as Josh indicated. Could be something as simple as:

 

"What is your name?"

 

1. "Kull, the toughest of all the lands!"

 

2. "Kull, the strongest man on earth!"

 

3. "Kull, of no real consequence."

 

Choice 1 -> player gains +1 con.

 

Choice 2 -> player gains +1 str.

 

Choice 3 -> player gains nothing.

 

I think the central issue is that the game needs to indicate (in-game, if possible) when the player is at a critical junction point where his actions can actually have dramatic consequences, and to, at the very least, hint at what those consequences may be. Success comes when the player's frame of mind is the same as his character's frame of mind as envisioned by the developer. Thus, if my character's supposed to be deciding between whether a man lives or dies, I shouldn't be under the impression that I'm really choosing between different jokes to tell.

 

But this is a bit off-topic.

[BattleCookiee]

Azarkon, I rather don't have such a system. What is the point of ROLEPLAYING when you already know the consequences of all possible choices. That would not only take away the fun of your choice, but also crushes the replayability of a game...

 

The way I think there could be several "Big bad bosses"

As in DX:IW, you first follow the main story and then decide who to join with, and you have all the others as resistance. Unlike DX:IW there shouldn't be the possibilty for all groups even if you worked against them during the game, but only the ones that still wan't you. Example:

 

3 Fractions; Wizards' Guild, Thieves Guild, Warriors Guild

You get to the end of the game, and all 3 guild want to take position of town X. In order to do so the other 2 guilds should end though.

Since you killed every thief you met during the game the Thieves Guild doesn't wan't you anymore, but the Wizards' and Warrriors both try to get you to join them.

Then when you join the Warriors the leaders of the Thieves and Wizards become the "antagonists" you have to face in an end-battle for you to win the game (and conquer the city)

 

Another possibility I would see would be that you are fighting against a Guild of enemies. The guild exists out of about 5 dangerous members. Now your choices during the game will take out 4 of these, and every time 1 dies the others become stronger, and the one last survivor thus becomes the Boss...

[kirottu]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Perhaps the orginal plan was that if you got high enough influence with Kreia you could talk her out of it and Atris would take the path of Darth Traya. That was the feeling I got from Kotor 2. It would have been awesome.

[Blaise Russel]

I think I understand what's being driven at.

 

Aside from issues of 'story checks' that are too well hidden, I dislike the idea of it all being decided at the beginning, which could all too easily mess up player character development. An initially definitely-not-good bastard of a character who discovers through battling true evil that deep down inside he's really a decent chap could end up triggering Sir Valiant of Smitingdon as his primary antagonist, for example, with the result being two good characters fighting it out to stop 'true evil'. Of course, you can allow for this quite easily ("I'm not the bad guy any more!") but it really complicates things and can distract from what the main plot is supposed to be. Obviously, this is a minor issue, but I think a more organic method of pattern-matching hero and villain, one which takes place over the majority of the game and with limits that cut off certain story paths if you do certain actions, would be better.

 

It'd be very interesting, though. The main thing is creating a central story thread that is loose enough to encompass several different antagonists with several different 'slants' on the same story without making it generic and meaningless. I suppose the key is to highlight certain aspects of the story for each villain, and make it seem as though that was the only way it could be.

 

For example, three games of Deus Ex could each be retconned into matching one of the three endings, so in one game, the conversations with Helios, Morpheus and Savage and the evils or incompetence of human governance, visible or not, naturally lead up to the transcendance of Helios' ending, while in another, the monstrous results of transgenetics and nanotechnology, the deaths of Paul, Jock and others, and the loss of JC's former life as a counter-terrorist agent inevitably result in the redemptive self-sacrifice of Tracer's ending, and it is the clashing of egos and 'Great Man' history that produces Morgan's ending. Different events are highlighted in the same game to produce different 'stories' that are all internally consistent, despite containing conflicting 'story pointers'.

[Plano Skywalker]

multiple endings is way doable...but multiple antagonists is something else.

 

take, for instance, the KOTOR games. there are 2 ways to "win", one is LS and one is DS but, for all practical purposes, the antagonist (and the objective) is the same.

 

that is one problem that will eventually have to be confronted head-on in these games: the lack of a proper DS path. but a proper DS means a different antagonist and, thusly, a different 40 hours of content.

 

there MIGHT be a way to avoid going to 2 shrinkwraps (by sharing many of the same maps, for instance) but we are still talking about a much higher production overhead.

 

if we are talking about shifting faction alliances and such, then we might be talking about a thinly-veiled strategy game or sandbox game, which, while fun, is not a KOTOR or BG-style CRPG.

[Volourn]

Actually, it's very possible to do two (or more) antagonists. Thy could've done it in KOTOR if they wanted to.

 

If light side, the antagonist could remain Malak.

 

If dark side, the antagonist could be anyone (or all of) the Jedi Council.

 

There ya go. Case closed.

[Judge Hades]

Could one use the NWN Faction system set a multiple villain story line?

[Shadowstrider]

Could one use the NWN Faction system set a multiple villain story line?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes. But that would be the worst way to do it.

 

Setting variables would be the more appropriate way.

[Judge Hades]

I suck at variables.

[Llyranor]

You need to learn variables if you want half-decent modding.

[Volourn]

The Script Editor does variables rather well.

[Judge Hades]

I think variables and the actual learning how scripting works are the last two bits I need to master. Of course they are the hardest bits to learn. Grrrr...

 

I have been looking at premade scripts and see if there are any out there that would do close to what I want done.

Edited January 30, 2006 by Judge Hades

[Llyranor]

In their simplest form, here's how local variables work.

 

The integer of any variable by default is 0.

 

In a script, put

 

if(GetLocalInt(GetFirstPC(),"variablename")==0)

{

//insert script

SetLocalInt(GetFirstPC() "variablename",1);

}

 

Let's examine this. This script only launches if "variablename" on the PC is 0. Then it launches the script, and sets it to 1. The use of the variable here is that it only fires once.

 

Like I said, this is the simplest script, but it's a good start in understanding how variables work. Look up tutorials.

[Shadowstrider]

/*
Function to add increments of one to local variables.
*/
void IncreaseLocalInt(object oTarget, string sVariable)
{
   SetLocalInt(oTarget, sVariable, GetLocalInt(oTarget, sVariable)+1);
}
/*
Function to decrease variable by one.
*/
void DecreaseLocalInt(object oTarget,string sVariable)
{
   SetLocalInt(oTarget,sVariable,GetLocalInt(oTarget,sVariable)-1);
}
/*
Define oPC, no matter the method.
*/
object GetPC()
{
  if(GetPCSpeaker()!=OBJECT_INVALID)
       return GetPCSpeaker();

  if(GetEnteringObject()!=OBJECT_INVALID)
       return GetEnteringObject();

  return OBJECT_SELF;
}

 

There is a nice include for you. It allows you to increase and decrease variables by 1. It is that simple. The lower function allows you to detect the PC whether it is during conversation or entering a trigger.

 

If you can't figure it out from there, I really can't help.

Edited January 30, 2006 by Shadowstrider

[mkreku]

Neverwinter Nights script language looks suspiciously similar to C++..

[Shadowstrider]

Neverwinter Nights script language looks suspiciously similar to C++..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Newsflash!

 

Most modern script languages do, actually.

[mkreku]

Neverwinter Nights script language looks suspiciously similar to C++..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Newsflash!

 

Most modern script languages do, actually.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I had never seen it before and I was under the impression that it was.. more highly developed, rather than just being a few extra libraries, variables and classes for C++.

 

For an example of a really well-thought out and high level script language, check out DIL, for the Valhalla Mud Engine. It's (naturally) also quite similar to C++, but still a whole level above that.

 

 

Edit: Corrected the name of the script language. Added link.

Edited January 30, 2006 by mkreku

[Gromnir]

call us crazy, but wouldn't a goal of a moddable game marketed to the masses (i.e. nwn) be to offer something relatively user friendly?

 

HA! Good Fun!