[Scott]

I agree that the Fallout time-quest model was very well done, and there was plenty of time to get the water chip anyway, even the first time I played.  But like not being able to save whenever you want, player time restraints are almost universally loathed and generally the idea generates a HUGE hue and cry if you bring it up.

[galsiah]

...player time restraints are almost universally loathed and generally the idea generates a HUGE hue and cry if you bring it up.

Being loathed on a knee-jerk basis by unthinking muppets who don't look further than their first daft presumption is not a reason to dismiss design ideas. Neither is "hue and cry".

Most people have many ill-thought-through notions of features they think they like/hate - often based on anecdotal pleasant/unpleasant associations with one, or a few, specific implementations. Treating these notions as though they are thoroughly considered, well-researched and reasoned conclusions on the fundamental ideas, is just daft. I'm not even excluding myself here - a load of my initial assumptions don't stand up to scrutiny. This is why design has to be about thinking things through extensively - not polling for cretinous assumption, hue and cry.

In particular, anyone who is against "time constraints" in a general sense is clearly talking rubbish - they're present throughout almost every game. Being against Fallout-style explicit hard limits makes more sense - but ought to be supported by reasoned argument, nonetheless.

EDIT: further discussion on this probably belongs elsewhere though.

[Claw]

You have a point there and we'll play with the numbers.

Does he? I do recall you posting a table of numbers showing that AP is terribly overpowered. Edit: Oh, I guess you changed it.
Maybe you could do what many other games do: Halve the damage after damage reduction.
Then, 15 damage against DR10 would result in 5 damager either way.

PS: OIC

[Vince]

Ok. Here is our development progress report: the scripts are in and working; we had a weird problem with shadows that took 2 days to fix, and now we have a new issue. In dialogue and other non-combat situations, characters' put weapons down or on their shoulders (two handed weapons). When you ready your weapon, you enter combat and leave the dialogue mode. As a result this conversation (see the screens attached) looks like a friendly chat.

It will probably take another day or two to fix it, so we might as well give you something to look at and consider while we are trying to figure out how to handle it.
...
So, our brave assassin has accepted the mission and was magically transported to the inn where the doomed merchant was staying.

So, option 1 or option 2?


[attachment deleted to save space]

[Tuomas]

1. Let Titus try his intimidation skills on the guard.

[Paranoid Jack]

2. Attack

We don't want to leave any witness alive. But I must admit I am curious what his response may be to number 1.

[TheLostOne]

Attack!  My secret identity cannot be revealed!

[namad]

option 1!

it's great and witty....

and less boring than attacking which we can always just do next anyways

[Mehler]

#1! Titus doesn't work for free!

[Vince]

More votes? I'm dying to know what happens next.

[Morbus]

More votes? I'm dying to know what happens next.

I say the first line. Nice joke

Anyway, I hope the game will have more dialog options on those occasions. What if I say I'll do the job but the reach the target only to find I don't really want to do it. Won't the game allow me to choose, always? I ask this because I sometimes choose something thinking beforehand I won't do it, but then, when the time comes where I should... "betray" my employer, there's no choice for me to do... I don't like that. How ill AoD handle it?

[roshan]

I vote for the first line too, something different from the norm.

[puppyonastik]

Option 1 please.

I still don't like the idea of making the player to use a crossbow if they happen to choose an assassin. I can understand the importance of it in certain situations such as in one of the past screens showing a mission where you need to fire through holes. However it strikes me as unneeded limiting of a player's choice to force it on them and then back it up in the dialog in situations where other options could be used. Besides, In the first quest a knife/short sword would be more than suitable also. I'd completely prefer if items given at start up were given based on skill choices as was suggested a while ago.

[Vince]

Anyway, I hope the game will have more dialog options on those occasions. What if I say I'll do the job but the reach the target only to find I don't really want to do it. Won't the game allow me to choose, always? I ask this because I sometimes choose something thinking beforehand I won't do it, but then, when the time comes where I should... "betray" my employer, there's no choice for me to do... I don't like that. How ill AoD handle it?

Plenty of double-crossing options, but the vignettes are linear as you must end up with the map.

Anyway, so we go with option #1. It's an intimidation check and these are always based on your weapon skills. Alternatively: "The guard studies you, evaluating his chances. Finally he makes his decision and charges at you."

So, now we have no choice but to click on the "leaving quietly" option and go back.  Not fighting the guard prevented us from looting the corpse and a chest nearby, but the guard we haven't even seen yet - some tweaks are required, we must move the camera higher for better view - won't die here and we might run into him later on in another town. I bet he'll remember this encounter.


[attachment deleted to save space]

[cardtrick]

This Let's Play is finally getting juicy. Cool stuff. I'm fine with limiting the choices prior to killing the merchant -- as you said, this is a vignette, so you must get the map.

But I don't like that after intimidating the guard you have no choice but to leave quietly. You've now just seen that he's scared of you, so I think it's a little weird that your only choice is to turn and run, especially since this means sacrificing lewt. I think that there are a few reasonable options here --

1) leave quietly, as it stands
2) split the contents of the chest with the guard
3) demand that the guard give you his weapon and leave (requires another, higher intimidate check, or else he rethinks his earlier choice and attacks), allowing you to loot the body and chest

The dialog screen definitely looks better without the face.

EDIT: Also, I love the intimidate line as it's written. Actually, I just like your dialog in general . . . so much of it seems to have an excellent understated cynicism.