Seite 1 von 2 12 Letzte »
Ergebnis 1 bis 20 von 22
  1. #1 Zitieren
    Local Hero Avatar von Delicieuxz
    Registriert seit
    Oct 2006
    Beiträge
    238
    These are my thoughts on the subject from the thread on the publisher board here.

    I thought it would be good to have this discussion here, and where PB are involved, as well as on the publisher boards.


    This is my opinion on the matter of deep influences from making decisions:


    Deep does not directly mean extreme consequences - deep means that a choice influences many considerations in how the game world is engaged. The more considerations that are influenced, the deeper the influence is.

    Having a severe outcome in one of two possible directions, which is what games like Witcher and most others do, is not deep, or meaningful. In the case of those types of outcomes, the experience of two contrasting situations is about equal, and feels like navigating down a long and narrow corridor, with no dynamic options.

    Gothic 1 and 2 had lots of deep choices, which didn't always mean the player was locked into a certain path for the rest of the game. The deep choices in Gothic 1 and 2 would have permeating influences upon other dialog, and interactive options, and sometimes necessary, sometimes optional sub-quests, with many different factors inter-weaving between each other, to create something that felt alive.

    The convention in gaming of deep meaning one choice cuts the player off from many further options and potential, or that a negative sentiment is injected into the game towards the player, is weak game design. Handling outcomes by reducing options and locking down a pathway is not a rewarding gaming experience. Choices are more enjoyable when each one leads the player into further interactive experiences that stimulate the player's own questioning of what they will do in the new situations.

    It is more meaningful to make many smaller branching scenarios that a player has to work their way through during a game's bigger narrative than for choices to be be all-encompassing on the player's direction in the game.

    The breeding and creating many new progressive scenario developments is the kind of reactivity that make a memorable impression upon gamers.

    Depth is layering of dimensions, not blunt intensity of consequence.
    Delicieuxz ist offline

  2. #2 Zitieren
    Local Hero Avatar von Delicieuxz
    Registriert seit
    Oct 2006
    Beiträge
    238
    And these are some of my thoughts on why moral-based quest design is weak game design (I've written a lot more in the publisher-board thread):

    In response to this person's post:
    Zitat Zitat von Talvitch
    I personally have hope that PB by deep moral choices means choices comparable to those in The Wicher franchise - when small choice which looks irrelevant provides a big change in whole game. Or choices that for the first look at them looks good, are not good in closer look. I really hope that PB won't just give us choices like "be good" or "be bad", because such obvious choices are too simple. GIVE US HARRD CHOICES!


    Even if choice repercussions are subtle in their expression while choosing them but turn out to be good or bad in big ways, that's still good versus bad choices, and what I find to be unsatisfying game design.

    The thing with moral choices is that, for people who know where they stand, they aren't being presented with anything interactive at all - and apart from having the outcome be random in relation to the presented choice, there must be the understanding of what the outcome is going to be already presented in the choice presentation.

    - If there is not the understanding already available in the choice presentation, then the choice presentation is empty, and bringing of frustration.
    - If the understanding is presented in the choice presentation, then, no matter how subtle it is, there is only one potential response from a player who knows their belief (such games offer no engagement value for people who are not confused about their belief)
    - If the choice has a balance of good and bad between options, then the choice is empty, and every choice is just whatever, and a player is deprived of sensing any value in their decision-making
    - If the good vs bad in the choices is dependent upon the player's particular game and character objectives, then it still is reduced to just one eligible answer, and there is still no meaning to situation.


    Moral-based decisions reduce all things down to a boolean response: Good or bad? There is no way avoiding it - even if options are a mix of good and bad, when decisions are based upon morality, there is always only just one answer, and when options are equal, then then still is only just one answer, and then because either answer is meaningless, the one answer is 'either, it doesn't matter'. And options that don't matter to the player are lame game design.


    Moral-based decisions are weak game design, period, and they're what Bethesda and CDPR put into their games, and both TES and Witcher games have little depth in their decision making - they tend to be black and white. Gothic games have been different - where the player isn't making a declaration of sides in their choices, but their choices are circumstantial to the quest scenario, and also their personal interest. Gothic decisions are much more in depth than TES and Witcher decisions, and rely a lot more on considering what is relevant to the player (sort of like Fallout 1).

    If decisions were to be moral-based, then the game might as well not have chooseable dialog, but at the start of the game the player should get to select "do you want to play the good decisions, or the bad decisions?", and then have the game just run through the dialog and direction for the path that is chosen.

    The blunt good vs bad quest design, which is what all moral-based design is, came into RPG gaming with the rise in popularity of the Xbox and PS2 consoles, and it simplified everything for devices that targeted simplified gamers. And I think somewhere along the way many developers forgot that there were other, more complex and dynamic and intelligent, and meaningful and valuable ways of doing things before.

    And maybe gamers who came into RPG gaming through console RPGs associate RPGing with those kinds of all-complexity-removed designs simply have no experience with anything else.

    Maybe by making those types of games, and by playing those types of games, the whole gaming industry gave itself a lobotomy over the years, and now can't think easily like intelligent people. After all, as I said before, making determinations is what disconnects synaptic connections in the brain, and creates sociopathism - and good vs bad moral decisions are all determinations, saying 'these considerations, but not these others'. So maybe such game design should be considered as evil, for destroying people's brains and turning them into sociopaths.

    ELEX is described to be complex - I can't imagine that means the reduced consideration in decision-making that moral-based dilemmas present. They are all a matter of 'will you do what's good, or what's bad'? And when options are equal, it is a helpless situation, and non-valuable for the player to exercise a false sense of choice in.

    CDPR don't make quality quest choices - they tend to all be negative in some manner, and their games produce choices by reducing considerations for the player along the way - determination-based decision-making, which is sociopathic. PB have been better than that in their games, and I trust they are tapping into their historical insight and capabilities while making ELEX.
    Delicieuxz ist offline

  3. #3 Zitieren
    Local Hero Avatar von Delicieuxz
    Registriert seit
    Oct 2006
    Beiträge
    238
    This is a good post from the linked-to thread, which explains Gothic 2's superior influence dynamics as outcomes from player choices.

    Zitat Zitat von Morgannin
    I think Gothic II probably handled it the best with the way choices affected the story. The end result was the same - you landed on Irdorath to kill the final boss - but a lot could change up to that point. For example, if you became a Dragon Hunter, the dragons tried to overwhelm you with the threat of their unborn scourge, pressuring you to find and destroy their brood in time. If you were a Paladin, the dragons had less of a personal vendetta against you, but in turn the orcs became a much bigger threat. If you were a Magician of Fire, you had to deal with more of the Seekers, who fought your divine power with black magic and weakening the population through possession.

    There were also a lot of quests which changed in little ways, but often unexpected. I struggled for years to try and figure out how to join the Thieve's Guild, because you have to do a great deal to help them out without even recognizing their members. But if you turned the tables and had one of their members arrested, they would hunt you down with an ambush by Atilla - defeating him and tracking down their lair would impress them enough that they would offer you a place in their organization.

    As far as the endings go, Jenny did say in the Bug Me thread on World of Risen that they only had one ending in mind, so they aren't going to focus on multiple outcomes. This is probably for the best, if this game succeeds and they decide to make a sequel.
    The dynamics are not produced by the player choosing a moral stance, but by what their choices mean for the other characters and event in the world. In Gothic 2, it's like player choices are pushing considerations out into the world, and how those considerations influence other character is relative to their own natures - and so the outcomes are natural and unique.

    But with moral-based 'this or that' determinations, the consequential influences are falsified by snapping whole events, rather than character and world qualities and aspects, to particular consequences. These types of designs are not natural and don't leave room to maneuver within them after the player's determination has been made.


    Morals are not a choice, but are a reflection of a person's belief. Basing quests upon morals leads to a person choosing which aspects of themselves they will engage, rather than engaging their whole self and considering how they will interact with a new situation. And a determination is a natural falsehood, saying 'this or that?', and it reduces consideration in a person. And experience is the product of considerations passing information between each other. Reducing consideration with a determination is killing experience. To see what the value of a quest decision is, see where its considerations flow. Hopefully, they should permeate aspects throughout a game, and not fall like a stone into a contrived quest outcome.

    In Gothic 1 and 2, the choices available to be made are rich in considerations, but are not matters of morals - and so shades of grey does not really apply. Instead, the choices reflect different ways of thinking, and the reasons why a person might choose one way instead of another have to do with the considerations relating to the choice that are going on in the player's own head.


    This is another post I made in the linked-to thread on the publisher board.

    Zitat Zitat von Delicieuxz Beitrag anzeigen
    In the Gothic 2 quest to get into the city near the start of the game, there were multiple options for getting in, and each of them appealed in different manner - explore and look for a way in over or under the wall, do work for the farmer to buy clothes, accept the gate pass from the travelling merchant?

    Maybe loot the farmer's chest for worker clothes and bluff the way into the city? Bribe the guardsman? Attack the guardsman?

    The quest isn't based around morals, but an objective with many possibilities - and how the player engages it might include morals - but whether it does is a matter for the player to consider and choose, rather than the game telling them they've got to act based on their morals, which gives no dimension to the choice.

    And certain choices in that quest to enter Khorinis city could spur further engagements - thereby creating a very natural, and impressive play experience.

    The only time where the player is faced with a moral dilemma is when the character who gives the city pass asks the player to do something unscrupulous towards another market merchant - and then it isn't the player who presumes a moral approach to a situation, but it is that NPC merchant who got the player on the hook for a return favour, and is asking for something unscrupulous to be done. And it is that NPC who created the context for morals by already having made a moral-based decision - with the player's choice to engage morals (or not) being to get them out of that very situation, and not for the sake of making decisions based on morals.
    Delicieuxz ist offline Geändert von Delicieuxz (05.07.2015 um 13:06 Uhr)

  4. #4 Zitieren
    Knight Commander Avatar von Bamfy
    Registriert seit
    Jul 2007
    Ort
    Pripyat City
    Beiträge
    2.446
    Zitat Zitat von Delicieuxz Beitrag anzeigen
    Gothic 1 and 2 had lots of deep choices, which didn't always mean the player was locked into a certain path for the rest of the game. The deep choices in Gothic 1 and 2 would have permeating influences upon other dialog, and interactive options, and sometimes necessary, sometimes optional sub-quests, with many different factors inter-weaving between each other, to create something that felt alive.
    I don't follow. In G1 at least the only choice you really had was what camp to join and even then you'd still end up in the new camp, so sorry but nothing deep here.

    Now lets see G2: again it boils down to what faction you join. You might argue that some quests get canceled once you join a faction, but nothing stops you from doing them before. Maybe you mean the attitude some have based on your guild? Yes, that was a nice touch, especially as a mercenary where most people are rather agressive or despise you. However, you never suffer from that. You still have the same line dialogs as a militia man. The quests are different though so I'll give you that.


    Why people prefer TW "moral" choices? Mainly because they have an effect in the world or encounter a consequence later on. Whereas in Gothic you influence with nothing the world. Only exception is G2 when you open the gates from the castle and the paladins get overrun. They tried this in G3 but fucked up. In any case, it's not about good or bad choice, its about making the player feel he actually plays a role in shaping the world, Gothic and Risen really lacking here.

    But if you meant something else then I'm sorry for the bs talk.
    Bamfy ist offline

  5. #5 Zitieren
    Knight Avatar von catalinux
    Registriert seit
    Jan 2008
    Beiträge
    1.484
    Moral-based decisions are for dreamers. And the nameless hero was not a dreamer. He was just a lonely man.

    You see, Gothic 1 had the perfect setting - a place encapsulated under a unpenetrable Barrier, where everyone was a convict. The story never asked you to make moral-based decisions. You could help a few people, but you always asked for a reward. And than, the game was tricky - if forced you to collect the healing herbs for Yberior, just to find that it's too late.

    Gothic 2 wasn't different. If you payed Grittas debt, the only reward was a bottle of wine. Sarah? One way or another, she landed in jail. So after a while, you would have stopped to try to be the nice guy.

    In this regard, Gothic 1 and 2 were mature games.

    Moral-based decisions are for the crowd. Gothics have never been games for the crowd.

    Risen 3 had that +/- soul system. Still, you could be a jackass, but collecting enough soul dust you could reverse your decisions. So it didn't really mattered in the end.

    Morality, in a post-apocalyptic world? Not for me, thank you. I want the final coup-de-grace.

    Moral choices are for telenovelas (soap-operas?) which TW3 is.
    catalinux ist offline

  6. #6 Zitieren
    World of Elex  Avatar von Ravenhearth
    Registriert seit
    Dec 2008
    Ort
    Aarhem (Issanûr)
    Beiträge
    4.496
    Zitat Zitat von catalinux Beitrag anzeigen
    Moral choices are for telenovelas (soap-operas?) which TW3 is.
    That's nonsense. In general there are two different systems when it comes to so-called moral choices: First are systems like in Risen 3 or Mass Effect where choices are clearly good or bad and where you get some sort of points for your decisions. Second are systems like in The Witcher 3 where you have to make choices which have consequences, but they aren't good or bad, you don't get points for them but you have to live with them, they are simply grey, not black and white - a bit like in the older PB games, but deeper. If you have played The Witcher, then you should know that. If not, then don't judge the game for something it isn't.
    Ravenhearth ist offline

  7. #7 Zitieren
    Warrior Avatar von Morgannin09
    Registriert seit
    Oct 2012
    Beiträge
    473
    There is nothing wrong with a game like The Witcher being a game like The Witcher. It tells its own story in a specific way. It's not a bad game for being that way, but it's your choice if that's the kind of role playing game you are looking for.
    YouTube channel for Let's Plays and shenanigans: https://www.youtube.com/c/Morgannin
    Morgannin09 ist offline

  8. #8 Zitieren
    Knight Commander Avatar von Bamfy
    Registriert seit
    Jul 2007
    Ort
    Pripyat City
    Beiträge
    2.446
    I'm not asking for moral choices, I'm asking for my choices to actually have an effect on the world. I took 100 gold from Gritta, I wanna see her starting to work, or start begging in the streets and things like that. This is a minor example and I don't expect this to happen at every quest, but its something they should consider.




    Zitat Zitat von catalinux Beitrag anzeigen

    You see, Gothic 1 had the perfect setting - a place encapsulated under a unpenetrable Barrier, where everyone was a convict. The story never asked you to make moral-based decisions. You could help a few people, but you always asked for a reward. And than, the game was tricky - if forced you to collect the healing herbs for Yberior, just to find that it's too late
    Lets not kid ourselves. There was no choice in G1. Of course you could choose to do things differently. Like whistler sword, you could just go away with the ore. But now you wouldn't get his vote. Same comes for Sly or whatever his name was(the quest with the dead guard) and so goes with the others. So your only choice was to not do the quest. Best choices EU.
    So ye, the game made you.

    Zitat Zitat von catalinux Beitrag anzeigen
    Gothic 2 wasn't different. If you payed Grittas debt, the only reward was a bottle of wine. Sarah? One way or another, she landed in jail. So after a while, you would have stopped to try to be the nice guy.
    To some extend, I agree about G2 but eventually it still made you what you are and not you yourself(except the factions playing a minor role in a few lines of dialogue and some quests).




    Zitat Zitat von catalinux Beitrag anzeigen
    Moral-based decisions are for the crowd. Gothics have never been games for the crowd.
    Go ahead and be their publisher, then tell me its not about the crowd.



    Don't get me wrong, Gothic games are still my favourite games(G1 being the best), but stop with this fanboy propaganda. The games are outdated, the choices are little and its basically a linear rpg. I recently replayed both of them, and I enjoyed them as much as I enjoyed them playing for the first time though.

    Was Gothic ahead in time? In many aspects yes.
    Can you actually compare Gothic with new games? No.
    Can you use the Gothic games as inspiration? FUCK YES!
    Bamfy ist offline

  9. #9 Zitieren
    Warrior Avatar von Morgannin09
    Registriert seit
    Oct 2012
    Beiträge
    473
    I'll give an example of an interesting dilemma in Gothic 3. You meet the druid Torn, whom the orcs of Trelis accuses of murdering a homestead of farmers. Torn wilfully admits this, justifying it by saying it's better to be dead than to serve the orcs. So you're left with a choice... kill the orcs to assist a murderer and terrorist, or hold Torn accountable and serve the interests of the brutal conquerors.
    YouTube channel for Let's Plays and shenanigans: https://www.youtube.com/c/Morgannin
    Morgannin09 ist offline

  10. #10 Zitieren
    Local Hero Avatar von Delicieuxz
    Registriert seit
    Oct 2006
    Beiträge
    238
    Bamfy, I think your mind is tuned in to the type of reactivity of Witcher games, but is washing over the type in Gothic 2. I also think that your impression of Gothic games as being old in years and graphics is influencing your perception of them as being dated in design.

    To date, I feel that there is no other game that has reached the degree of natural and believable choice presentation and reactivity which Gothic 2 has.

    In Gothic 2, natural choice reactivity is simply everywhere, and maybe its ubiquity is leading to you noticing it less.

    Some instances of realistic player choice and world reactivity in Gothic 2 off the top of my head are:

    - Fighting Bronco on mercenary camp
    - getting mercenary acceptance
    - tattle telling or not on the guy who stole another mercs weed stash
    - dealing with Onar
    - communication with Greg the pirate at many stages of the game
    - getting into Khorinis
    - dealing with the traveling merchant, and Sarah
    - Jack's lighthouse
    - dealing with the bully at the docks
    - entering the thieves guild lair
    - dealing with the thieves

    And this list can go on and on, and I would detail their multi layered considerations if not on a tablet while waiting for a new ssd for my pc.

    The two you acknowledge:
    - getting a job in town
    - joining a faction

    Are simply two bigger player decisions. It is good that the dynamic choice reactivity in Gothic 2 encompasses so many if it's quests in small ways, because it lets there be so many more intricate influences that mesh into one whole society - and those multitudes of influential considerations are what makes Gothic 2 so alive and real.

    Witcher games are not of that level of finesse and influence, and are far more blunt, with their reactivity being more sensationalistic and meaningless.

    Between early Gothic and Witcher games, it's Witcher games that have outdated choice and reactivity designs. Witcher bluntly gives the player 2 clear-cut options for dealing with contrived challenges, while Gothic presents the player with natural situations, and leaves their handling possibilities for the player to work out and discover. Witcher games just lead the player down linear paths by the nose.

    If Gothic 3 had continued on in the form of Gothic 2, PB would have become kings of the RPG world at that time.
    Delicieuxz ist offline Geändert von Delicieuxz (06.07.2015 um 14:17 Uhr)

  11. #11 Zitieren
    Local Hero Avatar von Delicieuxz
    Registriert seit
    Oct 2006
    Beiträge
    238
    Zitat Zitat von Morgannin09 Beitrag anzeigen
    I'll give an example of an interesting dilemma in Gothic 3. You meet the druid Torn, whom the orcs of Trelis accuses of murdering a homestead of farmers. Torn wilfully admits this, justifying it by saying it's better to be dead than to serve the orcs. So you're left with a choice... kill the orcs to assist a murderer and terrorist, or hold Torn accountable and serve the interests of the brutal conquerors.
    That's the kind of moral dilemma which is unrealistic, and contrived. It's a case of a game trying to force a sentiment on the player by omitting ways to acknowledge and resolve the individual considerations. It's brain-killing, and neither outcome can be second guessed, because the game didn't give the player means to handle the situation with their mind rather than their emotion. It is an example of the kind of quest design which Witcher employs, which is based in making false determinations.

    Given the option, I would avoid such a quest, though I would feel deprived of meaningful engagement by the quest design.
    Delicieuxz ist offline

  12. #12 Zitieren
    Warrior
    Registriert seit
    May 2007
    Beiträge
    438
    There are several quest/choice designs I don't like in modern RPGs. Hopefully Piranhas will avoid most of them.

    1. Choices with no impact: 90% of BioWare conversation choices are just like that. You have 3 options, but none has any effect neither short-term, nor long-term.

    2. Too many wrong-wrong choices: This is what the Witchers do. It felt fresh at the beginning ot TW1, but when I realized, no matter what I chose, something bad would always happen, I was disappointed.

    3. Robotic choices: A good example is Mass Effect's paragon/renegade system. You don't really choose options because of the possible consequences, but you play either paragon or renegade. One reason is that by sticking to one you can complete the game in two runs without losing anything interesting content-wise. Another reason is that because you either put all your XP to paragon OR renegade and get all possible choices on one side, or you are stuck with the "gray" options, which is generally solving a problem with guns instead of some clever dialogue.

    4. No alternative besides refuse quest: That's when you presented with a quest that is morally disturbing, but either you accept it and earn XP or you just move on. Like the "kill the cows" quest in G3. Not only I would not accept such quest, but I'd have liked to kick the butt of that idiot rebel.
    rotator ist offline

  13. #13 Zitieren
    Local Hero Avatar von Delicieuxz
    Registriert seit
    Oct 2006
    Beiträge
    238
    Zitat Zitat von rotator Beitrag anzeigen
    There are several quest/choice designs I don't like in modern RPGs. Hopefully Piranhas will avoid most of them.

    2. Too many wrong-wrong choices: This is what the Witchers do. It felt fresh at the beginning ot TW1, but when I realized, no matter what I chose, something bad would always happen, I was disappointed.
    This is what I'm unsatisfied with, too. CDPR have tried to falsify an impression of meaningful choices by just attaching random negatives to everything, and apparently some players don't notice the gimmick and assume they played a dynamic influence, when all they did was choose between A or B for nose-leading quests and arbitrary responses. For the players who notice, the choices and quests are meaningless. For meaning to emerge, there must develop controllable context between what's chosen and what's accomplished, with growing considerations - but the games just keep forcing determinations that reduce considerations and falsify outcomes.

    It makes me angry just thinking about it, because it's such clueless design, and it appeals to sociopathic mentality, and it also rewards the reduction of mental articulation in the player down to sociopathic levels.

    And to top it all off, people pretend that this is "real" because of continuous arbitrary negative consequences. Such people probably never played rpg games before the dumbed down console RPGs.
    Delicieuxz ist offline

  14. #14 Zitieren
    Knight Commander Avatar von Bamfy
    Registriert seit
    Jul 2007
    Ort
    Pripyat City
    Beiträge
    2.446
    Sorry, I was lazy in typing all examples from G2. As I said to some degree I agree about G2, but it feels more like "do I want the xp or not?" and in a game so punishing like G2NOTR, its not a good idea to lose xp just because you don't want to see Dar getting trashed. If later he wouldn't give you the quest(the orc ring thingie) because you told Cypher of the weed, then yes it might be worth. And more or less, this applies to all quests. The game is basically saying "yea you can do that, but its better this way if you want to survive".
    Now I see a new type of choice you are making an example "give gold or fight". Sorry, this kind of choice you see in action games also, that have no rpg elements. You see this in almost any rpg game, why you put the bronco and bully from harbour example i dunno.



    Btw, I'm not defending TW. It has its flaws, but their system does give you a choice, not making you take choice A instead of choice B because of extra xp.

    The world in G2 does react yes and its nice. Bullco wanting to beat you after you beat Silvio men, the ring of Valentino after you beat him. Hell, I remember R1 had this kind of reaction(you beat some fucker from Don camp and later you meet him again and fight). But those are simple reactions, nothing "intricate" or "deep" about them. Are they good though? Yes they are.

    But we need a mix of the two. These small and believable reactions we saw in G1, G2, with the "choices" G2 presented to us, implemented in TW system.
    Except from that, you need to bring the kind of reactions you get in TW. The only example that comes in my mind, is from TW1 where you had to choose to destroy some mutagens or let them(I don't remember exactly what was the choice actually) but the consequence was that you'd get some mutated dogs, acting as tougher opponents. These kind of choices and reactions you can bring from TW, not the choices that require morality.
    Bamfy ist offline Geändert von Bamfy (06.07.2015 um 15:42 Uhr)

  15. #15 Zitieren
    Local Hero Avatar von Delicieuxz
    Registriert seit
    Oct 2006
    Beiträge
    238
    The reason I mentioned bronco (or is that bullco?) and the harbour bully is because the player's mere presence near them causes unexpected world engagements, that have variable outcomes. Giving gold or fighting isn't the only considerations of the harbour bully encounter. There are multiple ways fighting can instigate, and there are 4 outcome potentials: give gold and pass, fight and lose, fight and win, run away. Each changes the atmosphere of the area and the perception of the players role in the environment.

    It is a multi layered engagement:

    First, its occurrence is a surprise, and an instance of the game world acting as if it were as alive as the player, rather than the player knowingly triggering an encounter, and it is pretty unique in that sense.

    Second, even while the terms of the engagement are being established, the player chooses their thoughts and attitude in the conversation, and the NPC engages the player's particular thoughts along the way in a natural manner, with the ultimate outcome unknown to the player.

    That leads to one of two conclusions of the discourse, and if a fight starts, there are then multiple more outcome possibilities to that branch. And if the player gives gold, they can still start a fight, then take their gold back.

    And whether they knock out or kill the bully is an even further consideration, which creates even further influences in the world.

    That one simple engagement in Gothic 2 involves more dynamic player consideration than most quests in other RPGs, and it feels very immersive.

    If this were done in a Witcher game, the NPC would have a question mark above their head, and wouldn't engage apart from the player deciding to take on that particular known challenge. Then the conversation options would be types of sentiments the player wants to deliver, making clear what outcome was going to happen, and the dialog would be streamlined. Then if a fight started, the player would have to stay in the zone until it ended, or restart the challenge if they abandoned.

    The harbour quest in Gothic 2 is filled with natural reactivity to player choice, starting with the players choice to go exploring in the harbour area.

    And similar goes for fighting Bronco (or Bullco?) at the kitchen in the mercenary camp - the player is told to buzz off, and if the player chooses to keep bugging the people at the table, a fight starts. That's natural, and uncommon reactivity in an RPG game, and an instance where the game world reacts like it's alive and real just like the player is.

    Choices aren't just in dialog, they're in everything. Games that execute all their choices in locked conversation feel stiff - and dialog options feel fake when they're all worded to clearly be issuing a particular sentiment that means an obvious conclusion, rather than delivering consideration that could lead to many different potentials, and depends on what those considerations means to the NPC who hears them.
    Delicieuxz ist offline Geändert von Delicieuxz (06.07.2015 um 16:43 Uhr)

  16. #16 Zitieren
    Knight Commander Avatar von Bamfy
    Registriert seit
    Jul 2007
    Ort
    Pripyat City
    Beiträge
    2.446
    Ye Gothic gives you the freedom to run from a fight. But at the end of the day, Moe gets trashed, you get his gold and enter the tavern. Same would happen in TW(just thta you couldn't run) or some other rpg game. But all devs have their own style. Maybe in TW there aren't npcs that interact with you directly, but in other games there are.

    You kill somebody and the people around react. Hei, this shit happens in GTA also but you receive some shiny stars as well.


    The reason I mentioned bronco (or is that bullco?) and the harbour bully is because the player's mere presence near them causes unexpected world engagements, that have variable outcomes. Giving gold or fighting isn't the only considerations of the harbour bully encounter. There are multiple ways fighting can instigate, and there are 4 outcome potentials: give gold and pass, fight and lose, fight and win, run away. Each changes the atmosphere of the area and the perception of the players role in the environment.
    Mambo jambo crap. Long story short, this shit aplies to many quests from many games.

    Choices aren't just in dialog, they're in everything.
    Ye, I heard its called a RPG game.

    All you said is true, but so happens in many games so stop making it sound so one of the kind cuz it stopped being a long time ago. I never made this TW vs Gothic, I merely said that Gothic ain't that deep as you think, said what is good and what is bad, but you keep on bitching about it that and you reminded me why I don't usually participate in these kind of talks.

    I'll stop here, you can continue your fanboy propaganda in peace.
    Bamfy ist offline

  17. #17 Zitieren
    Local Hero Avatar von Delicieuxz
    Registriert seit
    Oct 2006
    Beiträge
    238
    I'm sorry if I offended, I just thought we were discussing the subject of quality quest design in detail.

    Your reducing the details involved in such quests as the more fight down to a lowest common denominator (fight or gold), to say that other games have the same, does not make those details suddenly not exist, and your reducing of them acknowledges that they provide difference - and the difference they give is potential dynamic to player / quest maneuvering, allowing for the engagement to be a whole lot more than 'choose this or that', which is what it would be if only 'fight or gold'.

    If the details in quest design don't matter for you, and all you're looking to experience is the blunt outcome, like getting xp, then that's a perspective that's not very immersed in the game world.
    Delicieuxz ist offline Geändert von Delicieuxz (06.07.2015 um 20:07 Uhr)

  18. #18 Zitieren
    Deus Avatar von Maladiq
    Registriert seit
    May 2008
    Ort
    WoP Servers
    Beiträge
    11.229
    Zitat Zitat von catalinux Beitrag anzeigen
    Moral-based decisions are for dreamers. And the nameless hero was not a dreamer. He was just a lonely man.

    You see, Gothic 1 had the perfect setting - a place encapsulated under a unpenetrable Barrier, where everyone was a convict. The story never asked you to make moral-based decisions. You could help a few people, but you always asked for a reward. And than, the game was tricky - if forced you to collect the healing herbs for Yberior, just to find that it's too late.

    Gothic 2 wasn't different. If you payed Grittas debt, the only reward was a bottle of wine. Sarah? One way or another, she landed in jail. So after a while, you would have stopped to try to be the nice guy.

    In this regard, Gothic 1 and 2 were mature games.

    Moral-based decisions are for the crowd. Gothics have never been games for the crowd.

    Risen 3 had that +/- soul system. Still, you could be a jackass, but collecting enough soul dust you could reverse your decisions. So it didn't really mattered in the end.

    Have a cookie! Yet moral decissions existed always in G1 and G2. The Sarah example is the best. A great moral decission doesn't need to influence the game too much, it just has to give the player the satisfaction that they chose a path or another. You don't need +1000 gold to feel good. You just need to know that Sarah doesn't land in jail because of you. A bottle of wine can be a great reward when that character thanks you for paying her debt.

    A stew is even better for beating up the bully. Point is, the moral decissions have to be written well. If you go to a character and he says "I don't have the money" and that is it, that is piss poor writing. However, if you find that character crying, and first dialogue option is "what happened?" and he starts telling you how his son died while sailing the seas, and his wife is ill, they sold all their cattle and even the wood wich asks too much money for them to affoard the medicine, then you create a moral choice between asking those money, or paying the debt yourself. And the reward may be a bottle of wine, or an ancient book which he found on the streets and doesn't know how to read, which only contains lore, or teaches you a decent, but unique spell.
    For the most recent Elex news, the new Piranha Bytes RPG, visit us at World of Elex!!!
    Maladiq ist offline

  19. #19 Zitieren
    Knight Commander Avatar von Bamfy
    Registriert seit
    Jul 2007
    Ort
    Pripyat City
    Beiträge
    2.446
    I'm not denying their existence, I'm just saying other games do that also, in different manner.

    Ok lets take Moe interaction:

    -you can give him gold and enter the tavern and leave him alone for the rest of the game. but lets talk about the player. will he accept this? i'm willing to make this bet, that most if not all who gave moe gold, came back later to him to get their gold back.

    -you can give him gold then fight him: if you fight him right after you give him the gold, then wtf are you doing? if you come by later when you are stronger to get back your gold then it makes sense. but then, this coincides with option 1 and with the fight option.

    -you fight him from the start. this leads to 3 possible outcomes:
    - you win, meaning you keep the gold and enter the tavern.
    -you lose, losing the gold and not entering the tavern. later you come, beat him, get the gold and enter the tavern
    -you run, later you come, beat him and enter the tavern.

    All nice and cozy, but the game style allows you to lose or run, not the "quest". So you actually have 2(or 3) choices possible by the quest. The details are given by the game style, not by the quest design.

    Lets take some other rpg, say Oblivion.
    If the quest was the same, I really believe the choices would be the same and so would be the details, except maybe if you lose you die so you restart.

    The witcher now. Same choices, but you can't run and you die if you lose. And btw, i dunno why you say you can't run away, I remember running away from salamdra a few times in vizima and I'm sure in TW3 you can run away from fights, but maybe you are right.

    So the only difference is that Moe's conversation autostarts if you are close to him. But tell me, where is that awesome detail you are talking about? Right, its in the game design, not the quest itself.

    Funilly enough, G1 actually gives you a real 3rd option: You are in a similar situation at the bar from the new camp, just that you also have the option of taking the scrappers armor to enter free without fighting, or waiting untill you join the rogues.

    And other games would prolly give you another quest to have free passage.

    If the details don't lead me to another choice, background about the character, information about others, lore, funny talk and stuff like that, if its that kind of detail thats there just for the sake of it, then I'd take the blunt aproach.

    But just because there are more choices, doesn't mean it is better. Some choices just don't make any sense and again, I'd rather have 2 choices than 5 choices, the 3 being utter shit.
    Bamfy ist offline Geändert von Bamfy (06.07.2015 um 20:39 Uhr)

  20. #20 Zitieren
    Adventurer Avatar von Misanthrope
    Registriert seit
    May 2014
    Beiträge
    60
    Zitat Zitat von Maladiq Beitrag anzeigen
    The Sarah example is the best.
    Even better than letting the orcs into the castle?

    And yes, it doesn't need to be a world changing thing as long it fits the context and doesn't repeat infinitely. The Witcher style 'here and now' decisions or Risen 3 +/- Soul-like systems will ultimately fail to impress 'cos they've already been overexploited (along with romancing) in the last ten years or so. The focus should be on achieving the sophistication of quest and level design from the original Gothic, which is up to date unmatched. Then, adding a few moral dilemmas won't hurt. But that's just icing on a cake.
    Misanthrope ist offline Geändert von Misanthrope (06.07.2015 um 23:22 Uhr)

Seite 1 von 2 12 Letzte »

Berechtigungen

  • Neue Themen erstellen: Nein
  • Themen beantworten: Nein
  • Anhänge hochladen: Nein
  • Beiträge bearbeiten: Nein
  •