Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: CSG update #7 - ITS design brand  (Read 17605 times)
Kirinyale
Neophyte

Posts: 6


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: July 20, 2016, 04:25:31 am »

Also, make use of unused AP. For example, if I don't use all of my AP on one turn, why not make it regen one HP and give me another AP for next turn ?
We just discussed this... Grin

A lot less. Why would you invest into a skill wasting valuable points if you can easily bypass it with your primary skills or money?
Hmm, role-playing and personal preferences? Smile Why would anyone invest in etiquette, steal or trading if they are rarely needed and easily bypassed? Why would I invest in combat skills if the game is easy to finish without them?

Also, it just feels inconsistent sometimes. You practically start Maadoran by showing artefacts to Abukar, and it's often useful but about half of them can't even be shown. Even a few generic lines like "Abukar, what's this? - No idea, get it out of my face!" would help. You can show the surgery tools to Bennie but not to anyone else. Hell, Bennie even helps you for free after that (well, maybe not completely free - he does want the Divine Spear first), and it's the only time in the game when you actually enlist help of a loremaster. Other times, you can't even try.

I think you did an awesome job accounting for every imaginable little detail in Teron (and I guess you also spent the most time on it?), but on later stages that familiar feeling of "you can only try something if it actually works" sometimes returns.
Logged
Vince
Developer

Posts: 8078



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: July 20, 2016, 07:03:59 am »

A lot less. Why would you invest into a skill wasting valuable points if you can easily bypass it with your primary skills or money?
Hmm, role-playing and personal preferences? Smile Why would anyone invest in etiquette, steal or trading if they are rarely needed and easily bypassed? Why would I invest in combat skills if the game is easy to finish without them?
Etiquette and Steal are my failures (I failed to write enough faction-related content for these skills) not good examples of skills working as intended. Trading is useful, there are tons of checks, but only a merchant would benefit from it. In the future I definitely want to do better, not as good as or worse.

I want to make sure that each skill get enough use and content, so the way I see Lore is an example of a well-done non-combat skill that everyone wanted to have. I agree with you that it was too useful and it basically governed access to the "historical/explorative part", but I'm not sure how to solve this problem in the future as skills like Lore or Computers don't really have any viable alternatives. You either know how to operate computers or you don't (I don't mean accessing computers to read logs or open doors a-la Fallout 4, I mean using computers to perform complex tasks).

Quote
I think you did an awesome job accounting for every imaginable little detail in Teron (and I guess you also spent the most time on it?), but on later stages that familiar feeling of "you can only try something if it actually works" sometimes returns.
Each city took about a year and a half, but I spent an extra year improving Teron.
Logged
Kirinyale
Neophyte

Posts: 6


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: July 20, 2016, 07:26:22 am »

Trading is useful, there are tons of checks, but only a merchant would benefit from it.
Yes, I know of these checks, but there are always alternatives to them in guild quests - mainly persuasion, streetwise & charisma. I don't think you really have to invest in trading to be a successful merchant. Of course, it also saves money, but there are multiple ways to make so much of it that you just stop caring about the prices. Smile

In fact, etiquette can be more important for a merchant at least once - I recall a hidden etiquette check necessary for convincing lord Senna to join the conspiracy. But I can't imagine any reason of getting it to 10 (though I never really tried). Same with trading: it is useful, but not as your main skill, so there's no real reason to have it higher than 4-5, since you still need to invest in persuasion/streetwise.

I want to make sure that each skill get enough use and content, so the way I see Lore is an example of a well-done non-combat skill that everyone wanted to have.
Yes, I definitely agree with that, and I really enjoyed using it in my first run (I'm often playing RPGs with a "mage" class on my first time, so loremaster was the obvious choice). The problem is not that Lore is "too good", it's rather that most other skills are not equally good - so perhaps it's fine to keep lore/computers a "priority skill", but also add more similar gates which can't be opened without something else.

There's a beautiful example in Torment: Tides of Numenera beta: the game will probably end up being balanced for Nanos (local name for magi/loremasters), but despite that, taking the dumbest possible, illogical, completely unnecessary (it doesn't even take a skill check to do it "the right way") route and smashing a complex piece of technology angrily can lead to a whole new experience, including an alternative solution and extra content in an unrelated side quest...

Each city took about a year and a half, but I spent an extra year improving Teron.
It shows. Smile
« Last Edit: July 20, 2016, 07:31:04 am by Kirinyale » Logged
Vince
Developer

Posts: 8078



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: July 20, 2016, 07:38:25 am »

In fact, etiquette can be more important for a merchant at least once - I recall a hidden etiquette check necessary for convincing lord Senna to join the conspiracy. But I can't imagine any reason of getting it to 10 (though I never really tried). Same with trading: it is useful, but not as your main skill, so there's no real reason to have it higher than 4-5, since you still need to invest in persuasion/streetwise.
There are some good checks here and there, many of them hidden, just not enough to make it a recommended skill.
Logged
Scott
Developer

Posts: 2394



View Profile
« Reply #19 on: July 20, 2016, 09:13:02 am »

Turn-Based
Re: Combat, I'd like to see something closer to JA:2's system of careful aim. It takes 4AP to fire a rifle, character has 7AP but crap THC. Right click on target to spend 1AP to increase that chance to hit.
Re: RNG, characters aiming at same target with ranged weapon get slight bonus (3-5%) to hit for each subsequent shot, provided they don't move, change equipment, get hit themselves, etc. Applies to enemies too of course.
Others have a good point regarding saving AP for future rounds, but I can see how it could severely throw game balance and also give the human player a huge advantage, so I can do without it.
Use a curve instead of a linear progression on combat skills, meaning on a 1-10 scale the player goes from "completely unskilled" at Skill 1 (10%THC) to "moderately skilled" at Skill 3 (50%THC), and then levels out with diminishing returns at the higher levels. Going from never picking up a rifle to eight hours training and one firefight is a much bigger leap than the next eight hours of training and the second firefight.

Skill-Based character system.
Idea: allow for a bit of synergy in your party, so that the skills of NPCs who aren't the best in the party aren't completely wasted. You're always going to use your best hacker when the check comes up. Give him a moderate bonus based on the hacking skill of the second best hacker in the party. Someone more knowledgeable about computers (especially in a situation where there's no formal training) doesn't necessarily know more about every aspect than someone less knowledgeable.

Stats & Skills Matter
Quote
So what would be an appropriate alternative to Computers that wouldn't cheapen the skill and make investing into it pointless?
I feel like this is going to be a *lot* less of a concern when you've got a party system. Why not have a character who's good at Computers? It seems like you'll have less opportunity for Skill-based gating. Use faction-based gating instead. That will be a lot less cryptic to the player and won't result in munchkins pumping up Lore (maybe this is already obvious and I'm just bleating?)

Quote
I’m not sure there’s a way to “fix it” as those who want to get maximum content in a single playthrough will continue to metagame no matter what.
This is a problem that doesn't require a solution. The game is designed for replayability. That's de facto incompatible with metagaming. However, the internet will allow our OCD comrades to get as close to satisfaction as the design will allow. They might find it frustrating. I think I would find Call of Duty frustrating.

Non-Combat ways through th
Quote
While combat should always be the main pillar of RPGs...
Boy, we are in complete agreement on that one!

Re: Paths to sneak past -this is a scripting nightmare, as you pointed out, and how does it work with a party anyway? I don't think I've ever seen that implemented. Or does one sneaky guy break away temporarily? Sticking with dialogue-based stealth is definitely the easiest answer here. Players may find it less satisfying (though not necessarily), but a graphically represented system that sort-of works would be even less satisfying.

I don't think anyone ever complained that AoD was light on combat, and there was no filler there. The problem with combat IMO was that it was for combat-centered characters only. Hopefully you'll find it in your heart to occasionally have a fight that a hybrid combat/non-combat party can handle.

Dialogue doesn't have to be passive (boring). I think the key to good dialogue trees and superior quest design is multiple, instead of binary, levels of success, at least in significant dialogues. Example: you're trying to get information. Instead of 1. no info, 2. get info, have a variable assigned to how much the NPC likes you (this is what I had planned for Cyclopean). Dialogue choices drive that variable. Ultimate result is 1. no info, 2. basic info, 3. detailed info, 4. detailed info plus advice on how to use it, or NPC gives you an item or other bonus.

Similarly, multiple levels of success for an assassination quest: 1. failure, 2. killed target but left witnesses, 3. killed target, no witnesses, 4. killed target, no witnesses, and eliminated corpse.

Non-Linear & Replayable
Quote
Multiple ways leading toward the endgame location (i.e. branching questlines), so you never have to travel the same path if you replay the game
I think a person could go too far with this. Multiple paths are good, but "never have to travel the same path" is too much. AoD did a great job of presenting a very different playthru depending on factions and Lore but you could dial it back a tiny bit and still have a very replayable game. I'm surprised people complained about the length, since it was 20-25 hours without filler, which is a hell of a difference from 20-25 hours of Skyrim. I think a longer playthru with 6 radically different playthrus instead of 10 would be an improvement.

Armory looks great! Though if those folks were gunned down approaching the door a few scattered items on the floor would make sense.
----
Welcome João!


Logged

contributed to: Age of Decadence | Dead State | Dungeon Rats | Battle Brothers | Fell Seal:Arbiter's Mark
working on: Colony Ship RPG | Stygian:Reign of the Old Ones | Encased | ATOM RPG | Realms Beyond
suibhne
DS Silver Patrons
*
Posts: 2657


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: July 20, 2016, 10:04:54 am »

I want to make sure that each skill get enough use and content, so the way I see Lore is an example of a well-done non-combat skill that everyone wanted to have. I agree with you that it was too useful and it basically governed access to the "historical/explorative part", but I'm not sure how to solve this problem in the future as skills like Lore or Computers don't really have any viable alternatives. You either know how to operate computers or you don't (I don't mean accessing computers to read logs or open doors a-la Fallout 4, I mean using computers to perform complex tasks).

Sure, but other people also know those things. In other words: there might not be a viable alternative path for the character to accomplish Lore-based or Computer-based tasks on her own, but there's no reason she can't use non-Lore/non-Computer skills to win the support of other people (or even other tools, like automated programs) that can accomplish similar tasks or disclose similar knowledge.
Logged
Morbus
Expert

Posts: 1068


Wastelander


View Profile WWW
« Reply #21 on: July 20, 2016, 04:24:49 pm »

Great read, as usual.

About the meta/gating/skill-check thing, I would like to share my view on the design decisions take in Age of Decadence.

First off, in my opinion, The Age of Decadence is the best cRPG ever made. It took me three playthroughs to realize it, the last of which I used a walkthrough to some extent (because it was on camera and it was supposed to be special), but I have no doubt about it. Fallout is not as good. Arcanum is not as good. And Torment is not as good.

That aside, I don't think it's a perfect game. Not in its execution (there are a few features missing in the combat system, which is understandable) and not in its design, but it's very close to perfect. Where I think AoD fails design-wise is in welcoming stubborn players. Those that complain that it's a) too hard (it's not), b) requires meta-gaming (it doesn't) and c) it has too little content (it most certainly does NOT). So much in fact that I've been writing a few things to make a video with the working title of "A sensible explanation of why people hate good RPGs".

So, for me, the fundamental mistake AoD incurs into is it doesn't "shape" its content in a way that can be understood easily. In pursuit of this goal, bad game designers will dumb down quests, add quest-markers, add questhubs, invincible NPCs, quest items, make their game easy as pie and do other game crimes of the sort. And while AoD isn't as "bad" at "letting you figure it out by yourself" as other games, it's still "bad" enough that it will deter a lot of players.

On the other side of the fence, we have another RPG with a lot of gated content as well that came out roughly at the same time: Underrail. That game is amazing, and despite being very hard and definitely way less replayable and with way fewer choices, it manages to deliver them in a "controlled" way. Because it's obvious when you're being given a choice, and you usually don't get physically barred from accessing different areas, you just don't get to talk to the whole faction you just alienated. Or murdered.

So this first point is all about how you let the player know that he is making a choice. And in AoD, I'm never truly sure I'm screwing up or doing something that won't get me killed. The main reason for this is that there are too many choices, but these come from a very early stage in the writing process, because that's just how the game was written. A couple of things that I believe could have been easily implemented that would minimize this issue is:
- less "hidden" quests, or at least a way for you to pick up on rumors that would lead you to these "hidden" quests, like at the inn or characters talking about other people. Not only would this add to the sense of cohesion in the game-world, but it would also help diminish the feeling that the game requires meta-knowledge;
- ways to (partially) undo mistakes like when you sell a quest-item. These need to be written into the quests, of course, but they shouldn't require too much additional work, I don't think. So I sold the artifact that would unlock a huge underground temple? Let me blow up the temple sidewall and partially explore it. For example;
- allow for world exploration. If you didn't go to the Brotherhood and they didn't send you to the Glow, you could still find it by yourself. If you killed the mutants in Necropolis, you could still find the Military Base. But if I didn't talk to a very specific character about stuff, I would never know about Inferiae. And that will most likely bar my access to that tower in the north. What hurts is you don't get to see cool stuff, not so much the fact that you miss on the quests. Proof is my mercenary playthrough took me to so many different areas my mind was blown away, but I never missed those in my first playthrough as a loremaster, because I didn't even know they existed. When I found the underground mutation thing in the desert, it was awesome! Proof is I knew there was stuff that happened when you because the champion in the arena. I was fine with my loremaster not being able to win a single fight, so I didn't even try. Same with my thief. But I was blown away when my mercenary unlocked that huge amount of content after that. Conversely, I hated how I couldn't get into the abyss, because it was obviously possible to do it, but it wasn't for my loremaster or thief, and probably wouldn't be for my mercenary either if I hadn't followed the walkthrough. I hated that I couldn't rebuild the light bridge at the end, because I didn't know what was on the other side, so I think the game could have done a better job there at telling me it was "all right" to miss that one.

Ultimately, it's all about knowing WHAT you're missing on WHEN you know you're missing on stuff. And keeping the other stuff hidden well enough that you're not gonna be upset that you don't see it.

My other point has more to do with the nature of the character system and the skill checks. AoD is a game you have to play with savescumming in mind if you wanna have fun exploring all the different solutions to the same quest. Like I would usually start a conversation and see where I could get, and then I'd reload and upgrade a skill and see where it'd get me. The reason for this is that there's enough of a distinction between a 4 and a 6 in alchemy, for example. How the hell should I know if I'm gonna be able to make a stable bomb to open this door at 4 alchemy?

So I think the game could do a better job of telling the player what he's capable of doing, and what he's almost capable of doing. I can see multiple ways of doing it with the 0-10 skill system, with different pros and cons. Mostly I think the dialog system needs to be upgraded to allow flexibility for the designers to convey certain messages to the player. Of course, I am aware AoD was never meant to be innovative so this is not a complain.

Still, in the spirit of conveying my point, I'll go into a bit of detail.

For example, if you have five tiers of alchemy skill, and each is in relation to a particular subject, it instantly becomes obvious to the player what he can and cannot do. This could also open different possibilities of completing a quest with the same skill, i.e. using differently alchemy solutions for the same problem. Think alchemy is: tier 1, healing salves; tier 2, poisons; tier 3, acids; tier 4, explosives; tier 5, arcane. This is just off of my head, and oversimplified, but what I mean is, if you have Alchemy 3, then maybe you can melt that door, but you'll know messing with explosives is probably gonna end badly.

But you can do it in a completely different manner. What if, accompanying your dialog choice to melt the door, you get an "insight" from your character, telling you about your chances to do what you're trying to do. An insight tied to your skill level, of course. I think that would go a long way to help players feeling less lost and the added flavor text would make it more than just a "oh, I failed the skill test".

There are many ways to do this, but I realize it's just a matter of design.

Sorry for the long text, I didn't mean for it to get so big.

That's what she said.
Logged

AbounI
*
Posts: 771


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: July 20, 2016, 05:22:03 pm »

Turn-Based
Re: Combat, I'd like to see something closer to JA:2's system of careful aim. It takes 4AP to fire a rifle, character has 7AP but crap THC. Right click on target to spend 1AP to increase that chance to hit.
Wasn't it already in place with the fast/normal/brutal attack?At least, the result was quite the same from the choice of the style of attack : spending more or less AP for a better chance to hit.So would you like to get another form of THC bonus?

Quote
Re: RNG, characters aiming at same target with ranged weapon get slight bonus (3-5%) to hit for each subsequent shot, provided they don't move, change equipment, get hit themselves, etc. Applies to enemies too of course.

Sounds good

Quote
Use a curve instead of a linear progression on combat skills, meaning on a 1-10 scale the player goes from "completely unskilled" at Skill 1 (10%THC) to "moderately skilled" at Skill 3 (50%THC), and then levels out with diminishing returns at the higher levels. Going from never picking up a rifle to eight hours training and one firefight is a much bigger leap than the next eight hours of training and the second firefight.
But the more you level up a skill, the more you need skillpoints to improve that skill, so it's quite the same idea.What would be the easier to implement, the easier to fix/balance?

Quote
Skill-Based character system.
Idea: allow for a bit of synergy in your party, so that the skills of NPCs who aren't the best in the party aren't completely wasted. You're always going to use your best hacker when the check comes up. Give him a moderate bonus based on the hacking skill of the second best hacker in the party. Someone more knowledgeable about computers (especially in a situation where there's no formal training) doesn't necessarily know more about every aspect than someone less knowledgeable.
And regarding the "learn by use" system, who will improve in the skill?I would suggest both (when it fits the situation), like when a master is teaching to his apprentice : the master improves his art and shares his own knowledge.


Quote
Dialogue doesn't have to be passive (boring). I think the key to good dialogue trees and superior quest design is multiple, instead of binary, levels of success, at least in significant dialogues. Example: you're trying to get information. Instead of 1. no info, 2. get info, have a variable assigned to how much the NPC likes you (this is what I had planned for Cyclopean). Dialogue choices drive that variable. Ultimate result is 1. no info, 2. basic info, 3. detailed info, 4. detailed info plus advice on how to use it, or NPC gives you an item or other bonus.

Similarly, multiple levels of success for an assassination quest: 1. failure, 2. killed target but left witnesses, 3. killed target, no witnesses, 4. killed target, no witnesses, and eliminated corpse.
Hard to design, as for assassination, whether the skillchek pass or not, it opens generally a fight with the witnesses (see bandit camp).Regarding the battlemap, it's hard to believe a lone skilled assassin can easily cut everyone's throat before they can move.It does not make sense, unless PC is a pure ninja  Panic
But I guess your idea is good if it can be applied to a specific situation like dialogues.That could also serve the "learn by use" system: the better you succeed, the greater is the "XP" reward (and by "XP", I don't only mean skillpoint gain, but also unlock some optionnal content, it depends if a success rewards content or skillpoints)

« Last Edit: July 20, 2016, 06:39:34 pm by AbounI » Logged
Lurker King
Journeyman

Posts: 137



View Profile
« Reply #23 on: July 20, 2016, 05:42:25 pm »

The Age of Decadence is the best cRPG ever made. It took me three playthroughs to realize it, the last of which I used a walkthrough to some extent (because it was on camera and it was supposed to be special), but I have no doubt about it. Fallout is not as good. Arcanum is not as good. And Torment is not as good.

Logged
Scott
Developer

Posts: 2394



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: July 21, 2016, 07:28:35 am »

Turn-Based
Re: Combat, I'd like to see something closer to JA:2's system of careful aim. It takes 4AP to fire a rifle, character has 7AP but crap THC. Right click on target to spend 1AP to increase that chance to hit.
Wasn't it already in place with the fast/normal/brutal attack?At least, the result was quite the same from the choice of the style of attack : spending more or less AP for a better chance to hit.So would you like to get another form of THC bonus?
I don't mean *adding* this system to AoD's system, but replacing it. In AoD, fast/normal/brutal corresponded to varying damage as well as THC. With ranged weapons this wouldn't apply. And a fixed three-tier system doesn't have as many options. Character has 8AP, takes 4AP to shoot, he can spend +4AP to increase THC by 40%. This would cut back on long gun battles where nobody's hitting anything and alleviate the complaints about RNG. If you can't hit it, take more time setting up the shot. It worked in JA:2 to keep low-ranged-skill people from being totally useless. 20%THC + 40% is still only 60%.

Quote
Hard to design, as for assassination, whether the skillchek pass or not, it opens generally a fight with the witnesses (see bandit camp).Regarding the battlemap, it's hard to believe a lone skilled assassin can easily cut everyone's throat before they can move.It does not make sense, unless PC is a pure ninja  Panic
Well, the Bandit Camp is one example from a different, single-PC game, and assassination was just the first type of quest that came to mind.

Obviously it would be more work but the payoff is less frustration/reload and metagaming. Isn't this the reason AoD was so hard (aside from combat), that failing one quest derailed everything? Change it up and failure doesn't mean not advancing any further with the faction and essentially gimping your entire game.
Logged

contributed to: Age of Decadence | Dead State | Dungeon Rats | Battle Brothers | Fell Seal:Arbiter's Mark
working on: Colony Ship RPG | Stygian:Reign of the Old Ones | Encased | ATOM RPG | Realms Beyond
Wrath of Dagon
Archmaster

Posts: 2368



View Profile
« Reply #25 on: July 21, 2016, 11:45:25 am »

"Of course, the counter-argument is that failing repeatedly (considering how easy it is to make a character ill-equipped for what you're trying to do) is an equally fast way to kill the enjoyment."

I agree with this argument. Considering how many non-combat skills you need to upgrade you could fail quite frequently. In a combat play through you're rewarded by winning the combat, in non-combat play through you need to be rewarded by finding cool stuff, otherwise it's just not fun.

"Even playing Pillars of Eternity I was surprised how much filler combat the game had and wondered if cutting it out wouldn’t have boosted the game’s replayability as I’d rather play a shorter game several times to explore different options than run through an endless bog of generic encounters that serve absolutely no real purpose."

Even without considering replayability, it's a problem for finishing the game at all. The solution would've been to simply cut back on the filler, and make the remaining more interesting. A better quality game is preferable to a longer one.

« Last Edit: July 21, 2016, 11:49:57 am by Wrath of Dagon » Logged

but it’s just that right now it’s all about games as a service. We can make money out of it, but you can make more money elsewhere.
AbounI
*
Posts: 771


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: July 21, 2016, 03:04:32 pm »

Turn-Based
Re: Combat, I'd like to see something closer to JA:2's system of careful aim. It takes 4AP to fire a rifle, character has 7AP but crap THC. Right click on target to spend 1AP to increase that chance to hit.
Wasn't it already in place with the fast/normal/brutal attack?At least, the result was quite the same from the choice of the style of attack : spending more or less AP for a better chance to hit.So would you like to get another form of THC bonus?
I don't mean *adding* this system to AoD's system, but replacing it. In AoD, fast/normal/brutal corresponded to varying damage as well as THC. With ranged weapons this wouldn't apply. And a fixed three-tier system doesn't have as many options. Character has 8AP, takes 4AP to shoot, he can spend +4AP to increase THC by 40%. This would cut back on long gun battles where nobody's hitting anything and alleviate the complaints about RNG. If you can't hit it, take more time setting up the shot. It worked in JA:2 to keep low-ranged-skill people from being totally useless. 20%THC + 40% is still only 60%.
Ok, said like that, it now makes sense for me, as CSG will be more focused on ranged combats, unlike AoD



Logged
Lurker King
Journeyman

Posts: 137



View Profile
« Reply #27 on: September 02, 2016, 06:57:25 am »

The worst example of this in AoD is the whole historical/explorative part. I see AoD as a game with two separate "main stories" which every character gets: one is your guild, the other is everything that has to do with the Empire, "gods", ruins and artifacts. And that's cool - until you realize that the second "main story" is gated by a set of skills/stats specific to a single type of character (loremaster). Sure, you can visit all the main locations without any specific skills (except Inferiae, which, if I remember right, is gated by lore=3, and Al-Akia which is faction-gated), but there's a fat chance that you won't get anything from any of them except some exploration SP - and that always feels like you are robbed of 50% "playthrough content" (not to be confused with ALL game content). The only other "big gate" is the Arena and the side quests it unlocks, but it's still much smaller, and it's also a "soft" gate, meaning that practically any character can win it by trying hard enough and using all the tricks he can. (...) If you absolutely have to put so much content behind a single "gate", the only way to "fix it" I can see is adding even more gated optional content for all the other archetypes (i.e. different builds "reasonable" from role-playing perspective).

The reason why lore and crafting are more important than other skills in AoD is the way the setting and game world works. When you complain that other skills should be equally important, you are assuming that the setting should be determined by gameplay (read: gamers’ whims), which in turn means that settings in cRPGs are not important. I disagree and I think that most cRPGs are so superficial because of this.

I'd really love to see a true RPG with a more "active" dialogue system without sacrificing the rest of the systems. Of course it's hard, but hardly impossible. (...) I dream of a CRPG which makes threats, jokes, abstract logical arguments and other skill-based dialogue options a conscious role-playing choice rather than just letting players pick the best-looking option from a list. And then consistent role-playing can have as much impact as decision-based reputations: e.g. joking gets easier and more natural if you do it all the time, but it may also make it harder for you to stay serious when it's important, hiding "serious" options unless you resist the system and opt to "pay" for them, suggesting even more jokes by default, and definitely modifying NPC reactions when you do something that's not typical for you (if they know it, of course).

I agree, but that is a gargantuan task and no cRPG eve came close to solve this problem. It is also an ungrateful task, since most players only care about combat. If you think that a more sophisticated dialogue system would be attractive to most players, you are in for a treat. The problem is no that we don’t have more stuff to do in dialogues, on the contrary, the problem is that we already have a lot to do in dialogues and they are nothing like combat. The deeper the dialogue system becomes, the more frustrated players will become. When they say, “This is too passive” what they really mean is “This not combat, I’m wasting my time”.
Logged
lonewolf3135
Neophyte

Posts: 4


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: October 19, 2016, 10:41:49 pm »


- less "hidden" quests, or at least a way for you to pick up on rumors that would lead you to these "hidden" quests, like at the inn or characters talking about other people. Not only would this add to the sense of cohesion in the game-world, but it would also help diminish the feeling that the game requires meta-knowledge;
- ways to (partially) undo mistakes like when you sell a quest-item. These need to be written into the quests, of course, but they shouldn't require too much additional work, I don't think. So I sold the artifact that would unlock a huge underground temple? Let me blow up the temple sidewall and partially explore it. For example;
- allow for world exploration. If you didn't go to the Brotherhood and they didn't send you to the Glow, you could still find it by yourself. If you killed the mutants in Necropolis, you could still find the Military Base. But if I didn't talk to a very specific character about stuff, I would never know about Inferiae. And that will most likely bar my access to that tower in the north. What hurts is you don't get to see cool stuff, not so much the fact that you miss on the quests. Proof is my mercenary playthrough took me to so many different areas my mind was blown away, but I never missed those in my first playthrough as a loremaster, because I didn't even know they existed. When I found the underground mutation thing in the desert, it was awesome! Proof is I knew there was stuff that happened when you because the champion in the arena. I was fine with my loremaster not being able to win a single fight, so I didn't even try. Same with my thief. But I was blown away when my mercenary unlocked that huge amount of content after that. Conversely, I hated how I couldn't get into the abyss, because it was obviously possible to do it, but it wasn't for my loremaster or thief, and probably wouldn't be for my mercenary either if I hadn't followed the walkthrough. I hated that I couldn't rebuild the light bridge at the end, because I didn't know what was on the other side, so I think the game could have done a better job there at telling me it was "all right" to miss that one.


I agree with this, There are a LOT of quests you would never know about unless you have a specific build. Now don't get me wrong I am not saying that you should be able to complete every quest on the first play through, but rather you know that it is there via rumor or dialog. 

As for the different paths to get to the same objective, that seems to me like it would create a ton of added work. I guess that would depend on the situation though. I would say simply marking the item as a key item would be a hell of a lot easier.

I play a lot of different genre games and one thing I am big on is open world/exploration. So yeah that was one thing about AoD that I kinda felt it was missing, I would not mind seeing random encounters either. I Especially love the fallout 2 style "special" encounters that left me lmao. Of course random encounters may produce the grinding affect.  Panic   
Logged
Pladio
Craftsman

Posts: 358


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: November 29, 2016, 10:04:16 am »

Hello Vince and team, will you have an update on your thoughts regarding this anytime soon?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
Print
Jump to: