The Mega Dungeon and consequence

[Sacred_Path]

Making it optional meaning not tied into the main plot I mentioned earlier was for a very logical and reasonable reason. That not everyone enjoys dungeon crawling, optional means those who do not can simply avoid it if so desired. Making it mandatory would force those who do not enjoy such to have to go there and be annoyed at doing something they do not like. I happen to love dungeon crawling, but I do know not every is. I see no harm in making this an optional interesting place to visit.

 

That's not a strong argument though. Not everyone likes puzzle solving. Not everyone likes reading walls of text (yes, not everyone liked Torment!). Still those elements will be mandatory at some point. Why not dungeon crawling?

 

Like I said, maybe only a number of levels could be mandatory. I think everyone who likes CRPGs and IE style games can stomach a 5 level dungeon crawl.

 

 

The last part I mentioned about timers is a big deal to me personally as said I am a completionist, a kind of gamer who has to visit every area, look in every corner, read every ingame lore, find all the items possible or do every quest etc so if put timers on the dungeon then do not put them in on the way down please as that does not make it better, more interesting or enjoyable to my personal preferences and play style.

 

that's just, like, your opinion man.

[Lephys]

^ He kind of said it was his opinion. He basically just said "I hope they don't put timers on the act of making your way down through the levels of the dungeon, because, personally, I will not enjoy that." I don't think he was suggesting anything contrary to the fact that it was his opinon.

 

In fact, he literally ended that paragraph, of which you quoted only the first part, with "This is just my preference though."

Edited December 7, 2012 by Lephys

[Dragoonlordz]

That's not a strong argument though. Not everyone likes puzzle solving. Not everyone likes reading walls of text (yes, not everyone liked Torment!). Still those elements will be mandatory at some point. Why not dungeon crawling?

 

Like I said, maybe only a number of levels could be mandatory. I think everyone who likes CRPGs and IE style games can stomach a 5 level dungeon crawl.

 

It is no stronger or weaker an argument than the one you put forth. It was never mean't to be a 'win or lose' or 'I am right you are wrong' type statement, was how I see it and feel about it personally (different people different preferences). To you it would increase your enjoyment to have it mandatory in part, to me it make would not make it better to have it mandatory; not everything in the game must be part of the main plot. Which goes back to many things including player freedom. I also realise for others it might be detrimental to their enjoyment. In the end what your actually arguing for or against is mere individual preference. There is no right or wrong, black or white to this. Stick to saying what you like and want to see, what you do not like and do not want to see and stop trying to convince anyone with different opinion that they are wrong.

 

 

that's just, like, your opinion man.

 

Well... Sherlock. I don't recall saying it was anything else, in fact I made it abundantly clear was merely my personal preference twice.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Dragoonlordz

[Sacred_Path]

It is no stronger or weaker an argument than the one you put forth. It was never mean't to be a 'win or lose' or 'I am right you are wrong' type statement, was how I see it and feel about it personally (different people different preferences). To you it would increase your enjoyment to have it mandatory in part, to me it make would not make it better to have it mandatory; not everything in the game must be part of the main plot.

 

Nop, never said it would increase my enjoyment if it's mandatory; that would be a weird thing to say, wouldn't it?

 

What I said was that it's very, very likely that the design of this dungeon will be an after-thought if it's completely optional. They have 15 levels to fill, so it will either take a lot of time and ressources to flesh them out (like I suggested), or it can be filled with crap combat. Don't accuse me of having no faith in Obsidian, I do, but that's the reality of it.

 

Which goes back to many things including player freedom.

 

The game's plot will have to be played out somewhere. In one interview (can't remember which one, sorry) I think MCA even pointed out that PE was actually conceived as a dungeon-heavy experience in the beginning. So we have this huge structure in the game, what a strange coincidence, mebbe it would be a good idea to make some of the plot events take place there?!? Banish the thought.

 

Well... Sherlock. I don't recall saying it was anything else, in fact I made it abundantly clear was merely my personal preference twice.

 

It was a matter of your wording, simply. Which was ambiguous at best, as you'll have to admit. So just be less presumptuous and don't get your pants in a knot

[Lephys]

Considering that they were planning this dungeon before the conclusion of the period during which the brunt of the funding was collected for the game's development, I think it's safe to say that we probably don't have to worry about it being an afterthought.

[Sacred_Path]

Considering that they were planning this dungeon before the conclusion of the period during which the brunt of the funding was collected for the game's development, I think it's safe to say that we probably don't have to worry about it being an afterthought.

 

Since it was a stretch goal, not part of the initial pitch, and not something players are expected to see if they don't want, I'd say that it's v. questionable exactly how much effort will go into it.

 

That's only guesswork from both sides though. If there had been a short notice in one of the interviews or rather the updates, even if it was just one line, like "we already have a few different ideas for the mega dungeon", I probably wouldn't have commented on it at all. But so far the uncertainty wears on me, because it's something I care about. I don't care about wether a 16th century coat of arms will be implemented properly into PE, for example. But this is something I'd want to see well done.

[melkathi]

Sorry there wasn't any hot dwarf on dwarf action to Emotionally Engage™ you. Might I recommend the Mass Effect series?

 

And mechanicaly going through the motions of combat through 15 levels of a mega dungeon is hardly a test of one's inteligence. Or do you seriously believe that every single corridor and room, every encounter will be crafted to provide a unique and challenging experience, that will challenge you to find new, innovative ways of using the system to overcome them?

 

I hear whispered in dark places that some people actually like game mechanics. Yes, sadly, some actually play games in order to experience and enjoy those mechanics. Shocking! And some of those crazy, deluded individuals... why, they even think that the biggest loss in modern RPGs compared to the old ones has been how game design has gradually morphed from an approach favoring large systems-driven interactions within universal rulesets, to highly scripted, story-driven gameplay. Heretics, burn them alive!

 

People should enjoy game mechanics of the games they play. Otherwise it would suggest they spend their free time doing things they don't enjoy.

What the person I replied to expressed was the opinion that story should not be included in the dungeon so that he could test his intelligence through gameplay. That removal of story would make gameplay suddenly challenging.

So try to be sarcastic all you want, that does not change the fact that gameplay does not become challenging simply by removing something else. Encounters will be challenging because they were designed to be challenging. If that is done with story or without does not change the challenge level.

 

The two of you believe story equals bioware romance. It just goes to show how narrow your understanding is. If you went back a bit to a previous post of mine in this thread, you would see what I refer to with story-telling in a dungeon. Of course it would require you to be read more than one post to spout your preconception in a reply to.

[melkathi]

 

There are times for narrative and times for gamist needs. I would rather not have anyone in my party when I pillage 15's level dungeon who suddenly feels there is no reason to fight anymore because I seem do despise that companion 'cause of ugly scars on the back being left by wings being cut after months in a cage in a circus... ect.

 

 

You really need to free yourself from the damage the Bioware style story telling with romance and emotional baggage has dealt you.

There are more ways to add narrative than that and it is not what anyone who asks for story in the dungeon is asking for. Go back to a previous post of mine and you'll see what I would idealy like.

Right now you are just arguing from a very narrow view point that is not making your point.

If for example level 2 of the dungeon has a group of treasure hunting bandits occupying the south part and a humanoid tribe the north part, with the two sides at war, then that scenario could add a lot of interesting things gameplay wise. you could have the choice of allying with either or fight both. You could try luring one side into an area where they will be attacked by the other side, while you sneak away with invisibility.

Having a story would allow them to try to do interesting things for gameplay in every level of the dungeon.

you just need to understand that "story" does not mean that some npc suddnely wants you to be their shrink and then have sex with you.

[Shadenuat]

You really need to free yourself from the damage the Bioware style story telling with romance and emotional baggage has dealt you.

I can't! I'm allergic! I take pills!

And the side effect of them is that I do not make up absolutes out of everyone's opinions!

 

If for example level 2 of the dungeon has a...

Watcher's Keep had all of that and more. It had baatezu and tanar'ri fighting, it had puzzles, included a card game, backstory for every level and NPC, an overarching plot and even morale choice (sort of) at the end, where you had to choose between munchkin's urge to get on with powerful demon, "do the right thing" or even take an evil path and slay quest givers.

I was satisfied with Watcher's Keep. But the OP was not.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Shadenuat

[Dragoonlordz]

There are times for narrative and times for gamist needs. I would rather not have anyone in my party when I pillage 15's level dungeon who suddenly feels there is no reason to fight anymore because I seem do despise that companion 'cause of ugly scars on the back being left by wings being cut after months in a cage in a circus... ect.

 

 

You really need to free yourself from the damage the Bioware style story telling with romance and emotional baggage has dealt you.

There are more ways to add narrative than that and it is not what anyone who asks for story in the dungeon is asking for. Go back to a previous post of mine and you'll see what I would idealy like.

Right now you are just arguing from a very narrow view point that is not making your point.

If for example level 2 of the dungeon has a group of treasure hunting bandits occupying the south part and a humanoid tribe the north part, with the two sides at war, then that scenario could add a lot of interesting things gameplay wise. you could have the choice of allying with either or fight both. You could try luring one side into an area where they will be attacked by the other side, while you sneak away with invisibility.

Having a story would allow them to try to do interesting things for gameplay in every level of the dungeon.

you just need to understand that "story" does not mean that some npc suddnely wants you to be their shrink and then have sex with you.

 

I prefer that the dungeon has a story of its own not relating to the main plot at all. The place should be able to stand up on it's own two feet figuratively speaking. Having everything revolving around the main story seems cheap to me in the sense your forcing people to go somewhere that only relates to the main plot/story because it is not interesting enough to be there without it. It is kind of point was making earlier about keep main plot away from it, make it an interesting and atmostpheric place worthy of visiting and exploring on it's own, optional and enjoyable. But thats just what I think would be best, seems not everyone agree's but such is life. When everything is part of the main plot then exploration goes out the window, my preference of exploration in which the player controlled as opposed to developer forced which I went into more detail on the exploration thread here and here.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Dragoonlordz

[Lephys]

Since it was a stretch goal, not part of the initial pitch, and not something players are expected to see if they don't want, I'd say that it's v. questionable exactly how much effort will go into it.

 

I understand your concern, but you pretty much either trust their ability to coherently make a game, or you worry about their ability to coherently make a game. If they had already made thew hole rest of the game, THEN said "Okay, we're gonna toss a dungeon in," then I might be worried that no consideration was given to making the dungeon work with any other part of the game (loot tables, leveling, etc.). But, since they are still working out the details of the game, as a whole, and already they have announced and planned for this dungeon, I don't see a reason to worry that it the whole rest of the game will rock, but this dungeon will be simply an afterthought that's terrible and doesn't fit at all. There are plenty of weapons and classes and caves to explore in plenty of RPGs that were in from the start, and yet the game can be played without ever using some of them. Yet, they aren't automatically afterthoughts.

 

So, I see hoping it's done as well as it can be. But, I don't see any reason to have cause for worry about this dungeon, purely because it was a stretch goal (introduced, what... 20-or-so days after the "initial pitch"?) rather than an initially-announced part of the game. Dungeons were already part of the game. More money = their decision for more dungeon. Project Eternity - now with 10% more dungeon!

 

It's not as if they announced that this dungeon is going to be programmed and implemented solely by their caterer or something.

[Sacred_Path]

I understand your concern, but you pretty much either trust their ability to coherently make a game, or you worry about their ability to coherently make a game. If they had already made thew hole rest of the game, THEN said "Okay, we're gonna toss a dungeon in," then I might be worried that no consideration was given to making the dungeon work with any other part of the game (loot tables, leveling, etc.).

 

That's actually the reason why I advocated for it to be part of the main quest. Otherwise, I just have a slight suspicion they could postpone design of the mega dungeon until very late into the project, then slap together a dungeon to make good on the stretch goal.

And I don't want it to be a location that's strictly late-game to end-game content like Watcher's Keep, like "let's give those overpowered heroes one last hour of gameplay to squeeze out of the game". Ideally I'd say it should be usually accessed mid-game, when something like a long dungeon crawl is most interesting.

 

But like I said, most of these concerns could be laid to rest by our glorious overlords if they decided to comment on the matter.

[Lephys]

But like I said, most of these concerns could be laid to rest by our glorious overlords if they decided to comment on the matter.

 

This is true, . And I wasn't trying to be hostile or anything. I was just trying to alleviate worry for those expressing it.

[melkathi]

 

And the side effect of them is that I do not make up absolutes out of everyone's opinions!

 

Woah. There are pills who's side effect is to turn people into me?

 

If for example level 2 of the dungeon has a...

Watcher's Keep had all of that and more. It had baatezu and tanar'ri fighting, it had puzzles, included a card game, backstory for every level and NPC, an overarching plot and even morale choice (sort of) at the end, where you had to choose between munchkin's urge to get on with powerful demon, "do the right thing" or even take an evil path and slay quest givers.

I was satisfied with Watcher's Keep. But the OP was not.

 

I'd probably be satisfied with a Watcher's Keep. I wouldn't mind seeing them push the concept a little bit further. But for me personaly what matters the most is that the levels make sense, that there is a reason for the creatures to be there and a logical way of them to be there. And I want things to be happening, not just monsters standing around waiting for the day I get to their corner (which in reality they still do... but you know I mean).

 

 

I prefer that the dungeon has a story of its own not relating to the main plot at all. The place should be able to stand up on it's own two feet figuratively speaking. Having everything revolving around the main story seems cheap to me in the sense your forcing people to go somewhere that only relates to the main plot/story because it is not interesting enough to be there without it. It is kind of point was making earlier about keep main plot away from it, make it an interesting and atmostpheric place worthy of visiting and exploring on it's own, optional and enjoyable. But thats just what I think would be best, seems not everyone agree's but such is life. When everything is part of the main plot then exploration goes out the window, my preference of exploration in which the player controlled as opposed to developer forced which I went into more detail on the exploration thread here and here.

 

I agree with you, at least to a certain degree. I don't see a reason why the dungeon should be part of the main quest. On the contrary, I fear it can cheapen the main story experience if every bit of content is attempted to be forced into it. But I do also hoep that the main quest will not put us under time pressure, where exploring a dungeon will kill any hint of imerssion.

I do wonder if the game will have a post main quest thing, so that the dungeon can be explored later.

I kinda liked how this was handled in Tactics Ogre...

[melkathi]

And I don't want it to be a location that's strictly late-game to end-game content like Watcher's Keep, like "let's give those overpowered heroes one last hour of gameplay to squeeze out of the game". Ideally I'd say it should be usually accessed mid-game, when something like a long dungeon crawl is most interesting.

 

 

How would you feel about different levels becomming available at different parts of the main quest? So once you free village xyz from enemy lkj during the main story, the magic backlash causes an earthquake that opens a route to level 9.

[Shadenuat]

But for me personaly what matters the most is that the levels make sense, that there is a reason for the creatures to be there and a logical way of them to be there.

Which is't what WK was about. If it followed that design pattern, all of it's levels would be filled with helmites and maybe a few celestials. Would that be as much fun? There were elementals, mind flayers, dragon, demilich, demons, githyanki, golems, giant, crazy gadget and overly exaggerated meta puzzles (Ghost Warrior maze). You could probably write quite a few lore bits about how all these got inside that completely ridiculous, multi-exit prison, throw some art to make their habitat more plausible, but in the end, it is still an anecdotic dragon, demilich and illithid inside one same dungeon made to hold off a prince of demons.

[Sacred_Path]

And I don't want it to be a location that's strictly late-game to end-game content like Watcher's Keep, like "let's give those overpowered heroes one last hour of gameplay to squeeze out of the game". Ideally I'd say it should be usually accessed mid-game, when something like a long dungeon crawl is most interesting.

 

 

How would you feel about different levels becomming available at different parts of the main quest? So once you free village xyz from enemy lkj during the main story, the magic backlash causes an earthquake that opens a route to level 9.

 

"Unlocking" mega dungeon levels over the course of the game? That's a pretty neat idea. That way it's tied into the narrative and feels epic. Me like

 

It would also mean the dungeon gets cut into bits so it would be easier to stomach those 15 levels. Which I'm undecided about, I'd also like it if you have to go from top to bottom in one sitting. But if it got cut into several chunks, mebbe then it could also be mandatory?

Edited December 8, 2012 by Sacred_Path

[Dream]

And I don't want it to be a location that's strictly late-game to end-game content like Watcher's Keep, like "let's give those overpowered heroes one last hour of gameplay to squeeze out of the game". Ideally I'd say it should be usually accessed mid-game, when something like a long dungeon crawl is most interesting.

 

 

How would you feel about different levels becomming available at different parts of the main quest? So once you free village xyz from enemy lkj during the main story, the magic backlash causes an earthquake that opens a route to level 9.

 

That'd be awful because entering the dungeon, going through a few levels, and then hitting a wall with no clue how to progress would be annoying as hell. A better way to do it would be to just ramp up the difficulty so that the deeper it gets the higher level you'll need to be to do reasonably well (but you can still progress if you're hardcore enough). That way the players naturally thinks "alright, so I should leave and come back once I've done more stuff" as opposed to "the **** did I miss, why wont this door open?!"

[Sacred_Path]

That'd be awful because entering the dungeon, going through a few levels, and then hitting a wall with no clue how to progress would be annoying as hell. A better way to do it would be to just ramp up the difficulty so that the deeper it gets the higher level you'll need to be to do reasonably well (but you can still progress if you're hardcore enough). That way the players naturally thinks "alright, so I should leave and come back once I've done more stuff" as opposed to "the **** did I miss, why wont this door open?!"

 

In that case, the shift in difficulty should be done subtly and you should be given some hints as to the relative strength of the next floor's monsters though. Trial and error isn't good in an Ironman game.

[Dream]

That'd be awful because entering the dungeon, going through a few levels, and then hitting a wall with no clue how to progress would be annoying as hell. A better way to do it would be to just ramp up the difficulty so that the deeper it gets the higher level you'll need to be to do reasonably well (but you can still progress if you're hardcore enough). That way the players naturally thinks "alright, so I should leave and come back once I've done more stuff" as opposed to "the **** did I miss, why wont this door open?!"

 

In that case, the shift in difficulty should be done subtly and you should be given some hints as to the relative strength of the next floor's monsters though. Trial and error isn't good in an Ironman game.

 

The game shouldn't be balanced around Ironman though, anyone who does Ironman on the first playthrough acknowledges the risks; that's the point.

[Sacred_Path]

The game shouldn't be balanced around Ironman though, anyone who does Ironman on the first playthrough acknowledges the risks; that's the point.

 

Maybe it shouldn't be balanced 'around' it, but it should of course be balanced for it as well.

 

I'm not only talking about wether or not you know the type of monster that await you (though I could do that; remember that different difficulty levels will produce different monsters), but also give the player an indication of the threat that those monster pose to your current party setup and levels. This is not knowledge you could have beforehand, even if you've played the game before.

[Dream]

The game shouldn't be balanced around Ironman though, anyone who does Ironman on the first playthrough acknowledges the risks; that's the point.

 

Maybe it shouldn't be balanced 'around' it, but it should of course be balanced for it as well.

 

I'm not only talking about wether or not you know the type of monster that await you (though I could do that; remember that different difficulty levels will produce different monsters), but also give the player an indication of the threat that those monster pose to your current party setup and levels. This is not knowledge you could have beforehand, even if you've played the game before.

 

So should every new monster you encounter anywhere in the world have a blurb about it that appears and outlines its capabilities for those who decided to Ironman the first playthrough?

[wanderon]

I don't think a "blurb" should appear necessarily altho I think it's certainly possible that parties with rangers or druids might have access to more information about certain enemies than parties without them and I'm fairly open to how that information gets to them and when - it's been done with the tracking skill in other games - ID2 and NWN2 IIRC.

[Dream]

I don't think a "blurb" should appear necessarily altho I think it's certainly possible that parties with rangers or druids might have access to more information about certain enemies than parties without them and I'm fairly open to how that information gets to them and when - it's been done with the tracking skill in other games - ID2 and NWN2 IIRC.

 

That's fine, but what I was referring to was sacred's desire to have a clear indicator of what is to come in case people are playing Ironman on thier first play through. That seems silly to me since part of the fun of a game with varying enemy types is encountering the unknown and then discovering how it's going to slaughter you, and if a player wants to Ironman off the bat then they acknowledge that risk.

 

I mean if he was referring to only having that function active during Ironman then whatever, but it's my understanding that Ironman players prefer to go big without any aids that are not present in the game proper.

[Dragoonlordz]

If have blurb as it were then Witcher did it ideally, you only learn things about something after you have fought it. Such as recorded in your journel when killed something you get a peice of information about its weaknesses and tactics not before. The more you kill the more information you gather. I also agree with Dream in the sense of no-one I know who plays the hardest modes on games wants it made eaiser prior to fighting something it defeats the point and makes it easier which is not why they wanted hardest mode in first place.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Dragoonlordz