Mask of the Betrayer

[Tale]

I think two things should be done. Not necessarilly in the same game, but as two different ways of doing it depending upon the kind of experience developers want to give.

 

1) Increasing strategy.

2) Increasing independence.

 

1) If they want us to maintain strategic control over companions, we should be able to have some strategic control both in and out of combat. Including being able to plan who carries out what out of combat tasks and perhaps how they do it, such as who engages in conversations and at least some influence in how they engage.

 

2) Full control of companions is something that BG2 had not just because it was designed that way but because the nature of AI at the time, it couldn't really have been designed any other way. NPCs couldn't be trusted to behave intelligently. As computers become more powerful, AI can become more intelligent. Companions can start becoming more in control of their own actions without ****ing the player over. The player, as party leader, can assign roles and give basic outlines of tactics and strategy but its up to the AI to choose if and how to carry it out. This may seem a horrible idea simply because its relatively new and it seems to take away control from a player in comparison to the IE days. However, it encourages respect for the independence of AI characters and attachment to your own character. It can also have some interesting interactive consequences.

Edited September 12, 2007 by Tale

[Atreides]

I've made copious complaints about that very issue. It still exists.

 

Urrrrgghhhhhhhhhhhhh.

 

So much for playing the character I wanted to play.

 

Sigh. Fighter/Cleric and other derivatives it is then...again.

 

Edit: one day I'll be able to play a character with skills like diplomacy like I actually want to play. One day.

Ideally we wouldn't need to put up with that. However that doesn't stop me from playing my arcane characters. I just have evasion spells like Mirror Image, Stoneskin etc on them the whole time, including when I talk. Looks kinda weird for dialogue closeup though.

[Starwars]

For Cantousent...

 

How was the length of the game to you? Without going into detail, did you feel it was about right? To short, to long? Personally I think the NWN2 OC could've been more focused by shortening it somewhat, and "trimming the fat".

How was the sidequests in terms of quantity? Exploration when compared to the NWN2 OC?

[Cantousent]

There was one entire area that is not path critical, although I think most folks will play it. The length actually seems quite good. I agree whole heartedly that NWN2 was a bit bloated, but MotB seems to have stayed trim without being completely devoid of any side areas. One of the reasons I think the game is so great is because they took enough time to tell the story without having excessive (to borrow from Aegeri) orc cave areas while not making it a single beeline to the endgame. Like most non-sandbox games, it's linear, but there is enough side content to reach the level cap, even if you start at the minimum level for the expansion. For me, it is a great mix. Hope that helps.

[Monte Carlo]

If we create an 'X' and 'Y' curve with 'X' being IWD where tactics reign supreme, with 'Y' being Planescape, which is more about plot and characters and interaction (and eye-strain), I'm putting BG2 in the 65% 'X' curve part of my imaginary chart.

 

For me that's about right. Getting that balance is difficult because lots of people here wuod prefer 50/50 or even more. Problem is that the multitudes prefer, I strongly suspect, my end of the spectrum.

 

Well, there is an answer. The game ships with a nifty toolset. People can make their own Planescape-like RPG or their own Diablo-like hack'n'slash.

 

I am still playing BG2 thanks to the frankly saint-like BG2 modding community (bows extremely respectfully). OK, the game I'm playing bears little resemblance to the original, modded to the gunwhales as it is, but it's all part of the fun. I like developing five or six characters exactly the way I like them, and controlling precisely what they do in battle.

 

I'm sorry, but NPC spellcasters still blow chunks in NWN games. In IE games they don't, and if they do it's my fault.

 

My biggest regret is that the TuTu-like mod that was going to allow BG2 to be played with the IWD2 sort-of-3E engine was never released (IceWind Gate). If it were released commercially I'd pay for it.

 

Cheers

MC

[taks]

weidu simply ran out of time on IWG. i guess he graduated and got a job and, well, ya gotta do what ya gotta do and if that means dropping inconsequential hobbies, that's what ya do.

 

i just finished another round o' BG1 - yet again - MC, and my trusty band of adventurers will soon embark on yet another modded BG2 path.

 

taks

[Pop]

That's a good point, Gorth. NPC conversation skills are a loss in the current scheme.

Does that mean that CNPCs are even less involved in conversations in MotB than they were in NWN2? Because while CNPCs butting into conversations is certainly desirable, it seemed only half-there, if that, in NWN2.

[Alvin Nelson]

*drops by*

[Tale]

How YOU doin'?

[Big Bottom]

*drops by*

 

Hey, so when's the release date?

[Pop]

*drops by*

Details or GTFO.

[Aegeri]

I've made copious complaints about that very issue. It still exists.

 

Urrrrgghhhhhhhhhhhhh.

 

So much for playing the character I wanted to play.

 

Sigh. Fighter/Cleric and other derivatives it is then...again.

 

Edit: one day I'll be able to play a character with skills like diplomacy like I actually want to play. One day.

Ideally we wouldn't need to put up with that. However that doesn't stop me from playing my arcane characters. I just have evasion spells like Mirror Image, Stoneskin etc on them the whole time, including when I talk. Looks kinda weird for dialogue closeup though.

Well, it just means that I can run in and start hacking the crap out of them right away. I find there is just something offensive about having my main character forced into dialogue and then to run away screaming like a little girl behind all the fighters and such. Why not just stand back to begin with?

 

Edit: It's probably because I view it as somewhat cowardly and it doesn't make sense from the kinds of characters I like to play. Unfortunately, it's also completely needed if you're an arcane/rogue if you don't want to get turned into a sad splat. This is where feats like trip would be vastly useful.

Edited September 13, 2007 by Aegeri

[Cantousent]

Hey, be nice to Alvin, you scurrilous rat bastards. :Cant's pumping his fist icon:

 

Anyhow, NPCs still interject, but how much really relies on their abilities? I don't think it checks their skills. I think MotB just checks to see if they're in the party. However, some NPCs will help considerably in certain dialogue. Some of them provide different options in dialogue. So, keep that in mind. My problem isn't the NPCs. My problem is that my NPCs have conversational skills that the PC cannot use except in scripted events. At least that's my understanding. One of the Obsidz folks can correct me if I'm wrong. That's good, because having the NPC have an impact on dialogue options is great, but I would rather be able to use the whole party at any time in creative ways. I want the game to check their skills, not just verify their presence. I would like to be able to have someone with a high diplomacy skill try to work some silver tongued magic on a potential foe. That way, if I want to develop an NPC's conversational skills, then it will make a difference in the game.

Edited September 13, 2007 by Cantousent

[Cantousent]

I've made copious complaints about that very issue. It still exists. I hate it. As I see it, I don't have to be standing right next to an enemy, who is clearly set to attack me any minute, to exchange words with him. Why not have the PC speak but have the fighters and other meat shields between him and the bad guys?

I think the real issue is distance - in particular initiating risky conversation at point blank range. Even in hostile situations people talk without goons standing in front of them, blocking the view. They'd usually do it further away, with the goons flanking them, maybe in slightly advanced positions. The difference is they're far away enough that it's not a blade in your heart as soon as the dialogue window closes.

 

I agree, but the reality is that I can stand with the goons ahead and in front of me but I can still look past them at the enemy.

 

Nevertheless, like you and I have both said, there are ways of dealing with the issue, and I completely agree, regardless of where the goons stand, that I'm likely going to want to keep distance if I'm facing someone who will imminently attack me. That way, we can follow your example completely, as the fighter types will be on the flanks, but ready to move forward to block a potential foe.

[Gorth]

Hey, be nice to Alvin, you scurrilous rat bastards. :Cant's pumping his fist icon:

Yeah, he is not known as "Ribsmasher" for nothing!

 

As for the rest, definitely agree. I usually think of my party as a swiss army knife. Different tools for different purposes. If I want to be a diplomat, I will take conversational skills and surround myself with bullies and if I want to make grunting noises and beat people up, I'll drag somebody with smooth talking skills along (whether they want to or not)

[Tigranes]

Well, it just means that I can run in and start hacking the crap out of them right away. I find there is just something offensive about having my main character forced into dialogue and then to run away screaming like a little girl behind all the fighters and such. Why not just stand back to begin with?

 

Edit: It's probably because I view it as somewhat cowardly and it doesn't make sense from the kinds of characters I like to play. Unfortunately, it's also completely needed if you're an arcane/rogue if you don't want to get turned into a sad splat. This is where feats like trip would be vastly useful.

 

I see what you mean, but my perspective is that while I don't like it, I think it would be worse NOT to play wizards, whom I like, just because of that. In IE games I even used to use Ctrl+J (instant teleport), and just pretend that the character was always there to begin with. It is immersion-breaking, but it's not a big price to pay.

 

My problem is that my NPCs have conversational skills that the PC cannot use except in scripted events

 

It would be good to control who talks to who; however, taking that logic further, if you had a NPC talk to someone you would have to be prepared to have him refuse to say certain things. You would tell the NPC 'go in there and charm him to giving you money', but if he's just a paladin with high charisma his conscience might stop him at the last moment, and he comes out of the conversation with less money than he might have got.

 

That's really really complicated to execute though.

[Atreides]

Well, it just means that I can run in and start hacking the crap out of them right away. I find there is just something offensive about having my main character forced into dialogue and then to run away screaming like a little girl behind all the fighters and such. Why not just stand back to begin with?

 

Edit: It's probably because I view it as somewhat cowardly and it doesn't make sense from the kinds of characters I like to play. Unfortunately, it's also completely needed if you're an arcane/rogue if you don't want to get turned into a sad splat. This is where feats like trip would be vastly useful.

LOL, in IWD2 at least the problem wasn't my (high level) mage getting out of the way, but the rest of my party getting out of the way fast enough after the dialogue ended. Because my mage would go Sunburst if things got ugly. And that's exactly the way I'd play my badass mage ^_____^

[Gromnir]

That would make sense in a game where you had little or no direct control over party members. If i can remote control my smart ass wizards spell casting, using that same wizards skills and attributes in all other situations, why not also when communicating?

 

why? 'cause of balance concerns.

 

in d&d you plays a single character. you play a character with crappy int or terrible chr and you is gonna pay the price... though wotc did a terrible job balancing usefulness of attributes in any case. still, with a competent dm, there is gonna be some disadvantage to having low int or chr in pnp d&d.

 

in a crpg in which you control a party with no designated leader, chr and int becomes serious dump candidates... lower 'em to basement and it not gonna hurt the Party. dumbest character in world still gets at least 1 skill point per level. with a pool of even 6 characters you can be pretty damned sure that at least one character is gonna be maxed in every useful skill. and as for communication, you might as well make the paladin or sorcerer do all the diplomatic stuff 'cause they need charisma already. why makes your dwarf fighter have an int or chr 'bove 5? maybe for some feat or prc prereqs, but otherwise...

 

d&d is a squad based tactical combat game. in pnp, 'round which the rulez is balanced, you control a single character. in a party-based crpg you controls a full squad, and typically have a recruiting pool from which to draw as well.

 

why not let your crappy dwarf fighter with the 1 chr and 3 int avoid all the talking? for balance... so that there is some value to be taking points of int or chr, and commensurate cost if one chooses to tank such stats.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 13, 2007 by Gromnir

[Gorth]

That would make sense in a game where you had little or no direct control over party members. If i can remote control my smart ass wizards spell casting, using that same wizards skills and attributes in all other situations, why not also when communicating?

 

why? 'cause of balance concerns.

 

in d&d you plays a single character. you play a character with crappy int or terrible chr and you is gonna pay the price... though wotc did a terrible job balancing usefulness of attributes in any case. still, with a competent dm, there is gonna be some disadvantage to having low int or chr in pnp d&d.

...

My experience with dm's and p&p gaming is sadly lacking (i.e. non-existing)

 

Still, I like my question though

 

If I didn't have the kind of control over my party, it would feel less "silly" not to be able appoint a party spokesman/representative. Either let me (the player, not the protagonist) lead the party or let me lead the main character.

 

For all it's shortcomings in the execution, I liked the Fallout 2 concept of party control. As the acknowledged leader, you issue some (limited) instructions for your team members, but they still do their own thing. It felt natural for me to be able to do talking there, as my "avatar" was more or less my only way of interacting with the world.

[Gromnir]

fo2 ai were retarded... which is one reason that bis were gonna give the player control of npcs in bg3. even the slow learners at bis knew that a d&d party based game has gotta give the player control... bis and obsidian developers has specific noted that they would never makes a d&d game w/o player control.

 

not care if you feel that the party leader situation for dialogues is feeling silly. is kinda obvious that without such a model you got some serious balance issues resulting.

 

am all for adding more npc independence during non-combat encounters (and even infrequent during combat,) but the fo2 crap just ain't gonna happen again from obsidian. even the obsinaties has learned and moved forward.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[funcroc]

http://nwvault.ign.com/fullstory.php?id=32996

 

NWN2: MOTB GOLD!

 

I spent the day at the Obsidian offices getting a presentation of the NWN2 expansion pack, Mask of the Betrayer, and one of the best pieces of news is that it's GONE GOLD both in Europe and the US! The ship date for the game will be late September for Europe and Oct. 9th for North America. The game is looking really polished and frankly with over 25 hours of gameplay and all the content they're delivering, it's going way above the standard of what expansions usually deliver. The storyline with its twists of "eating souls" really should be a great gameplay experience.

 

I got a chance to also meet with the team from Rogue Dao Studios who are doing The Planescape Trilogy, a NWN2 custom mod, which was really incredible in scope and quality. Also at the event were the Hall of Fame creators from The Robinson Workshop, who have a great knowledge about everything in the toolset. It was also great to meet Kalia from NWN2 Warcry in person who was also covering the event with some of the more mainstream gaming sites. I know I owe you guys a writeup from E3 so I'll make sure I do my best to cover the event properly but I wanted to share the news about MotB going gold before I head back home.

[Tigranes]

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLD.

[tripleRRR]

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLD!

 

 

:edit -- I wonder if this means we will be getting the rumored sept. 27 date instead of sometime in october.

Edited September 14, 2007 by tripleRRR

[Cantousent]

Woo Hoo!

 

They owe me a game!

 

You hear me Obsidian?! You hear me?!?

 

:Cant's poking fun at Obsidian icon:

[Tale]

Sweet. Looking forward to it.