Manipulating villains

[Auxilius]

Well, I realized a simple thing when I was reading another thing: whenever you manipulate someone to get stuff done, you only get to fool the punck clock worker, the random mook or the drunk idiot down the street. Even if you get to lie to a real villain, main or not, it never get very far. The story won't evolve according to your gambits.

 

As far as I know, everyone know choices and conséquences as they're provided in games like, say, Alpha Protocol, but what if they were more subtle? For example, let's say a recurring side quest involves the party tracking down a serial killer. He's smart, cunning, arrogant and like to troll the bejesus out of them. Now, go for the direct approach and you will only finally catch him with a huge body count, if you get him at all. But play with his expectations, find out about his personality, select the answers that are the most likely to make him react the way you want, and suddenly, he's less efficient at his job. His murders become sloppy, the pleasure he get for dominating his adversaries crumble, afraid he is to get caught by the likes of you.

 

And finally, once he feels like your breath is down his neck, he does a huge mistake, maybe allowing you to devise a cool enough plan to get him with the hand in the cookie jar, if we admit we need to get proofs).

 

That's the kind of mighty satisfying quests I'm expecting from such a smart game as Project: Eternity. Maybe it's too late to design quests But I think I got a good point. Players don't just want to act smart, they want their smartness to get results. As cool as the Silas quest was in New Vegas, the only thing a player had to do to manipulate Frumentarius Douchebag was to click on the line with a big fat [iNTELLIGENCE 8] written right before it. It was satisfying, but only as a watcher, not as a player.

 

The only equivalent I can think of is getting so much under Marburg's skin in AP, he drops his cool to have a chance to get Thor(n)ton.

[Nonek]

I'd also add that turning Marburg, persuading Parker of his mistake and betraying Leland might qualify. Manipulation in Dead Money was rather well done as well, especially if one got a little too confident with Dean Domino. That said I think your idea is a splendid one, and hopefully the new dialogue system will allow us to play a game of verbal chess with our antagonists and maybe allies, without the you win buttons.

[Greydragon]

Complicated schemes and solutions are that much more satisfying if you manage to pull them off through careful choices. I still remember the first time I played through the drow city in BG2 and saw the triple cross solution with the dragon eggs. It was magnificent.

[Lephys]

Josh has talked about how they don't really like the overly-simplified process of "Speech Skill = success" as seen in a lot of games. I think what they essentially want is for something like Intelligence to provide a unique dialogue toolset (maybe you can't handle ultra-stupid people very well because it's difficult for you to get your brain down to the level at which they're thinking -- it's just always in overdrive), with which you then must properly manipulate them.

 

Also, there's the good example of something like beauty. Your character might be strikingly beautiful, and yet, some NPC might not like that kind of beauty, and might find rugged, broken-nosed scarred-up people with hairy chests to be the most beautiful people they've ever seen in their life. So, beauty becomes a factor, rather than a static positive-negative scale.

 

Maybe you're a genius, but maybe someone isn't smart enough to match your wits, yet is smart enough to realize when they're being outmatched, and HATES it when people try to do that to them. Maybe they grew up being derided by scholars all the time, and now they just hold contempt for anyone who reveals themselves to be "snooty" and learned in their eyes. So, smarts don't just instantly give you the ability to manipulate people. Just like beauty.

 

That type of thing. So, even if you have some kind of "[intelligence] line that shows up because you're smart, you might have multiple, or it might just be a bridge into a new branch of dialogue (as in, there won't be any more [intelligence] tags on things, but it was your intelligence that got the overall dialogue onto this track in the first place) in which you still have several steps and multiple choices at each to properly produce results from someone. "[intelligence]" will not be the same thing as "[Completely convince them to give you that item you want or unlock the door, etc., because you're smart]."

 

*shrug*. I'm hopeful, based on how they've said they want to approach it.

[Nonek]

Oh and may I say that allthough sickening, one may manipulate Kaelynn the Dove quite masterfully. Obsidian are actually quite good at this in comparison to a lot of firms, whose treatment is usually laughably blunt. Somebody reminded me of this in a topic the other day, I forget whom however, I do apologise.

[AGX-17]

I've always liked the idea of beating the antagonist at their own game, which they think they've mastered, without them ever noticing until the dramatic reveal that they've played right into your hands. There's nothing I'd like to see more than an arrogant, conceited villain getting out-villained.

Edited October 26, 2013 by AGX-17

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I certainly don't oppose manipulating the villains. I would love the ability to fool an arrogant mage into frying himself.

[Auxilius]

Josh has talked about how they don't really like the overly-simplified process of "Speech Skill = success" as seen in a lot of games. I think what they essentially want is for something like Intelligence to provide a unique dialogue toolset (maybe you can't handle ultra-stupid people very well because it's difficult for you to get your brain down to the level at which they're thinking -- it's just always in overdrive), with which you then must properly manipulate them.

 

Also, there's the good example of something like beauty. Your character might be strikingly beautiful, and yet, some NPC might not like that kind of beauty, and might find rugged, broken-nosed scarred-up people with hairy chests to be the most beautiful people they've ever seen in their life. So, beauty becomes a factor, rather than a static positive-negative scale.

 

Maybe you're a genius, but maybe someone isn't smart enough to match your wits, yet is smart enough to realize when they're being outmatched, and HATES it when people try to do that to them. Maybe they grew up being derided by scholars all the time, and now they just hold contempt for anyone who reveals themselves to be "snooty" and learned in their eyes. So, smarts don't just instantly give you the ability to manipulate people. Just like beauty.

 

That type of thing. So, even if you have some kind of "[intelligence] line that shows up because you're smart, you might have multiple, or it might just be a bridge into a new branch of dialogue (as in, there won't be any more [intelligence] tags on things, but it was your intelligence that got the overall dialogue onto this track in the first place) in which you still have several steps and multiple choices at each to properly produce results from someone. "[intelligence]" will not be the same thing as "[Completely convince them to give you that item you want or unlock the door, etc., because you're smart]."

 

*shrug*. I'm hopeful, based on how they've said they want to approach it.

The unique dialogue toolset is a dangerous idea. I remember KOTOR 2 and how the best answers were damn easy to find: just go for the longest line.

But if absolutely all lines are reflecting the intelligence of the character, then it would be awesome. Way more awesome than playing a dumbass like in Fallout 2.

 

You know what? The best idea from Alpha Protocal was the dossiers. If you can create some about the characters you'll regularly meet and hace access to their files, then the entire game becomes a battle of wits, which can be cool or annoying depending on the people that will play, even if isometric WRPG will probably attract not many kind of crowds.

Alpha Protocol wasn't exactly liked despite this great strenght, sadly.

 

Anyway, I agree with the rest of your message. Sometimes, people are wary of clever people. And since the game is likely to give the player character a reputation according to his achievements and merits, a manipulative dude is likely to see his job getting according harder the further he goes, with people getting more and more wary oh him.

But honestly, I can't see that being made. It would be a huge pain to craft sych complex answers and reactions according to a reputation. In New Vegas, it just went good/mixed/neutral/bad. Here, it would be strong/weak/dumb/clever/brave/cowardly/soft/hard/charismatic/loner/etc/etc/etc.

[exodiark]

I like villains manipulating me too

Kreia
The way she lied to me

[neo6874]

I like villains manipulating me too

 

Kreia

The way she lied to me

 

This, so much this.

 

I was pretty floored at the big reveal in that game (moreso than KOTOR1)... and then how you were much better able to (see your) influence (over) your other companions.

[Lephys]

The unique dialogue toolset is a dangerous idea. I remember KOTOR 2 and how the best answers were damn easy to find: just go for the longest line.

But if absolutely all lines are reflecting the intelligence of the character, then it would be awesome. Way more awesome than playing a dumbass like in Fallout 2.

 

-snip-

 

But honestly, I can't see that being made. It would be a huge pain to craft sych complex answers and reactions according to a reputation. In New Vegas, it just went good/mixed/neutral/bad. Here, it would be strong/weak/dumb/clever/brave/cowardly/soft/hard/charismatic/loner/etc/etc/etc.

Yeah, the main point is just that, if the only factor in someone's reaction is how high a stat is, then it's always going to be a lame, "More stat = success, less stat = fail" system. And yeah, a lot of games always SAY "Oh, you're going to still have to choose the right line," then give you the worst multiple choice quiz ever, with the most obvious answer in existence. But, that's not because intelligent answers can't be written. It's because the system's typically already too simple.

 

If someone's trying to convince you of something, there's typically a range of ways in which they can do it. They could say that one thing that makes perfect sense to you, perhaps, and causes you to completely shift your perspective on things. OR, they could say something that has you considering what they're saying, but still uncertain, and they need to keep going. Eventually, if they say something that barely has any effect on you, you're going to become frustrated and just give up on it, and maintain your resolve.

 

It's not a simple "the wrong thing... the wrong thing... the wrong thing... THE PERFECT ANSWER!" list. And, when it is, you've still got that one-dimensional scale of bad to good -- low stat to high stat -- with a thinly-veiled disguise.

 

In combat, you might have a giant fireball spell that does 1,000 fire damage, which is awesome, unless someone's really resistant to fire. In which case, that spell may only end up doing 100 damage, and some other attack might actually do 2-300, easily.

 

And while it's not exactly ultra simply and quick or anything, I don't know that you'd necessarily have to come up with some elaborate reputation system that sorts it all out on its own, since you're hand-designing the NPCs and dialogue trees yourself. You decide what the options are, and how that person will react to a given option. Of course, you do want them to all make sense together, as people do share traits. So, if one person is "highly resistant" to intelligent explanation, then another, somewhere in the world, probably should react similarly. If every single NPC in the world reacts COMPLETELY differently to the same dialogue tactics (for lack of a better term), then there's not much intuitiveness for the player. Everything becomes a bit of a wild card.

 

Anywho, I think it can be done, and I'd love to see it done like that. I have high hopes, as they've talked about how they don't want to be frought with simple "win" options in a sea of non-win options. And they definitely don't want more stat to always equal dialogue win.