Does Obsidian intend to make an RPG like FO?

[Pop]

Or they can head out West and run into a mutant patrol (unless I'm mistaken and those encounters are triggered by visiting Necropolis, I'm not sure :\)

 

That's the one thing I didn't like about Fallout 2, thematically. The Enclave was present right from the start of the game, in the cinematics and in the freakin' main menu. Had they kept the player in the dark and let them run across things like the vertibird crash, it would have been that much more intriguing to find out exactly what the hell was going on. But the intro film pretty much makes it blatantly obvious what happened to Vault 13.

 

So mr. Sawyer, are you planning to implement these lofty ideals sometime, or are we just talking about them? :cool: that is the main question of this thread, after all.

[Tigranes]

Depends on which project he is next Lead Designer for. "

[Gromnir]

"The main plot is pretty basic and has very few plot critical components."

 

that is kinda our point. is almost no real bifurcations. you got a pretty basic critical path and lots of optional and tangential side quests. real choices that have impact beyond the scope of the Tangential/Optional side quest is few.

 

joinbale npcs can be both critical and optional side quest... may have aspects thats fit into critical path, but those plot critical elements is still gonna be largely fixed... the real "meaningful" choices is gonna be available as part of the tangential and optional side quests... which is gonna result in many peoles claiming that Real choices couldn't be made.

 

strong story w/ bifurcations? not really possible. real meaningful choices w/o bifurcations? again, not really possible.

 

*shrug*

 

HA! Good Fun!

[J.E. Sawyer]

joinbale npcs can be both critical and optional side quest... may have aspects thats fit into critical path, but those plot critical elements is still gonna be largely fixed... the real "meaningful" choices is gonna be available as part of the tangential and optional side quests... which is gonna result in many peoles claiming that Real choices couldn't be made.

Joinable NPCs shouldn't be critical to quests if you want to push for open gameplay (as I do).

 

And if people only feel that choices that affect The One True Plot can be "real" choices, there aren't really any games that fit the mold, including Fallout. In Fallout you could defeat the Master in a few different ways or you could "end early" by getting dipped. People seem to enjoy the amount of choice in the Fallout games despite the limited number of main plot end states, so I'm not worried about it.

[roshan]

Whether the plot has bifurcations or not is not really relevant.

 

Fallout 2 provided the option to ignore the plot entirely. In a good non linear RPG, the plot shouldnt be shoved down a players throat. If they want to do their own thing, they should be able to do so.

 

NWN2 not only forced the players to follow the plot, but for the most part it left nothing else for the players to do except following the plot. In fact I think the reason why NWN2 players enjoyed the stronghold so much was because for the first time in the entire game, they had the ability to do something else other than follow the plot. It was like throwing bits and pieces of food to starving people.

Edited December 13, 2006 by roshan

[Pop]

It was like throwing bits and pieces of food to starving people.

I think you're taking this a little too seriously if you think that.

 

And I don't think NWN2 was oppressively linear. There were plenty of unrelated quests that you could do as you moved along the main path. But the main draw of the game was obviously the central storyline.

 

Fallout was more "free", in that the quests weren't based on where you were on the main story (except for the main story quests, heh), and as long as you found a location you could undertake any of the quests at any time. The sherriff things in Redding being an exception. Part of the greatness of Fallout 2 was that the emphasis on the game wasn't the Enclave, and as such you tended to have more fun going through the quests that had nothing to do with them.

[Tigranes]

NWN2's plot was about as linear as BG2, imo. The only difference is that BG2 had Chapter 2's "get 20000 gold" expanded onto a huge sidequest compendium, whereas if NWN2 ever had that kind of requirement you'd only have 2-3 things to do, and usually in a specific order. Also, a large part of NWN2 feeling 'oppressive' has to do with forced characters.

[metadigital]

I can't speak for the whole of Obsidian, but I would like to see us making more "open" games: open worlds with loose storylines featuring very few "critical path" points and characters.  That said, I also want to make games where the choices a player makes are meaningful.  Choices that don't effectively change the resulting narrative are meaningless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

QFT

[Niten_Ryu]

Personally I think Fallout type game could do just fine. I love how Fallout starts. MacGuffin plot device (broken waterchip ), a reason to start adventure, something that is terribly important for game characters but you (the player) really couldn't care less. Interesting world, memorable characters and locations and ok rule system.

 

It would have been interesting if you could ignore Shard storyline in NWN2. Toss MacGuffin away and make your way to Neverwinter or perhaps Luskan. Main storyline could have progressed without main characters direct involment to it anyway. Maybe some traiders could use bodyguard or maybe you could have joined bandits. Or work as a Luskan spy and take advantage on uncertain situation in Neverwinter. So many interesting possibilities without brute forcing main storyline.

 

 

While characters like Ammon often argue that King of Shadows would take over large portions or maybe whole planet, from evil ending we see that it's not true. Shadows stop at old borders and many areas even around Neverwinter are perfectly safe. Open ended storyline would have easily continued after this point. Even some dangerous high level missions could have been made to new shadow infested area.

 

All characters try to assure that Shards and Gith's Sword is vital part of stopping KoS. It's not needed at all. You can destroy final portal without it (or the rituals of purifications) and kill KoS. You could have thrown Shard away, give it to the Sword Stalkers, to Ammon, to Black Garius, to Sand... or Lord Nasher and see how he would have done against Gith's followers and Shadow Priests

 

 

I really hope no matter what game Obsidian creates next, it's going to more open ended.

[Tigranes]

It would have been interesting if you could ignore Shard storyline in NWN2. Toss MacGuffin away and make your way to Neverwinter or perhaps Luskan. Main storyline could have progressed without main characters direct involment to it anyway. Maybe some traiders could use bodyguard or maybe you could have joined bandits. Or work as a Luskan spy and take advantage on uncertain situation in Neverwinter. So many interesting possibilities without brute forcing main storyline.

 

Problem being that they'd needed about 4 more months at least to do that. Such wild off-the-charts tangents would be excellent, but at the moment unrealistic.

 

The spoiler'd point about continuing past the ending.. there is a point there, though, if still falilng under the budget curse.

[Pop]

Tigranes pointed out that the linearity of the game had a lot to do with the party management, and I think that's an accurate assessment. Adding more CNPCs and only including those in the story that you choose (ala BG2) would have been preferrable, but I get where they came from with NWN2, since there can only be 4 party members at any one time (due to the engine?), and trying to make certain characters integral to the storyline. Still, I think the option would have been nice to leave, say, Grobnar out of the mix, or

allowed vengeful characters to kill Ammon Jerro

especially.

Edited December 13, 2006 by Pop

[Niten_Ryu]

Problem being that they'd needed about 4 more months at least to do that. Such wild off-the-charts tangents would be excellent, but at the moment unrealistic.

 

The spoiler'd point about continuing past the ending.. there is a point there, though, if still falilng under the budget curse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't think it would have been budget issue or any way unrealistic target since games have used mini storylines and non-linear paths for years. Obsidian (or WotC) most likely just wanted to create linear adventure. Of course it's unrealistic to change game from linear to non-linear in later stages of development.

 

My examples were more from Fallout point of view, if NWN2 would have been developed more like it.

[Spider]

since there can only be 4 party members at any one time (due to the engine?)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The engine does not limit you to 4 party members. In fact, in the game itself you control more than 4 on at least two separate occasions. And you can edit the .ini (or maybe it's use the console, not sure) to allow yourself to have more party members throughout the entire game. So the limit of 4 is a design choice, nothing else.

[Tigranes]

Toss MacGuffin away and make your way to Neverwinter or perhaps Luskan. Main storyline could have progressed without main characters direct involment to it anyway. Maybe some traiders could use bodyguard or maybe you could have joined bandits. Or work as a Luskan spy and take advantage on uncertain situation in Neverwinter.

 

Added City: Luskan

Added Quests in City: Luskan

Added Possibility that mainchar has relinquished involvement in plot to every dialogue and quest: Check

Luskan Spy quests: Check

Traiders and bodyguards quests: check

Alternate verisons of all main plot areas to reflect fact that mainchar is no longer, say, the man to rescue the emissary in OOW: Check

 

I would say that that is extremely time-consuming.

 

The point htat I've been making is that it all depends on the plot: NWN2's plot was designed so that it is not incompatible with sidequests or such alternate possibilities, but it does not cater for them enough, so that to add them would take a lot more work than it would in, say, Fallout.

 

What it could have had was individual offshoots such as De'Arnise Keep.

[Pop]

since there can only be 4 party members at any one time (due to the engine?)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The engine does not limit you to 4 party members. In fact, in the game itself you control more than 4 on at least two separate occasions. And you can edit the .ini (or maybe it's use the console, not sure) to allow yourself to have more party members throughout the entire game. So the limit of 4 is a design choice, nothing else.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right, I forgot about those parts. But it was a design choice, as having 6 characters could concievably unbalance the game. My take was that if they had designed the game for 5 CNPCs, all the switching out that you normally have to do wouldn't be necessary, and you could run through the game with 1 set of characters, like in BG. But most people I know adhere pretty tight to one NWN2 configuration anyway.

[Tigranes]

as having 6 characters could concievably unbalance the game. My

 

That's because the game wasn't very hard. :whistle:

 

I think the difficulty in balancing comes from the fact that an experienced player always knows what's going on (not as easy for a casual player to notice, say, that Bishop's arrows are doing the creature no damage when there's a billion other things going around), and they can prepare adequately by manipulating the copmlex system of buffs. Experienced players IMO can give themselves a sizable advantage the second time they fight an encounter; if they fought unexpectedly the first time or were just mauled, next time they know what to do differently. I would say that this is partly because of the superpowered rest mechanism, and partly because in most encounters you can see the enemy long before they see you, and you nearly always get to prepare then throw a few fireballs in there before they can retaliate. More ambushes, more dispel spells by the enemy (modern games seem to really skimp on enemies using dispel / breaches), and so forth.

 

Uh, anyway. Yeah, party member restriction thing had nothing to do with anything else but the story IMO.

[mkreku]

There are also a lot of people that just don't have the time for 40+ hour cRPG.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What does that even mean? Don't have time for a 40+ hour game? Does that mean they buy Jade Empire (15 hours) and then never again buy another game because they don't have the time? Or they buy Gears of War, play it for 10 hours and then never play another game again because the don't have time? All these people not having time for a 40+ hour game only own ONE game that they've played once in their entire life because they don't have time for any more?

 

A 40+ hour game is like four Gears of War-type games. Most gamers have more than four games. I am sure they aren't planning on playing the 40+ hour game from start to finish in one sitting. 40+ hours only means more value for your money.

[alanschu]

Uh, anyway. Yeah, party member restriction thing had nothing to do with anything else but the story IMO.

 

In what way does the party member restriction relate to the story however?

[Tigranes]

I meant forced party members, btw, not the number of party members. In the latter case, it would be gameplay - I believe that even with all the modificaitons, NWN2 at heart is designed to be a single-character game (they couldn't even implement drag boxes or Select All, many players play without pause, and other small things I'll go into if you want.), so that too many (i.e. 6,7...) was too ungainly; on the other hand, they did want to implement squad combat, and all that focus on party members is kinda silly if you can only carry around one or two party members.

[Diamond]

There are also a lot of people that just don't have the time for 40+ hour cRPG.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What does that even mean? Don't have time for a 40+ hour game? Does that mean they buy Jade Empire (15 hours) and then never again buy another game because they don't have the time? Or they buy Gears of War, play it for 10 hours and then never play another game again because the don't have time? All these people not having time for a 40+ hour game only own ONE game that they've played once in their entire life because they don't have time for any more?

 

A 40+ hour game is like four Gears of War-type games. Most gamers have more than four games. I am sure they aren't planning on playing the 40+ hour game from start to finish in one sitting. 40+ hours only means more value for your money.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pidesco has a point. I, for one, find myself unable to play a lot lately because of full-time employment. Heck, I have finished NWN2 only a few days ago (and at the cost of severe sleep deprivation).

 

 

And funny thing,

I remember roshan bashing FO2 for having garbage skill mechanics that doesn't offer a lot of choice and calling it a "massively flawed game". Is Fallout 1 that much different?

Edited December 13, 2006 by Diamond

[Atreides]

I think the reason we don't have 6+ party members is honestly they get in the way of each other. I've noticed this in my games where I haxxored the OC limit.

[roshan]

It was like throwing bits and pieces of food to starving people.

I think you're taking this a little too seriously if you think that.

 

And I don't think NWN2 was oppressively linear. There were plenty of unrelated quests that you could do as you moved along the main path. But the main draw of the game was obviously the central storyline.

 

 

Plenty of unrelated quests? You must be joking.

[Tigranes]

But roshan, I thought you couldn't finish the game because it was so unplayable. How would you know about that? "

[roshan]

as having 6 characters could concievably unbalance the game. My

 

That's because the game wasn't very hard. :whistle:

 

I think the difficulty in balancing comes from the fact that an experienced player always knows what's going on (not as easy for a casual player to notice, say, that Bishop's arrows are doing the creature no damage when there's a billion other things going around), and they can prepare adequately by manipulating the copmlex system of buffs. Experienced players IMO can give themselves a sizable advantage the second time they fight an encounter; if they fought unexpectedly the first time or were just mauled, next time they know what to do differently. I would say that this is partly because of the superpowered rest mechanism, and partly because in most encounters you can see the enemy long before they see you, and you nearly always get to prepare then throw a few fireballs in there before they can retaliate. More ambushes, more dispel spells by the enemy (modern games seem to really skimp on enemies using dispel / breaches), and so forth.

 

Uh, anyway. Yeah, party member restriction thing had nothing to do with anything else but the story IMO.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, most of the time the party members were forced without having anything to do with the story. Both Khelgar and Neeshka had no relation to the main story whatsoever, yet, they were forced. Zhjaeve did nothing in Nolaloths valley except for stupidly stating the obvious, I dont even remember her talking to the dragon. Similarly, it was not necessary for Shandra, Sand, Elanee, Casavir or Bishop to be forced on the character. With very minor adjustments to the story and dialogue, they could have become completely optional characters.

 

I think Chris Avellone has been praised so much for PST that his success has gone to his head, and he thinks that everyone will like whatever crap he comes up with.

[aVENGER]

Tigranes pointed out that the linearity of the game had a lot to do with the party management, and I think that's an accurate assessment. Adding more CNPCs and only including those in the story that you choose (ala BG2) would have been preferrable

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My thoughts exactly. IMO, Baldur's Gate 2 implemented companions in a nearly perfect way. Of the 17 potentially joinable NPC's only 2 (Imoen and Sarevok) were directly involved in the main plot. However, each of the remaining 15 companions was very well developed and had distinct personalities which were reflected by their own outlook on may in-game events.

 

 

For example, every NPC had an opinion/comment about most quests and, in some cases, their presence in the party would additionally enrich the quest experiance. Furthermore, most companions had a few personal quests, non of which were plot critical, but they often deepened the player's understanding of the companion's character i.e. Cernd's lost child, Keldorn's cheating wife, Jaheira's Harper ties, Edwin's Nether Scroll mishap, Anomen's knighthood trial, Nalia's fight for her keep... etc.

 

 

The point is, non of the companions were ever forced on you, yet if you decided to take them along anyway they would neatly integrate into the main plot as well as the optional quests. However, the player could also ignore them completely or even outright kill them and the plot would still continue without hinderance. Furthermore, the companions also had interactions with each other where they would compliment one another, argue, leave the party or even outright fight if their outlooks were drastically different (i.e. Keldorn and Viconia). In short, the BG2 companions felt like independent persons who could think for themselves. This is one of the main reasons which made BG2 the most fun game to replay for me. Going through the game with a different party and seeing their reactions to the plot/each other was always a great motivation to start a new game for me. :cool: