Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 73   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Let's play AoD!  (Read 742812 times)
Tuomas
Craftsman

Posts: 377



View Profile
« Reply #285 on: January 16, 2008, 12:31:48 pm »

I like how it was originally. One of the great things about text adventure gameplay is that you can force the player to accept the consequences of his decisions. He can't have the cake and eat it too. I'm replaying King of Dragon Pass at the moment and loving every tough decision I must make. 
Logged
mhv3
Novice

Posts: 23


View Profile
« Reply #286 on: January 16, 2008, 01:37:26 pm »

I like the original as well.  I do like the adding something to clarify that you immediately leave if you choose to intimidate. ("the I'll just slip out quietly")

It seems a bit unlikely that the guard would turn his back on you to sort through the chest.
Logged
John Yossarian
*
Posts: 500



View Profile
« Reply #287 on: January 16, 2008, 01:56:43 pm »

The conclusions where the guard lets you walk away, whether you bribed him or not, seem a bit fake to me. Everyone in his guild is gonna know the merchant got killed on his watch, so he probably won't get any more jobs from them, and maybe noone else. And all for a few coins and some loot?
That said, I don't mind "intermediate" options, where the PC is trying to defuse the situation, and the merc acts like it's working. Then, depending on skill checks, the merc or the PC gets an upper hand in combat if the PC chooses that route, or it makes getting away through the window easier/harder.
So, I'd be fine with Priapist's suggestion if you take out branch #4 (since without 4b,4c it would be the same as branch #3), and put another level of dialogue chess after 3b2, with pretty much the same results as 3b1 and 3b3, but with different chances depending on whatever skill check you use in 3b2. I'd suggest persuasion for 3, streetwise for 3b2 (because the guard is trying to trick you).  And reuse Priapist's 3b3a and 3b3b because they are great. Alternatively, just axe 3b2 as well.

Also, I'd take any of the suggestions over "attack" if you keep the original. Maybe Vince can give it a try, his writing is always top notch, don't know why he would hold back this time.
Logged
Vince
Developer

Posts: 8690



View Profile
« Reply #288 on: January 16, 2008, 02:03:31 pm »

Also, I'd take any of the suggestions over "attack" if you keep the original. Maybe Vince can give it a try, his writing is always top notch, don't know why he would hold back this time.
It's short and to the point, focusing on the action. Same with run. When you blow your cover in one of the MG quests, simple "Run!" is loaded with a lot more "holy shit! they are about to nail your dumb ass, so you better run, bitch!" goodness than a 3-line sentence.

Personal preference.
Logged
galsiah
Expert

Posts: 1415



View Profile
« Reply #289 on: January 16, 2008, 02:25:08 pm »

Agreed on the clarity issue - an "I'll slip out quietly" seems reasonable if the consequences are left the same.

I'm not sure about adding the extra options. The current two options seem pretty important, and fitting for the situation. Haggling over possible "loot" in a chest doesn't seem to fit. It also puts almost as much player focus on haggling over trivialities as on the substance of the mission.

I'd prefer that extra choices were focused on the larger issues - e.g. distracting the guard, either for escape or to get some advantage in combat; keeping the guard non-hostile; finding out what he knows; establishing his intentions; demonstrating that you're a mean sonofabitch who's not to be trifled with....
If getting the loot / not getting it / getting half of it... turns out to be a side consequence of some of those aims, that's fine.
Logged
John Yossarian
*
Posts: 500



View Profile
« Reply #290 on: January 16, 2008, 02:30:25 pm »

Short is fine, but as has been said, attack seems more like an interface button than an action. How about just taking Astromarine's first sentence? Or Priapist's 1 for god's sake?
Logged
Special_Can
Journeyman

Posts: 124



View Profile
« Reply #291 on: January 16, 2008, 04:00:15 pm »

I've been reading the copious number of opinions on how to resolve this one situation, and just to put my $0.02 in, I think it worked better the way it was without inserting the 50/50 split option.  It seems cheesy.

The original dialog was concise and made sense.  It didn't offer every conceivable resolution to the situation; no dialog ever will.  It was minimal, but IMO it worked fine for that particular situation, which is an opening vignette after all, not the final boss showdown.

There is such a thing as putting too much thought into a tiny piece of a game.

 My point exactly, just stated more eloquently.
Logged

Quote
I roleplay. If there un-conscious, i just walk away and pretend there dead.
namad
Neophyte

Posts: 16


View Profile
« Reply #292 on: January 16, 2008, 04:36:01 pm »

even though i've been one of the ones blabbing on and on. I concur with the above post

I agree that even people who dislike the way it original was only dislike it 2% and they are only discussing it because they are pleasently surprised at how much vince listens.  Maybe if we could play through a dozen such conversations though that might be better to do before stalling out the 'play' of let's play AoD.
Logged
Claw
*
Posts: 315


Adun Toridas!


View Profile
« Reply #293 on: January 16, 2008, 04:48:47 pm »

Yes. That was just a rough draft written in 5 min.
Thank deity. The guard shouldn't be too willing to share with you.

Quote
Anyway, what about Section8/Priapist's excellent writing? No comments?
I like it alot. I can't see a resolution to the 3b2, but something like "He stops, but shows no intention of backing away." maybe followed by your Fifty-Fifty dialogue would fit. I like how it leads to the option of breaking someone's neck.

Astromarine's suggestion to replace the simple "Attack" choice is also good, but a little bit rambling for my taste. Without the middle sentence it would be just right imo.

Whatever you choose to do, try to avoid dialogue screens with a single option. Which is self-contradictory anyway, since a single option isn't an option. I guess I could live with a completely unambiguous "Calm the guard and leave" choice, but personally I'd like to have some more options.
Logged
cardtrick
Artisan

Posts: 553



View Profile
« Reply #294 on: January 16, 2008, 04:52:26 pm »

Having just the Attack! option is fine. Actually, I quite like it. It says all it has to say.

On the other hand, I really liked Priapist's suggestions. Good stuff. I'd be happy if that was implemented.

But if that's not implemented, then I just want to emphasize again that my real concern is with the way that the first option is misleading. Choosing it seems to allow your character several options, but then the game forces your character to take a certain course of action. I really don't like that and would reload. This can be fixed by adding "I'll just slip out quietly," preferably with "[truth]" appended to make it very clear that choosing that option means leaving the room.
Logged
galsiah
Expert

Posts: 1415



View Profile
« Reply #295 on: January 16, 2008, 06:39:50 pm »

even though i've been one of the ones blabbing on and on. I concur with the above post...I agree that even people who dislike the way it original was only dislike it 2%...
I don't think the clarity is a "2%" issue - that's quite important.
As to the rest, perhaps it's not vital, but we're really not just discussing this piece of interaction here: we're discussing general points/issues/approaches/likes/dislikes that can be applied/considered more generally. Of course the amount of focus on this one issue is overkill for its own sake, but the real issue isn't what Vince decides in this one case - it's what he learns from the discussion, and is able to apply to all other cases (where necessary).
Logged
namad
Neophyte

Posts: 16


View Profile
« Reply #296 on: January 16, 2008, 08:11:09 pm »

you didn't get my point.. i mentioned it would be best to let him play a bit more and get a dozen dialog screenshots to argue about instead of one...

we'd have a lot more to base the discussion around and it would be more productive to use vince's time/ears on that argument than this more narrow one
Logged
cardtrick
Artisan

Posts: 553



View Profile
« Reply #297 on: January 16, 2008, 08:14:20 pm »

Vince has already said that when he's not posting updates, it's not because he's waiting for us. Instead, something is going on on his end (bug fixing, tweaking, etc.). So why not take the time between updates to debate what we've just seen and make suggestions where we feel that's appropriate? If he wants us to stop, he'll tell us.
Logged
Vince
Developer

Posts: 8690



View Profile
« Reply #298 on: January 16, 2008, 09:55:12 pm »

I like the original as well.  I do like the adding something to clarify that you immediately leave if you choose to intimidate. ("the I'll just slip out quietly")
"I'll just slip out quietly" doesn't sound very intimidating. It kinda ruins the line. It turns "I don't kill if I don't have to" into "if you let me live I'll leave quietly". The main function of that extra line is to communicate something to the player and that makes it a bad decision by default.

Quote
It seems a bit unlikely that the guard would turn his back on you to sort through the chest.
Agree. Well, popular opinions demanded a situation where you can distract the guard and kill him when he isn't looking. I figured that gold is the only thing that would distract the guy and tried to work from there, but I didn't like the outcome. So, I'll try to play with the Priapist's suggestions and if that doesn't work, continue with what we had originally.
Logged
zhirzzh
*
Posts: 120



View Profile
« Reply #299 on: January 17, 2008, 01:11:53 am »

I like the original as well.  I do like the adding something to clarify that you immediately leave if you choose to intimidate. ("the I'll just slip out quietly")
"I'll just slip out quietly" doesn't sound very intimidating. It kinda ruins the line. It turns "I don't kill if I don't have to" into "if you let me live I'll leave quietly". The main function of that extra line is to communicate something to the player and that makes it a bad decision by default.

Quote
It seems a bit unlikely that the guard would turn his back on you to sort through the chest.
Agree. Well, popular opinions demanded a situation where you can distract the guard and kill him when he isn't looking. I figured that gold is the only thing that would distract the guy and tried to work from there, but I didn't like the outcome. So, I'll try to play with the Priapist's suggestions and if that doesn't work, continue with what we had originally.

Just go with the original. I'm not one to shy away from large dialog trees, but this is the vignette. It should be short, interesting, and to the point. Allowing more choices is risky, because it encourages the belief that the role playing has already begun, and will lead to complaints about not being able to spare the merchant and the like.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 73   Go Up
Print
Jump to: