Kilroy_Was_Here

Noober ...that is all

Reading through the pages of this thread, I get an impression from the No!mance crowd: romantic interaction wasn't done well in other games they've played, devs say it's difficult to include and/or fluff, and who wants that kind of thing anyway? Not them! Not the majority! Not anyone! (according to them) Constant reminders of previous disappointments... insistence on dark predicions of the future... seeing any opposing arguments in a totally negative light... These people are heartbroken! They went into games like DA and ME with innocent eyes and high expectations for character interaction and were betrayed. The numerical influence system punched them in the gut. The 'final battle is coming, might as well shag' scene trampled on their feelings. I see Anti-mancers as being in the aftermath of a bad breakup. Everything before was terrible, even though many (maybe even they themselves) liked it/didn't mind it at the time. Things can never improve in the future. Life is pain, etc. Maybe I'm just a naturally optimistic person. Or even worse... a romantic! Still, I believe that romance CAN be done well in a video game, and moreover WILL be done well in some future game. That game may be P:E or it may not. But no idea is truly impossible unless you give up on it.

Since full-VO is out (which I agree with fully) and partial-VO is in the question is what should be voiced and what not? I think that the protagonist being limited to something like BG sound sets works well, since many (most?) players would prefer to imagine for themselves what their characters sound like. As far as NPCs, I think for branching conversations only the first line should be voiced. This helps establish the mood and tone of the conversation, as well as give the player a concept of the speaker. Having the responses be text only helps the writers remain flexible, as the opening line is least likely to be changed. Also it allows followup lines to be added/deleted/changed with no trouble. For 'cutscene' like scenes like the Sarevok/Gorion encounter at the beginning of BG1 it helps to have every line voiced. Since there are no branches to the conversation there is no need to record multiple versions of similar lines. Also, since a cutscene is more likely to be viewed by the player (as opposed to an NPC or quest that can be skipped or simply missed) it is more cost-effective.

I expect... Monkey Island insult duels! 'How appropriate; you fight like a cow!'

An encounter that requires 6 buffs is the combination of the following limitations: -player must realize 6 buffs are required -player must have access to 6 buffs -player must not have already used the six buffs on something else earlier -6 buffs must be used on certain characters/in a certain order The sum total is that, even assuming that these limitations can be overcome, the buffing solution becomes the only 'correct' answer. If any encounter cannot be consistently cleared using any other methods, it is an objective failure. What is the point of creating a PC, gathering a party and selecting gear/abilties if there are events with exactly ONE solution? If I wanted a linear adventure game I'd play Zelda and not be offended when the game required me to use the hookshot to jump that gap or the spinning slash to stun that boss. The point of a good RPG isn't that you can steamroll through all content using the same tactics over and over, but that there should always be multiple solutions to a problem. Maybe instead of the buffs you could recruit NPC allies to reduce the enemy ranks. Flood the dungeon to create an enviornment where some of the enemy's abilities won't work. Use diplomacy or bluff (maybe a disguise) to get by the enemies or get some of them to leave. If the player is willing to take the time maybe all of the above will work. Likewise, a worthy antagonist should be doing the same thing. Many PnP campaigns I've read state that NPCs will have spies/magic watching the PCs so they know what tactics/abilities they like to use so that they can prepare their own 'six buffs' to use against them. An RPG shouldn't just be a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors where there is one objective 'right' answer to a given situation. It should be closer to a chess match, where your move depends on what your opponent does, and what they are in a position to do in response to you.

I don't know what the big deal is about two handed swords. What I want to know is... where are the four handed swords? Would you want to be the blacksmith to tell a Shokan warrior 'Sorry, I don't have anything in your size'? Didn't think so.

They just wanted to remind you that if you don't clean out the pantry for the next 18 months the results could be... bad.

Something that really bothered me: Ok, in KOTOR you had amnesia, so both the player and their PC don't remember anything pre-Endar Spire. In KOTOR II the PC never had amnesia, but the Exile's past is still presented as a mystery to the player for much of the game. If the fixed backstory of the main character is important to the story, isn't it a good idea to let the audience in on it at some early point?

Some light reading: http://project-apollo.net/text/rpg.html Mostly applies to JRPGs, but still interesting. Something I'd like to see done away with - the random encounter. I know that in a IE style game you don't trigger a battle on the field screen and enter the battle screen where everyone's sprites are more detailed. Still, the whole 'we have encountered each other unexpectedly on the side of the road so we must fight to the death!' thing is overplayed. This would be pretty hard to work around but it would be interesting to see. Related is the necessity for total victory. In pnp rules in most cases when an encounter is going well for the PCs the remaining opponents will either flee or surrender (undead or mindless creatures excepted). We never see this in an RPG though. Would be innovative to have something like that implemented, and if your party kept mowing down bandits that had given up they would acquire a 'bloodthirsty' reputation.

One thing I didn't like was how gamebreaking the stealth skill tree was. Working from memory here, but I think the first ability you got let you see enemies outside of your LOS for a while, and the third ability made it permanent! Think Metal Gear Solid radar but overlaid on the main screen rather than seperated. It even told you which direction people were moving and their alertness level. I did like the variability of the plot. What other game keeps dropping hints about how tough an enemy is, and you end up not only not fighting them, but not even encountering them? Or where having a high negative reputation with people can be more helpful than no reputation at all, or even a high reputation?

Good idea. We'll call them the 108 Lights of Fate. Continue. I like where this is going! Things I would like brought over from the Suikoden series: -Stronghold increases in size (more levels) as you get more companions/as the plot progresses -Unique scenes between certain group composisitions... although in Suikoden it was usually in the steam bath. Could get awkward. Things I would not like: -Shops that open inside the stronghold only if a certain NPC is recruited to run it. It makes sense in that series because you're mostly collecting people anyway, but in a game like PE it might be a hassle to track someone down just to get your own armor shop.

After wandering around forests for the first half-dozen chapters of BG1 I was actually baffled about what to do when I finally reached the city itself. If they do have relatively empty wilderness areas to trek through I hope that the game starts in one of the big cities a la BG2.

I'm pretty sure you couldn't sell it but wasn't that item droppable? Seems like it had the potential for some awkward conversations... 'Where's our child? I thought I handed them to you in that last dungeon.' 'The one with the mind flayers?' 'Oops...' Or what if you put it in the bag of holding and it glitched and duplicated? Twins!! You know, I think there's a wealth of possibilities here...

Maybe the real question shouldn't be about the PC but the soul they inhereted. Would the background of that soul be fixed/defined? The normal answer would be 'of course' but what if it wasn't? Would we have flashbacks to the soul's previous 'lives' possibly having some control over events? Hmm... a lot of possibilities there.

The problem I had with the BG1 wilderness areas was the 'sameness' they all had. If I picked up a quest in one of those areas and wanted to return to it after leaving it it was impossible for me to remember which map the quest was even on. At the very least give each map a unique name and have that name be referenced in the quest log. I've had a drowned cat in my inventory in multiple playthroughs as I couldn't figure out who was looking for it. (Note that this is NOT a quest arrow as it would only remind the player of where the quest originated rather than point the way to the next step)