Pages: [1] 2 3  All   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: 1/24 Monday Design Update - You Could Do That?  (Read 21930 times)
Brian
Moderator

Posts: 1206



View Profile
« on: January 24, 2011, 10:24:48 pm »

I’m primarily writing dialogue for the game right now. One of the most exciting/frustrating aspects of game writing for me is figuring out which options the player would naturally want to take in certain conversations, and making sure that the choices in dialogue are going to lead to satisfying and meaningful branching in the narrative. The easiest way to do this is with a series of binary like/hate, good/bad, help/hurt kinds of choices, but in this game we have long-term consequences to multiple decisions made with characters and the alternate influence of your handling of their friends/loved ones. Some allies are major figures in the shelter and wield “power” due to their skill or authority, and many of these are the most complex and dynamic of the shelter’s inhabitants structurally. Some allies are not overly complex characters, which makes them the easiest characters to both manage in the game and finish dialogue for. It’s a priority for us to make these characters feel real and also that the shelter is an active society, with all the different types of personalities and motivations you would expect from a collection of people from different social backgrounds forced to exist together.

But there is always the concern when plotting out routes through a character’s multiple arcs that there are too few real choices/paths the character can take. The “too few” option makes writing and tracking events very easy for the writer, but ultimately leaves the player feeling like the game isn’t responding at all to their choices in the game. A good example is when a dialogue almost always plays out the same way, no matter which dialogue option you pick, save one “you must choose” line. This usually is done to save on VO costs and also because most people don’t pick up that they are making a choice unless the game spells it out for them. Sometimes this manifests as a major character who you feel the writer strongly wants you to feel a specific way about, because no matter what you say the relationship veers in one direction - usually for dramatic purposes, like you should feel sad when this character dies/betrays you/romances you, etc.

With character dialogue, there's also the need to hold back a bit so that the branching doesn't become so complex that only 5% of the people playing will ever see a whole section of dialogue.Why it might seem that “as many options as possible” would be optimal, the complexity, especially in a game like Dead State where we are not a very linear game, makes the dialogue creation and implementation process take much longer for diminishing appreciation. At a certain point, players feel like they are “missing” too much content, so I prefer to keep it to 2-3 fully-formed different types of relationship arcs a player can have with a single NPC. Usually within those relationships, there can be some slight flavor differences depending on when choices were made or what other characters might have been involved in those choices. All of this has to be tracked and flow naturally, so it needs to branch carefully or risk becoming a logistical nightmare. If we’re doing it right, you’ll think of these characters as people, not switches, and that's where we want the drama/emotion coming from, not just because we fabricated it.

My question this week has to do with the “too many” brances in dialogue part. Maybe there’s a dialogue/relationship option for a character in an RPG that you would have liked to have experienced, but didn’t know about it until reading a FAQ or message board. Did you feel like the option was difficult to access because of the dialogue/quest structure? Did you feel that it was never a practical or logical choice to make with the character? Maybe you found out it was an odd combination of choices and/or skill to activate that section of dialogue. I would like to know which character’s dialogue or relationship branching made you react with “you could do that?” Is it something you’re pleased to find out about or unhappy about because it didn't feel accessible to you?

Also, if you want to list a character you felt you had absolutely no impact on whatsoever no matter your choices, feel free to do that too, but please do it in a constructively critical way. Keep it to major characters, if you can. It doesn’t have to be an RPG, just a game where you felt they were trying to make you feel like your choices had weight.
Logged
Hooliovoncoolio
DS Silver Patrons
*
Posts: 7


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2011, 10:41:24 pm »

Why am I always first?


Anyway, a good compromise might be to keep tally on the player, such as if he/she has been a despot for a while, more "good" choices disappear, until the player ultimately limits himself to the playstyle he wants.

Eventually, it will limit itself down to 3 "Branches" of dialogue: self-centered, neutral, and giving. (of course its ultimately up to you).

This also gives you the choice to complex it however much you want, by choosing what to keep the players tabs on, such as leadership style, choice of looting etc.
Logged
TailSwallower
DS Bronze Patrons
*
Posts: 105

P.R.E.S.S.


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2011, 11:30:48 pm »

Anyway, a good compromise might be to keep tally on the player, such as if he/she has been a despot for a while, more "good" choices disappear, until the player ultimately limits himself to the playstyle he wants.

I actually like the sound of that. It makes sense, instead of someone playing like a complete bastard all throughout the game and then miraculously having a change of heart at the very end.

But, at the same time, I'm sure people would bitch and moan about the lack of choices.

Has that sort of system been attempted before?

I loved the companions in New Vegas compared to the ones in Fallout 3, but I hated the fact that you couldn't progress through their questline/your relationship with them until you went somewhere or did something and you had no way of knowing until you accidentally stumbled onto it.
Maybe the problem was more acute with Boone (who I used on my playthrough - and I've been too distracted by the Mass Effects to attempt another), because he really didn't want to talk about anything.
I thought Mass Effect 2 did a similar thing better - Jack is also bitter and doesn't want to bring up her past issues and you have to really pester her and make an effort to get her to open up. With Boone it seemed a little more arbitrary, but at the same time the Mass Effect engine is better suited to those kinds of discussions that unfold over multiple conversations.

I'm sure I'll have more thoughts later.
Logged

You need Satan more than he needs you.
Forral
Novice

Posts: 39


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2011, 12:34:12 am »

I'd prefer Uncompromising, Compromising, and Pushover kind of options instead. Which would be more similar to Mass Effect 2's Renegade versus Paragon approach instead of simple Good versus Evil.

I'd never approve of an evil or self-centred person who's primary concern is himself. Yet, I could respect someone that wields command like an iron fist, letting me go hungry and working me to exhaustion because he considers it necessary to conserve food and defend our shelter. His uncompromising attitude here shows he is more keen on getting the job done than making me like him. In fact, as long as I do what I'm told, what I think is irrelevant. On the other hand, a person that gives me extra rations because I look hungry, or lets me get off my shift earlier, I would probably really like but I'd still doubt in his capacity to lead. I'd also take advantage of his benevolence. I'd probably work slower than I could do otherwise, and I'd probably eat more food than I needed, because I know I could get away with it.

Some others would probably feel indebted to such a giving leader. They would probably work harder to show their gratitude, and return the favour that they were offered. The iron-fisted leader they would perceive as a tyrant, and plot to overthrow him at first opportunity. Not me. I can tell you for sure that the last thing I'd need in a situation where my world has fallen apart and my loved ones has gotten eaten, is someone that's giving and caring. It'd be like your mother running out to meet you after you had fallen and hit your knee when you were a kid. You probably didn't shed a single tear until she had to run out and hug you and ask how you were feeling; but when she did, you probably broke down in tears and cried like a little bitch. No, I'd need someone to slap me in the face, tell me to stop being a sissy, give me a hammer and nails and tell me to board up a couple of windows.

Anyways, I think there is greater depth if you're picking between options that are primarily Efficient and Goal-Oriented, next to options that are Benevolent or Humanitarian, or naturally the compromising neutrality options. I think so because absolutely no one would ever approve of a Self-Centred leader, and having a choice between being hated or liked isn't really a choice to me. Now choosing between being Respected or Loved is an actual choice, and would lead to a wider variety of possible relationships.

Edit:
Based on my rant above I think one character type I'd like to see is this lost kind of teenage kid, orphaned through the disaster, which you can choose to take under your wing. With him you could develop a kind of father to son relationship, where he confides in you and you get to find out about his past and such, or build more of a drill sergeant to recruit type relationship where you can harden the kid and make him look at himself as an actor rather than a victim. I think both paths would be interesting to explore.

Another relationship I'd like to see is someone that you can share your burden with, the burden of keeping face and looking like you have the situation under control while you're in fact as desperate as everyone else. Something that could develop into either a love-type relationship, or a platonic brotherhood/sisterhood kind of thing, with a second in command.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2011, 01:10:46 am by Forral » Logged
Morohtar
Neophyte

Posts: 3


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: January 25, 2011, 12:54:38 am »

First post on this forum. Grin

Having wanted to create my own ZRPG for a long time I'm insanely jealous. Smile For now I'm working on a different zombie idea with my team so I really can't wait to see what you guys do with this!

I think the main problem that crops up so often is that there are no real hints to the player that these options are ever available at all. Sometimes all it takes is for the NPC to come up to you and explain or hint to the fact that the option is available in the first place. More often that not i find myself thrown into a difficult game changing choice without any context or buildup. Most of the time this leads to a snap decision which I regret and then feel a little resentment towards the game for not giving me any warning.

Another area I've pondered with character dialogue is that when a character is found late in the game they seem less important to me because they weren't there with me through all the hard times. Maybe this would be a possible are to turn off when it comes to in depth reactions. See how long the NPC has spent with the group; has there been time to grow as friends; maybe a bitter betrayal. Character hasn't spent enough time with the group; maybe the big choices with them could be cut or appear later after an other NPC dies or has a falling out. Limiting the player to meaningful interactions with a few is ofter better than giving them loads of choice with many.

On a side note. Good, Neutral and Evil always felt to bland to me. That's why i always loved the the two sliding scales of D&D. The addition of a Lawful, True and Chaotic value might give you some more options for dialogue and another value for repercussions. In the end it will definitely create more work.
Logged
Violently Happy
Neophyte

Posts: 2


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: January 25, 2011, 01:57:29 am »

This is my first post for this forum I been watching this game for a while now and this is the first topic that really peak me interest in discussing about game play aspects.

First I really sorry if I offend anyone but for the love of all that is gaming please stop suggesting a evil/neutral/good type system this is a horrible way for a developer to implement a choice system for a game. What I consider good may not be the same for the next person. This kind of system is just plain damn stupid you force the player to make a decision simply because the game tells you its the GOOD decision. Instead what was said in a previous developer update was that there is a respect system built in I just hope it not a universal system and instead is individual based. As humans we have a different view as to what make a good leader (like how Forral put it) and what is considered good or evil. So please do not create a system where one choice effects all instead it should only effect those who have a strong view of that decision whether it a good one or not.

But to answer Brians question. To be honest I total understand the frustration that comes with what you are describing it can be incredibly hard to try and convince a player that each NPC is important without giving a great amount of depth to those NPCs ( branching dialog). And even harder to try and make them emotionally caring for that individual (complex dialog). A great example of a game that does this is Dragon Age all your companions had these different dialog trees and even though the game was great I felt cheapened knowing that I had to repeat the game many times over to see all the different story arcs for all those companions something I think games need to stay away from and instead introduce a more random styled system. Perhaps make it so there isn’t a huge complex and diverse branching dialog system instead have each play through give each NPC new views and opinions of those dialog options so even if I play through again I may not see the same outcome making the same choice with that NPC dialog path. That way you can write diverse branching dialog without having to make overly complex dialog. This gives the player the feeling they aren’t missing out on anything after finishing the game and has to play through it again just to see the rest. The player also learns that none of the decisions he makes are going to please everyone and makes them feel more attached to his companions because we may not know how they will react and in turn makes the player more willing to sacrifice certain aspect of themselves in order for the shelter to continue on and knowing that whatever decision you choose may still unlock more branching dialog no matter the choice you make.

So in the end please do not implement a system where in order to unlock more complex dialog with an NPC I have to choose a certain paths, and instead allow the game to randomly decide if the path can be unlocked. That way I can truly play the way I want to.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2011, 02:05:23 am by Violently Happy » Logged
MerinTB
DS Gold Patrons
*
Posts: 19


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 25, 2011, 02:36:28 am »

If I think of a positive (and I know there have been at least some) I'll post later -

but a fairly recent negative experience happened that I can give as an example.

My first playthrough of Dragon Age: Origins I was playing a female city elf rogue - the Origin story trailer had intrigued me so I went against my m.o. and played a female character for a first playthrough, and a rogue character (I almost never make rogue-types), and an elf at that (I dislike elves - so, yay, compelling world/lore to make me want to try this first.)

I had decided that I wanted to romance Leliana.  I knew that she could be a female Warden's L.I., but that's all I knew.  And I failed to make it happen.  Later one I finally dug through a walkthrough to see that there was once crucial response you HAD to give in what had seemed a more silly conversation, a response that I had read as being at least mildly rude or snide.  But the game had it as the right choice for the romance to begin and I don't think I would have ever selected it on my own.  As is I've not had that Leliana / female Warden relationship as the one playthrough where I was playing a female character I didn't choose the right line of dialog.

Outside of that, I could point at the ME series dialog wheel and how the paraphrasing can be very misleading on what you are saying or going to do.  That is often a negative for me.
Logged
CyberpunkMermaid
Neophyte

Posts: 2


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: January 25, 2011, 03:24:34 am »

I once remember hearing that a well-written character can be summarized as having 3 'traits'. 2 of these traits will be obvious early, while a third will take some examination to detect. The third trait is very important to do well, as it fills in the gaps left behind by the other two and really becomes a go-to personality for the few situations that arn't dealt with by the primary two traits.

The problem inherent with dialogue trees is that the player cannot follow the above idea. The player being his own character will normally end up confining to only 3 traits as above, but these traits will be different depending on the player. As such the developer is left with the difficulty of accommodating the variety of player traits in a sane way. Allowing the player to say what the player wants to say while still allowing it to boil down to a practical number of responses from the NPC is a very hard thing to get right, but I think that some of the gimmicks some games have used can be made to result well if used in combination with the '3-trait' idea from above.  This gimmick is that a number of games I've seen (Mass effect and Fallout 3 come to mind) will give the player a number of options that go down the same route while potentially padding the response with a line or two.  While this seems like a shallow way to give options to how the player deals with things, it can be expanded a bit.

Give a player 6 options. Three of these options will directly agree with one of the NPC's traits, while the other three will directly disagree with one of the NPC's traits. Assuming writing of the character to the 3-dimension aspect, the character's current concern can be drawn down to a single trait, ans as such the response the player gives will fall into 4 categories: Agreeing on-trait, Disagreeing on-trait, Agreeing off-trait, or Disagreeing off-trait. With this kind of branching, if you 'Agree because of A' or 'Agree because of B', the responses are 'identical' with a 1 line difference if the NPC was focused on trait C. For many decisions both agreeing and disagreeing for off-trait reasons could result in a neutral/non-convincing path, while only taking on the path that directly supports/conflicts with the operative trait will actually affect the outcome. Sometimes it may only matter if you agree or disagree, regardless of the trait defining why. This design ultimately allows you to give 6 options but boil down the complexity of the discussion tree to 4,3, or 2 options-- simply giving a flavor sentence or two to the 'extra' options. In my opinion it strikes the best balance between allowing the player to be the character they want to be and still keeping the result of your choices as 'obvious' as should be desired.

The interesting thing that can be seen from above is the part where the player's options are going to be relative to the NPC's 3 traits. I think, however, when you examine your characters and look at what their traits are (and the opposites of these traits are), you will see that the options giving will be sufficient for most people to be able to find something that agrees with their own 'character', while still making the choice obvious for players who primarily want to 'please the NPC' instead. 
Logged
NudasPriest
Neophyte

Posts: 2


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: January 25, 2011, 04:39:20 am »


Give a player 6 options. Three of these options will directly agree with one of the NPC's traits, while the other three will directly disagree with one of the NPC's traits. Assuming writing of the character to the 3-dimension aspect, the character's current concern can be drawn down to a single trait, ans as such the response the player gives will fall into 4 categories: Agreeing on-trait, Disagreeing on-trait, Agreeing off-trait, or Disagreeing off-trait. With this kind of branching, if you 'Agree because of A' or 'Agree because of B', the responses are 'identical' with a 1 line difference if the NPC was focused on trait C. For many decisions both agreeing and disagreeing for off-trait reasons could result in a neutral/non-convincing path, while only taking on the path that directly supports/conflicts with the operative trait will actually affect the outcome. Sometimes it may only matter if you agree or disagree, regardless of the trait defining why. This design ultimately allows you to give 6 options but boil down the complexity of the discussion tree to 4,3, or 2 options-- simply giving a flavor sentence or two to the 'extra' options. In my opinion it strikes the best balance between allowing the player to be the character they want to be and still keeping the result of your choices as 'obvious' as should be desired.

I think you're on to something there.  Approve
Logged
Joey
Developer

Posts: 101

Zombie textures!


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: January 25, 2011, 05:35:30 am »

It's good to see new people joining in to share their opinions Grin .

First of all, I think that any system, not just Good/Evil, but also Paragon/Renegade and Hoolio's and Forral's systems are detrimental. What happens there is that I create a character at the beginning and have made all my choices then and there. Once I've chosen to be good/paragon/giving/pushover/whatever, I'll always pick the good/paragon/giving/pushover/whatever option, and the dialogue is reduced to just finding the fitting dialogue option (made especially easy in Mass Effect). That's not exactly a brain stimulating activity. (For what it's worth, that's also why I dislike RPG skill sets, since they too get you to make the choices when creating a character and not when living it.)

Secondly! The "You could do that?" question is, in my opinion, pretty difficult. On hand it, it's not nice if the option you wanted was very obscure and you missed it because of a small mistake. On the other hand, it's nice that if you pick the right dialogue options, you can get some good results for that, so that you actively have to think rather than just mash options, knowing that everything will turn out all right. The question here then is whether Dead State's dialogue is primarily a means of portraying character, or a challenge based game of its own. For example, can anyone roleplay a clever character, or do you actually have to be clever to come across as such in the game?

On to the actual question then, did I ever feel that I missed out on a desired option because of mechanics? I'm pretty sure I never would have found out how to talk the final baddies out of it in either Fallout or Arcanum, even though they're cool options. (I'm going to assume from here on that you're familiar with both, so I can keep it spoiler-free). Fallout pretty much requires a bit of luck in getting the prerequisite, which is cool in its own right. Arcanum requires that you tell the baddy you 'can see his point,' which doesn't sound like the first sentence in a tree to persuade him. I suppose that's one of the examples you're aiming at?
 The problem in such cases, IMHO, is that the result is binary. You either pick all the right options and succeed, or you pick a wrong option and fail completely. It'd be nice if your argument could only hold half value if you picked a bad option, after which the other party sees your point, but doesn't agree yet, and you could come up with another argument. It requires a bit more writing, true, but you'll also see more people reaching success without having to resort to walkthroughs. Having only one solution is also why I'm not very fond of Point 'n Click adventures, and I think it's a shame games rely on it so often.
 There's one quest in Arcanum that I'd like to mention here - spoilers! - the Master Persuasion quest, in which you have to convince the city of Caladon to join the Unified Kingdom. You get ten questions, in which you have to decide how much independence Caladon gets. The representatives from the city want as much independence as possible, whereas your employer wants you to convince them to give it all up. The neat thing is that you can screw up some questions, giving much more than your employer wants you to, but you can compensate by getting them to agree with you on other questions. At the end of the day, it's still just a basic sum (and at 19 Charisma, you don't need to be diplomatic at all), but it's a good start.
 Another one worth mention is Vizima Confidential in The Witcher - again, spoilers! - which revolves around you finding out who's the murderer in a particular part of the story. It culminates in an autopsy. If you don't prepare for it at all, you'll find evidence that points to a thug (whom you then kill). If you do the suggested preparations, you'll find evidence that points to the alchemist (whose trust you then decide to gain to get him later). If you do the suggested preparations and snoop around more, you'll find out the truth, that it's actually the evil wizard guy. Point is, you can pick all the wrong options, and you'll end up murdering an innocent thug, but the game continues and you don't fail the quest (though you do get less XP). I got the middle ending; I was happy that my research got more than the most obvious results, but did, in the end, realise that I wasn't the smartest Smile .

Concerning the last question, on having no impact at all: Mass Effect. All of it. It's a game about human-alien relationship (in every sense of the word, not just getting it on with blue space chicks), but the game forces you to take the alien-friendly standpoint. Wrex is the only NPC you can deny access to your team, any complaints about Garrus, Liara and Tali are just ignored ("C'mon Shephard, you have to trust this gas-mask wearing alien you've met two minutes ago" -> continue dialogue). I don't even mind being forced into some things, but don't make it sound like the game is about that then.
Logged
Xhala
Apprentice

Posts: 58


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: January 25, 2011, 07:53:16 am »

I completely agree with some of the above commentary that a Good/Evil system would not fit a game like this, nor a Lawful/Chaotic, Paragon/Renegade, etc. If I have interpreted things correctly, it sounds more like doing a favor for one person may have positive or negative effects on the opinions of others, and the largest decisions that you make will have more powerful positive or negative effects on the other survivors.

This makes the most sense to me in the context of this particular game. The tough-minded types will respect a leader that can make harsh decisions for the greater good, while the more benevolently-oriented survivors will want the leader to try his best to save everyone, and make sure that everyone is well treated. And in nearly all cases, each individual is going to want to be well taken care of, and/or have one or two others that they want to see well taken care of.

My primary concern in a system like this is feedback to the player. If Joe the mechanic wishes his daily allotment of rations was double the normal amount, but the player has no knowledge of this until three weeks later and his morale has already dropped through the floor, I could see that being frustrating to play. It might be realistic - Joe might be a good-hearted guy who wants everyone taken care of and is just really, really hungry - but I would be a bit irate if his dialogue and morale was reflecting discontent and I didn't know why. I don't think that it is likely that this will be a problem, but it's a possible one that I wanted to bring up.

I found it interesting to read the comments posted about three of the iconic RPG series of recent years, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and Fallout, and that brought to mind another suggestion. A simple but powerful thing that I learned from those games was that having a voice actor actually speaking my character's lines of dialogue (which was a trait of Mass Effect, but not the other two series) helped to make the experience a great deal more immersing for me. You're actually hearing your character instead of just clicking on clumps of text - for myself, at least, it made me feel like I was actually a living, breathing member of the world, and I felt far more invested in my decisions in that series than I did in the other two. I am hopeful that this is something that is being considered for Dead State as well.
Logged
Caidoz
Moderator
*
Posts: 2445


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: January 25, 2011, 08:00:20 am »

I agree with a lot of what's been said above, traditional good/evil sliders are too predictable; like someone said about Mass Effect, I decide I'm playing a "good guy" and aim my mouse to click in the upper right for every conversation, and that's no fun at all.

Regarding a game that made me think "Wow, you can do that?" Heavy Rain comes to mind.  Not only for dialogue options, but for things to do/interact with in the scenes.  Something I thought was really fun was to let someone play it who had never played it before and just watch, because their game would always play out somewhat differently than yours, or the one you watched before that, and in that sense it was really fun.  Games with multiple characters and branching story paths too, I'm always the type to go back and play a game again just to choose different responses and see all there is to see.
Logged

"A gang of crazed druggie looters could sneak up and rip open our gate with their PCP meth strength - I mean, haven't you ever played a post-apocalyptic role-playing game before?"
Hiver
Expert

Posts: 1202


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: January 25, 2011, 09:33:30 am »

The only game that ever made me think "wow, you can do that?" was Fallout 2.
It wasnt that you had many different choices but the way they were written was very amusing. You could give snide, ironic or sarcastic replies and get similar answers to them, or NPCs would react appropriately.

And they didnt all react in a binary way of "You say a nice thing" - "NPC approves" either.
At least not all the time.
With Mordino you had to be respectful and call him senor Mordino all the time, which was indicated at the beginning of the conversation, Myron appreciated if you had some science knowledge, Renesco had his quirks too and so on.

Those little personality touches really helped create the feel that youre talking to different personalities with different backgrounds, even if there wasnt much of a dialogue in numbers of different sentences.

 
Logged

My first axiom:
Never, ever think about or make any conclusions about life, universe and everything else while youre depressed, suffering a trauma, a tragedy and or being drunk.

What the hell do you expect you will come up with in such a state?
MerinTB
DS Gold Patrons
*
Posts: 19


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 25, 2011, 12:57:27 pm »

A positive "you could do that" for me (sorry to be sticking with just BioWare as examples, but they are what's coming to mind) was KotOR when I played my Sith playthrough.  I was trying to be as evil as possible the whole game, and near the end -

REALLY OLD SPOILER ALERT

... you have Z the wookie's life debt so you can order him about, but he's the guardian of Mission the teenage twilek (?sp?) - Mission is not going to side with your evil plan and at that point in the game I thought "what's the most evil thing that could happen here - I could have Z kill Mission for me... no, the game's not going to allow that..."

... a fade to black later and yes, the game had indeed allowed that.  And I've felt guilty and sick about that decision for years.

END OLD SPOILER

Guilt or no, I was shocked the game designers had programmed in that option.  I guess I didn't need a walkthrough for that one or anything, but I was still shocked it was there.  I cannot think of a game where I read a walkthrough after playing a game and said "whoa, you can make that choice?" as I tend to be pretty throrough and I actually rarely read walkthroughs for games for anything more than a specific problem I might be having or character creation tips.

---

Forced to like a character?  I love Mass Effect 2, I really do - but I still am irked by the fact that the game is designed that you HAVE TO work with Cerebus, there's no way around it.  You are forced to work with the group and it really feels like the whole game is trying to force you to believe that "shades of gray" are all that exist and that sometimes "the ends justify the means."  If the whole group of Cerebus can be a character then...

OH.  Miranda.  Yeah, I didn't like her at all.  And the game is written to try and make you at least feel sorry for her being "perfect."
Logged
HerbertWest
Neophyte

Posts: 1


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: January 25, 2011, 12:57:59 pm »

I'm also not a fan of the 'Good/Evil' dialogue tree branching as, with a game like this especially, there is no right or wrong answer. The choices are going to be based on how best to manage your group.

Having a subtle faction mechanic could work really well with the dialogue. Different characters would react in unique ways to however the protagonist chose to play the game. You'd get the more humane faction of the group who would praise generosity and a caring attitude way of thinking,  the survivalists whose thoughts aren't constrained by feelings but rather what's best for the group, no matter what the cost and those who believe in a balance between those two.

That could cause some brilliant dialogue interplay without the 'good/evil' stigma hanging over it.

For me, the choices have to not carry clichéd, obvious phrases like 'give food, give rations, keep all food back', 'use best medicine, use some medicine, let them die'. Those choices could come from the other characters who shout different suggestions at you in crisis moments and you make a conscious leadership choice.

It's hard for me to describe without giving a scenario so here's one:

A man has stumbled into the fort/holdout/etc with a wound, it is not clear whether he's been bitten or injured himself some other way. You have limited supplies of food and medicine.

You ask someone to have a look at the wound to see if it's a bite. They say, 'I can't tell'
A survivalist type pipes up, "Kill him! We can't take any chances!"
Someone else counters, "What if he hasn't been bitten? You want that man's murder hanging over you?"
Another person chips in, "We can't afford to take someone else in, we've barely got enough supplies for ourselves!"
Another person, "Another person could help us get supplies! We need all the help we can get!"
Player character says, "I agree with [insert AI character name]. We should [insert action]



The player character then feels like there is more pressure and consequences for actions. It also gives people an excuse to walk out of the group if they don't agree with your choices.

Anyway, that's my input, sorry for the ramble!
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  All   Go Up
Print
Jump to: