What's the sweet point of such a world setting?

[Master Assassin]

As in, you messed up that convo and you'd like to be able to go back and rectify it? Hmm...not very realistic, that. We all want something tho, don't we? I like the idea of you get only one chance to make an impression...

 

Besides, it doesn't say you can't go back and talk to them again, just that the previous convo is done for, just like in real life.

Edited April 18, 2008 by Master Assassin

[Humodour]

As in, you messed up that convo and you'd like to be able to go back and rectify it? Hmm...not very realistic, that. We all want something tho, don't we? I like the idea of you get only one chance to make an impression...

 

Besides, it doesn't say you can't go back and talk to them again, just that the previous convo is done for, just like in real life.

 

No, I said I want to be able to talk to people more than once.

 

As in, I want to be able to click on them again and have a chat with them. Deus Ex and Fallout used a of dialogue types - one was short linear messages that cycled through, the others was in depth dialogue trees. But even if you use this system, I still want to be able to get the in depth dialogue system for further discussion, repeating background information, repeating quest information and objectives, etc.

 

Anyway even if I did mean what you describe - it sounds pretty solid to me. It's been a successful formula for the past few decades of RPGs. People would probably just reload if they didn't get the reaction they like. *shrug*.

 

And I don't think being able to carry 6 guns at a time is realistic either, but I don't see you complaining.

[mkreku]

They should do like they did in Wasteland: autosave every area continuously! No matter how much you tried to reload an earlier save, there was no point because the only thing that reverted back to a previous save state was your own party. The world remained constant! Just another thing that made Wasteland so unbelievably awesome..

 

And they say games haven't become easier.. BAH! Stupid Halo-generation..

[Humodour]

Awesome? That just pisses me off, tbh, especially in a world with lots of quests and options.

 

What do others think?

[Xard]

I agree with Krezack

[mkreku]

Yeah, all this talk about RPG's having choice and consequences only apply as long as you can easily reload your game, right? Wasteland let you loose in a free-form world AND it made you actually fail some quests! Imagine that.

 

You had to think ahead, you had to be careful, you had to take the consequences of your actions. Just as it should be.

[Pop]

It's an interesting concept, but it's a little punishing. If you're 22 hours into a game and you accidentally press the wrong button you'd have to go back through 22 hours to rectify the mistake.

[SteveThaiBinh]

I prefer the carrot to the stick - by which I mean, rather than prevent people from reloading after a less-than-optimal outcome, persuade them that the game will be different, but just as interesting, if they don't reload.

[Pop]

Easier said than done, especially when you have big consequences for decisions. What if you inadvertently kill a character you like / need?

[The Coordinator]

Finally something refreshing.

I hope the style is Bladerunner like: Dark and mysterious. Go go go!

 

And hopefully we get an improved (psionic) implants system, advanced from "Deus Ex" or "System Shock", plz! Feargus, *please*!

[Spider]

Yeah, all this talk about RPG's having choice and consequences only apply as long as you can easily reload your game, right? Wasteland let you loose in a free-form world AND it made you actually fail some quests! Imagine that.

 

You had to think ahead, you had to be careful, you had to take the consequences of your actions. Just as it should be.

 

I would actually find a game like this a nice change of pace. At least in theory. It's quite possible I'd end up hating it in action.

[Humodour]

"If it ain't broke don't fix it".

 

Does this not apply to reloading? I bet the vast majority of games you love had reloading. What's so inherently wrong with it?

 

I liked in Planescape and Fallout where some actions were deliberate game stoppers and you had to reload. This also introduced an element of meaning and importance to your decisions. *shrug*.

 

It all comes down to whether or not your think reloading is cheating. I certainly don't.

[mkreku]

I don't mind reloading when I've gotten my ass handed to me by some brutally difficult enemy (I'm looking at you, Gothic 3..). Then I deserve the punishment of having to sit through menu screens and loading times. But when it's almost introduced as a gameplay element it becomes tedious and idiotic. Like, for example, in Neverwinter Nights 2 where I found myself trying every possible outcome in every conversation simply by saving just before and reloading over and over until I got the desired meta-gaming effect (usually some influence or another). That's game-breakingly dull, but that was the only way for me to get ANY satisfaction out of my party members. Since the game wasn't clear enough what responses gave which results, I had to do it by trial and error.. or just ignore it, let them hover around 0 influence for the entire game and only get the drawbacks of having to drag around those worthless pieces of pixels.

 

Strangely enough I never had to reload because of combat in that game. Everyone auto-ressed themselves and auto-healed and auto-wiped their butts or whatever. It was almost like Dungeon Siege 2.

[Xard]

Gothics combat system sucks and is stupidly difficult so that wasn't good example

 

You can only blame yourself if you go instead of roleplaying your character in dialogues to trying to get metagaming "score points" or whatever.

 

And really, your party members are rather easy to read. If you want to manipulate them it isn't terribly hard

Edited April 20, 2008 by Xard

[Zoma]

Just played Assassin's Creed on PC.

 

I realised that if the player is able to have melee combat similar to Assassin's Creed where adding more points in it will unlock moves would be great IMO.

[bronzepoem]

They should do like they did in Wasteland: autosave every area continuously! No matter how much you tried to reload an earlier save, there was no point because the only thing that reverted back to a previous save state was your own party. The world remained constant! Just another thing that made Wasteland so unbelievably awesome..

 

And they say games haven't become easier.. BAH! Stupid Halo-generation..

Game is game. We don't have a second choice in real life. If in game we can't have it in game, it will be too cruel~

[bronzepoem]

You know, when I posted initially I knew this question was going to come up so I gave it some thought; here's what I come up with, and this may seem contradictory but here goes:

 

I want there to be consequences. I want it to feel like whatever decision I go with, there are ramifications to be considered- it doesn't necessarily have to manifest physically a la Fable but something...I can't find the word I'm looking for, but I want that whatever choice is made, that the weight of the decision be felt as well as the affected outcome. Who knows, maybe a regime change would occur based on my actions.

 

I like how the dialog is supposed to flow- you can't go back and do it again, just like a real world encounter- I want that to spread to all aspects of gameplay.

changing world is a great romantic and heroism ideal of RPG player. Maybe It's necessary to set a new topic about this.