Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: CSG update #7 - ITS design brand  (Read 17611 times)
Vince
Developer

Posts: 8078



View Profile
« Reply #30 on: November 29, 2016, 04:51:50 pm »

I agree with this, There are a LOT of quests you would never know about unless you have a specific build.
Which is the very definition of replayability for me - you replay the game with a different character and get content you didn't even know was there.

Quote
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   [/color]
The main reason we didn't do random encounters in AoD is because we didn't want to force talkers to fight. In general, random encounters should fit the area and not be truly random and if that's the case, they might as well be part of that area (like the prospector in the Library).

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).
I agree that the game is hard to get into and we will certainly do a better job with the CSG without streamlining anything, but we can't make people like the game when they really don't want to. As you say yourself, it's not too hard, it doesn't require meta-gaming or min-maxing, it doesn't have too little content, etc. If they can't figure it out, most likely the game isn't for them.

Look at Dungeon Rats. We added difficulty levels, which didn't stop some people from claiming that the game is too hard and impossible. It's actually quite interesting - new players are used to Hard being normal/easy, so they play it solo on Hard as their first playthrough, die a lot and remain unimpressed. Every day I'm reading new claims - daggers are useless (they aren't), can't beat the game solo on Hard (you can), can't beat the game with a blocker (you can), can't beat the game with a spearman dodger (you definitely can), can't beat the game without alchemy (you can), can't beat the game without min-maxing (you can) or without max party (you can), etc.

It's an uphill battle and we aren't going to fight it because we can't win it. These complaints are what led to streamlining in the first place (see Blackguards 2 which took the complaints to heart and sold fuck all).
Logged
Scott
Developer

Posts: 2394



View Profile
« Reply #31 on: November 30, 2016, 08:39:24 am »

can't beat the game with a spearman dodger...
Come ON. That's the easiest build of them all. You mentioning "streamlining" all those times made think of streaming. It would be a great rebuttal to the complainers if you could link to a video showing the exact thing they're complaining about being done. But now that I think about it, I remember that even people who have watched the videos *still* say the game is too hard, that the people on the video actually learned the rules and how to play, as if that were a form of cheating. At some point in the last 15 years people have come to the conclusion that games should basically be Skyrim like movies. You just sit back and watch everything unfold with no challenge whatsoever.
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
Ipaloplu
Neophyte

Posts: 2


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: February 07, 2017, 01:36:49 pm »

This approach greatly upset some players who felt that they were punished “just because they chose the ‘wrong’ stats”. Some RPG players are notoriously obsessive-compulsive and won’t rest until they create a character that can get the maximum amount of content, which does require reading online guides and meta-gaming like there’s no tomorrow – the fastest way to kill all enjoyment and ruin the game. 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’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. The moment you tell the player "sorry, buddy, you need to be this tall to ride this", some players won't accept the failure and would want to know this kind of info in advance. Not many people see it as "you win some, you lose some" design. Anyway, I'd love to read your thoughts on this matter.

One of the reasons that makes the upset reaction common is that precise stats checks are pretty archaic and don't make much sense nor logic to the player. It doesn't trigger the thought "Well I guess it's logical that I can't do this now" but more often "god I must be missing one damn point in that stat", especially when stats checks are frequent and visible like in AoD.
I believe that most players don't have a good representation of their character through its stats, mostly assign their points in a combat build perspective, and overall don't really "roleplay" whatsoever their playthrough. I liked the traits idea in AoD and I think that they were underused.
You can't change the way people play these days, or prevent loadscumming, and you shouldn't. Don't build your game around it.

Displaying choices that will inevitably fail is very double-edged and imo not worth it. Yes, in some way, it gives a sense of freedom and can have chuckles-worth responds from npcs, but it also gives a hint of deception or pointlessness and increases the feeling of constant failure. Why is the game giving me dialog options that I can't actually choose? Why can my character give the same well-thought reply while not being evenly convincing? Tone and oratory skills need huge efforts to get transcripted properly, you can't just say that "it didn't sound right" without making it look like bullshit. It also decreases replayability in a sense that, since you see most (I know some stay hidden, but very few to me) options right off the bat for the npcs you meet, you can easily foresee what would happen if you were to create another character that could go through X option, which gives that hint of pointlessness in doing another playthrough that way.

When it comes to gated content, I would suggest gating it more with dialog and actions choices than stats checks, because when it's made right, it's just way more natural.
Logged
Vince
Developer

Posts: 8078



View Profile
« Reply #33 on: February 07, 2017, 02:17:37 pm »

One of the reasons that makes the upset reaction common is that precise stats checks are pretty archaic and don't make much sense nor logic to the player.
No more archaic than turn-based combat or dialogue trees. As for sense and logic, stat checks are a fairly realistic concept. Either you're strong enough to lift a heavy object or you aren't. Either you're perceptive enough to spot something or you aren't. Either you're smart enough or charismatic enough, etc.  It's not an arbitrary concept and I'd say we all know what our real stats (aka limits) are.

Quote
Displaying choices that will inevitably fail is very double-edged and imo not worth it. Yes, in some way, it gives a sense of freedom and can have chuckles-worth responds from npcs, but it also gives a hint of deception or pointlessness and increases the feeling of constant failure.
Why constant failure? Unless you spread your points way too thin, which is a beginner's mistake, you're bound to succeed at some tasks and fail at others.

Most checks in AoD fall into 3 categories: combat, speech, crafting/lore. In Teron most checks require 3-4 (you can easily start the game with 3-4 points in the key skills), which is hardly unreasonable.

Quote
Why is the game giving me dialog options that I can't actually choose? Why can my character give the same well-thought reply while not being evenly convincing? Tone and oratory skills need huge efforts to get transcripted properly, you can't just say that "it didn't sound right" without making it look like bullshit.
I worked in sales for 12 years, working my up to VP of Sales & Marketing in 6 years. I did everything: sold, hired, trained the new hires, helped them close, managed sales reps and managers. I can assure you that giving a new recruit a rock-solid script full of well thought replies to every possible comment and concern won't make the recruit a good sales rep. Not even close. It's always about how you say it: tone, confidence, mannerism, reassuring way you speak, eye contact, and many other things that are taken into consideration. Nobody is a natural in this game. It always comes with experience.

If you want a good analogy, then a simple thing like approaching a girl you like and introducing yourself can easily go horribly wrong if you aren't 'skilled' at making introductions (without being nervous, worrying what she thinks about you, what her friends think, what if she says no, etc). Most situations in AoD are much more stressful than introducing yourself to a girl.

Quote
It also decreases replayability in a sense that, since you see most (I know some stay hidden, but very few to me) options right off the bat for the npcs you meet, you can easily foresee what would happen if you were to create another character that could go through X option, which gives that hint of pointlessness in doing another playthrough that way.
Unless the game branches out and passing a check can lead to very different outcomes and things you can't foresee.

Quote
When it comes to gated content, I would suggest gating it more with dialog and actions choices than stats checks, because when it's made right, it's just way more natural.
Then the stats won't matter outside of combat, which isn't a desirable outcome for us.
Logged
Wrath of Dagon
Archmaster

Posts: 2368



View Profile
« Reply #34 on: February 07, 2017, 10:36:40 pm »

I think he meant "arcane" instead of "archaic".
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.
Ipaloplu
Neophyte

Posts: 2


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: February 14, 2017, 10:35:48 am »

No more archaic than turn-based combat or dialogue trees.
I'm not really sure how the archaism of one thing excuses another, but turn-based combat has been constantly remade and revised through the years with different and/or additional mechanics. Hardly can say the same about stats checks. Even dialogue trees have seen improvements in some ways.

Quote
As for sense and logic, stat checks are a fairly realistic concept. Either you're strong enough to lift a heavy object or you aren't. Either you're perceptive enough to spot something or you aren't. Either you're smart enough or charismatic enough, etc.  It's not an arbitrary concept and I'd say we all know what our real stats (aka limits) are.
You missed my point. I wasn't talking about realism but about the player's perception and feeling of it in a ludic perspective. Of a number or a numbers difference determining alone what he can or can't do.

Quote
Why constant failure? Unless you spread your points way too thin, which is a beginner's mistake, you're bound to succeed at some tasks and fail at others.

Most checks in AoD fall into 3 categories: combat, speech, crafting/lore. In Teron most checks require 3-4 (you can easily start the game with 3-4 points in the key skills), which is hardly unreasonable.
Because in AoD, except for non-combat playthroughs (perhaps), there will always be way more stats checks (with all displayed/available options) that you'll fail than you'll succeed. It's as simple as that and technically in such a game, it should be. But not being displayed that much.

Quote
I worked in sales for 12 years, working my up to VP of Sales & Marketing in 6 years. I did everything: sold, hired, trained the new hires, helped them close, managed sales reps and managers. I can assure you that giving a new recruit a rock-solid script full of well thought replies to every possible comment and concern won't make the recruit a good sales rep. Not even close. It's always about how you say it: tone, confidence, mannerism, reassuring way you speak, eye contact, and many other things that are taken into consideration. Nobody is a natural in this game. It always comes with experience.

If you want a good analogy, then a simple thing like approaching a girl you like and introducing yourself can easily go horribly wrong if you aren't 'skilled' at making introductions (without being nervous, worrying what she thinks about you, what her friends think, what if she says no, etc). Most situations in AoD are much more stressful than introducing yourself to a girl.
At this point I'm wondering if I express my thoughts in english that terribly. I wasn't saying that elocution is not real, but that it needed huge efforts to be transcripted (or the lack of it) properly and convincingly, especially as the reason of a stat check failure. By "you can't just say that "it didn't sound right" without making it look like bullshit. ", I implied it was how it was shortly transcripted in the vast majority of cases in AoD. At least from my experience in several runs.
Moreover, my second rhetorical question implied that you were kind of "given" a line no matter your, roleplaying and stats wise, oratory skills. Still talking about the displayed options here.

Quote
Unless the game branches out and passing a check can lead to very different outcomes and things you can't foresee.
...
Then the stats won't matter outside of combat, which isn't a desirable outcome for us.

I honestly don't get why you're replying to me like i'm dealing in absolutes when i'm not but whatever.
Logged
Vince
Developer

Posts: 8078



View Profile
« Reply #36 on: February 14, 2017, 11:08:05 am »

No more archaic than turn-based combat or dialogue trees.
I'm not really sure how the archaism of one thing excuses another, but turn-based combat has been constantly remade and revised through the years with different and/or additional mechanics. Hardly can say the same about stats checks. Even dialogue trees have seen improvements in some ways.
I meant that neither turn-based combat nor other "old-school" features are really archaic. They just don't tend to sell as much as their mainstream-oriented cousins. Plus, I don't see how TB was remade and revised. Different developers have different preferences usually revolving around how to handle actions per turn:

- a single action (roguelikes)
- move and/or attack (new XCOM)
- level-based (DnD)
- action points (Fallout)

It doesn't change the core and there is no clear progression from old, "archaic" mechanics to the new and improved ones (if anything the new XCOM is a step back).

Quote
You missed my point. I wasn't talking about realism but about the player's perception and feeling of it in a ludic perspective. Of a number or a numbers difference determining alone what he can or can't do.
Player's perception is a very subjective thing. There are people who like their stats and skills (aka numbers) determining what you can and can't do, and there are people who see it as a needless restriction interfering with their ability to have fun (which explain why the character systems have became more of a "spend points to become even more awesome" optional minigame).

Quote
Because in AoD, except for non-combat playthroughs (perhaps), there will always be way more stats checks (with all displayed/available options) that you'll fail than you'll succeed. It's as simple as that and technically in such a game, it should be. But not being displayed that much.
...

Moreover, my second rhetorical question implied that you were kind of "given" a line no matter your, roleplaying and stats wise, oratory skills. Still talking about the displayed options here.
What's the solution then? There are hidden lines (there is an 'on appear' check) that require specific knowledge or would work regardless of delivery, but most lines are displayed openly. We can hide them as well but that would create an impression that you have very few (if any) options. Plus these options often hint at different branches and quest solutions, showing the player what's possible with a different build, which isn't a bad thing either.

Quote
I honestly don't get why you're replying to me like i'm dealing in absolutes when i'm not but whatever.
Then I probably misunderstood you.
Logged
Ducade
Neophyte

Posts: 1


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: March 26, 2017, 04:38:43 pm »

    • Skill-Based character system.

      Class-based systems offer you different packages of skills and abilities, designed to ensure that no man is left behind and your rogue can kick as much ass as your fighter. It’s a good, time-honored design that makes it very hard to make mistakes. In comparison, skill-based systems offer all the freedom you can handle and don’t restrict you in any way, so the chances of you screwing up your character is fairly high, especially for the first time players.

      Neither system is better by default so it comes down to personal preferences and firmly held beliefs, which is where it gets a bit complicated. Some folks believe that games shouldn't allow the player to make bad builds and choices; anything else is bad design. I think that if every decision is awesome, it hardly matters what you choose. Making mistakes is part of the learning experience but not everyone has the patience for it.
    Personally I prefer a combination of the two so that the player can know what to expect, and express themselves fully. If the game for example has a list of skills, and asks me to design a class and pick say two primary skills, three secondary skills, and four tertiary skills, I can ascertain right away that these skills are going to be capped based on these choices, that I can design a character to suit my interests, and that I should expect to raise those skills to their respective potential within such a system. The problem with pre-designed classes is that they limit expression. The problem with an open skill system like we had in AoD is that the player is unsure of how many skills they can reasonably invest in because there is no framework to plan within until you have gone through the game once or twice to get a feel for it. So in AoD I felt that I was more or less forced to play a traditional class, but that the game wanted to give the impression of greater choice. I don't like first play through to feel like a trial run, and if you offer a blank template the player can fill in, you provide a structure for the player to follow while offer actual choice. Of course this is something closely tied to how skills functions, and in AoD there was a real sense of all or nothing regarding skills, especailly after leaving the first town.

    Additionally skill synergies need to actually be useful to offer variety and utility for the player. The synergies of AoD do not really make sense. For example all ranged combat forms offering synergy with each other does nothing for the player because investing in multiple ranged attack options offers nothing when the bow is clearly superior for a dedicated ranged fighter. It would have been better to have dagger, spears, and axes offer synergy with thrown to allow for and encourage variety of tactics for a soldier classes. Additionally perhaps Crafting should have offered a boost to crossbow rating. The synergies need to encourage diversity otherwise they function solely as a late game buff to boost the rating of your primary weapon.

    • Stats & Skills Matter not only in combat where they provide various bonuses but outside of combat as well, when exploring or dealing with people. It’s a deceptively simple aspect, so let’s examine it in details.

      What it means in practical terms is that your character would succeed in areas where his/her stats and skills are strong but fail where they are weak. For example, a perceptive person would notice something others won’t; a brute would be able to move a heavy object, etc.

      Obviously, the effect can be minor (i.e. you moved a boulder and found a couple of coins underneath it!), major (you moved a boulder and found a passageway to another area!), or anything in between (you moved a boulder and found a passageway to another area where you found … a couple of coins! T’was a good day for adventuring).

      Usually, stats and skills are checked in the following situations:

      • Multiple solutions (i.e. different ways to arrive to the same destination, everyone’s happy and nobody’s upset)
      • Optional content (limited ways to unlock optional content, aka. “gated” content)

      Multiple solutions are an important gameplay element, which allows you to go through a game in a manner fitting your character, but it is the optional content that truly differentiates one playthrough from another and boosts replayability (because solving the same problems in different ways isn’t enough).

      Naturally, optional content must differ in accessibility. Someone’s old shed should be easy to break into (let’s say everyone with a single point in lockpick, which is 80% of all players). An area that resisted all attempts to get into for decades or centuries like the Abyss should force most people to turn back to preserve the setting’s integrity (let’s say only 10% of players should explore it). The rest of the content would fall somewhere in between.

      This approach greatly upset some players who felt that they were punished “just because they chose the ‘wrong’ stats”. Some RPG players are notoriously obsessive-compulsive and won’t rest until they create a character that can get the maximum amount of content, which does require reading online guides and meta-gaming like there’s no tomorrow – the fastest way to kill all enjoyment and ruin the game. 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’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. The moment you tell the player "sorry, buddy, you need to be this tall to ride this", some players won't accept the failure and would want to know this kind of info in advance. Not many people see it as "you win some, you lose some" design. Anyway, I'd love to read your thoughts on this matter.
    I think there is a way to address this issue of gated content by allowing players to communicate their findings to NPCs as others have mentioned, but by bringing in the drama associated in working with others. For example in AoD perhaps the advantage of being skilled in lore and crafting is that you alone can decide how to utilize the artefacts you discover, whereas a soldier can inform his superiors, and be allowed to follow as a guard on an expedition, but have little say in the matter, and perhaps is given a few options along the way to interfere based on other skills, but ultimately will be a witness to the event rather than a coordinator.

    Regarding stat checks, I find them good practice, but in need of more options. I remember in fallout there were instances where having low intelligence offered you unique options for instance. I also think there should some wiggle room regarding the pass/fail check. For example if it's a combined attribute and skill check needing a total of 14 to pass, perhaps 11-13 allow dice rolls with increasing success. 

    • Non-Combat ways through the game

      While combat should always be the main pillar of RPGs, allowing the player to avoid combat and progress in different ways opens up more role-playing and story-telling opportunities. Also it makes killing your way through the game YOUR choice rather than the only thing to do.

      AoD allowed you to talk your way through and in the CSG we’ll add a stealth path through the game. Here is what it means design wise:

      Combat should be avoidable in most cases. Enemies shouldn’t turn hostile on sight, which means that filler combat is out, which in turn makes the game much shorter. Populating a map with “enemies” is easy. Providing paths to sneak past and writing fitting intros and dialogues with logical speech checks (you can’t just ask them nicely and passionately to let you through) for each encounter, as well as reasons for them to be there in the first place isn’t. It’s also very time-consuming and heavy on scripting, which is always an issue for a small team.

      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.

      Keep in mind that combat is an active gamepay aspect – basically, its own game with its own rules and complex mechanics. Dialogues are a passive aspect. You choose a line, click and see what happens. Unless dialogues are the main and only gameplay element, it will always be inferior to combat on a system level, much like no RPG has managed to offer a stealth system that rivals that of Thief.

      Thus the talking and sneaking paths will be much shorter by default but the assumption is that it’s part of the meal not the meal itself, i.e. the full experience will require several different replays, combat AND non-combat, which brings us to the next item: replayability.

      • Non-Linear & Replayable

        First let’s define what it means. Linear design is easy to understand: you move from A to B to C, always in this order, which takes away the freedom of choice completely. Then we have the “Bioware design”: do 4 locations in any order, which as an illusion of choices, much like dialogues where you get to say the same thing in 4 different ways.

        True non-linearity requires two things:

        • 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
        • Very few “required” story-telling nodes (locations, conversation, events) the player simply must visit or trigger in order to progress.

        The positives are clear. Now let’s take a look at the negatives:

        • The game will be short because you’re taking all available content and splitting it between multiple paths and filter it down via mutually exclusive decisions. AoD has over 110 quests, which is a lot, but you get no more than 20-25 per playtrhough and that’s if you leave no stone unturned.
        • The game will be even shorter because it’s easy to miss locations and content. Throw in the gated content and non-combat gameplay and it will be even shorter.

        Not surprisingly, "the game is too short" was complaint #3, right after "the game is too hard" (#1) and "too much meta-gaming" (#2).

      Overall, I believe that it’s about finding the right balance, which is always the case with all sufficient complex systems and issues. Your feedback is critical, provided it fits our design core, so regardless of whether or not you agree or disagree with my take on these aspects, feel free to share your thoughts.
    I honestly think that a lot of the issues with AoD was the feeling that the world was a bit lifeless. Hear me out, there are several instances where things are ostensibly going on, but in order to even learn of these events in the world requires multiple play throughs and going through all of the various factions. This is great for offering fresh content every time you start up a new character, but the problem is that there are references to things that happened, that you as a player have no idea of because there is no hubbub in the world. The example that springs to mind is when you play as a praetor and there is no talk of a caravan attack until you confront the legion head at the fort and he mentions it in passing as the reason you would request an audience. That only makes sense if you actually play through the imperial guard portion and attack the caravan. The game world needs to be more informative for the player so that they have a sense of the narrative and of the world from the get go instead of piecing together events that should be common knowledge only through playing the game from various perspectives. For example a delayed caravan would be a hot topic at the marketplace for sure, and the local lord would be concerned with it and bring it up. The core idea is great, but the execution left me bewildered, and I think that was the biggest flaw with how it was handled in AoD. While I am not a fan of bethesda games, I really enjoyed morrowind and the dialogue system that it used, which allowed you to ask any npc about rumors or advice and get a sense of the world and underlying machinations. So instead of showing these events to the player solely from the perspective of the various "paths" they happen to be on, show how a player on a different "path" would hear of the event. All paths would have a version of the event, but only by playing a role in one of the paths involved in it directly would show the truth. This can also open up additional depth for gameplay. For example a rumor of an event could label a certain faction or character as evil or deceitful, when in actuality it really is just a rumor, but the player will carry that false knowledge with them into their interaction with that faction/individual, and then when the player starts another character and sees what really happened they are going to have that "oh shit!" moment.

    Other than that the core of your system is really amazing and vital for solid choice and consequence RPG, it just lacks cohesion(I hope that's the right word).
    Logged
    Lurker King
    Journeyman

    Posts: 137



    View Profile
    « Reply #38 on: March 27, 2017, 06:59:25 pm »

    Vince, do you think it would be interesting to present dialogue trees like the dialogue balloons we find in comic books?

    Do you read any comic books?
    Logged
    Vince
    Developer

    Posts: 8078



    View Profile
    « Reply #39 on: March 27, 2017, 09:37:36 pm »

    Vince, do you think it would be interesting to present dialogue trees like the dialogue balloons we find in comic books?
    Too much text.

    Quote
    Do you read any comic books?
    On occasions.
    Logged
    Sodomy
    Artisan

    Posts: 507


    View Profile
    « Reply #40 on: June 20, 2018, 09:12:16 pm »

    it doesn't require meta-gaming
    Yes, I know I'm going back through old topics, but lolwut?  AoD is nothing but metagaming, it's the game where if you try to build a thief and don't balance disguise vs. steal vs. other thief-y stuff just right you just get told "lol fuck off, there's nothing for you to do because you don't have the exact right mix of skill points".  The metagaming complaint around AoD is totally legit, and it's kind of shocking to see it brushed off like this (and also tells me everything I need to know about whether CSG will be any good).

    Combat builds are also nothing but metagaming, since linear dodge/block vs. linear weapon skill to-hit means that optimal apportion of defense vs. offense is based entirely on the invisible stats of enemies.
    Logged
    Vince
    Developer

    Posts: 8078



    View Profile
    « Reply #41 on: June 21, 2018, 11:57:51 am »

    it doesn't require meta-gaming
    Yes, I know I'm going back through old topics, but lolwut?  AoD is nothing but metagaming, it's the game where if you try to build a thief and don't balance disguise vs. steal vs. other thief-y stuff just right you just get told "lol fuck off, there's nothing for you to do because you don't have the exact right mix of skill points".  The metagaming complaint around AoD is totally legit, and it's kind of shocking to see it brushed off like this (and also tells me everything I need to know about whether CSG will be any good).
    So now that we've established that CSG won't be any good, is there anything else you'd like to discuss?
    Logged
    Sodomy
    Artisan

    Posts: 507


    View Profile
    « Reply #42 on: June 21, 2018, 07:41:53 pm »

    Sure.

    1.  How do you plan on avoiding the issue that Prelude to Darkness's stealth skills (where it was nearly impossible to get them to usable levels) or TES's crafting and acrobatics skills (where every character ends up maxing them) have in a "learn by doing" system?
    2.  In the interview that sent me here in the first place, you indicated that any party would end up "specialized" because fighters in a party lead by a diplomat wouldn't have many opportunities to flex their skills.  In this case, what's the point of having a party based game at all?  Why not take inspiration from Torment: Tides of Numenera's "crisis system" where successful navigation of a crisis can involve having different people in your party accomplish different tasks while working together, such as talkers distracting guards while a thief steals something, or tanks/fighters keeping two pissed off factions physically separate from each other while the talker negotiates with the leaders?
    Logged
    menyalin
    Craftsman

    Posts: 437


    View Profile
    « Reply #43 on: June 22, 2018, 01:52:38 am »

    Non-Linear & Replayable
    Maybe not need too much non-linearity? AoD was very interesting, but i personally hope that in your next game you will make less main storylines in total, but longer ones (and not less unique).
    Logged
    Vince
    Developer

    Posts: 8078



    View Profile
    « Reply #44 on: June 22, 2018, 06:57:56 am »

    1.  How do you plan on avoiding the issue that Prelude to Darkness's stealth skills (where it was nearly impossible to get them to usable levels) or TES's crafting and acrobatics skills (where every character ends up maxing them) have in a "learn by doing" system?
    PtD didn't offer enough opportunities to increase the skill which is an easy problem to fix. Stealth will be one of the three main paths through the game, so you'll get plenty of opportunities to develop this skill.

    As for Bethesda, they have different goals and thus different design. They give you unlimited opportunities to practice your skills so you can max all of them if you're patient enough. Crafting and Acrobatics are simply the easiest skills to max. We have different goals and designs, so we won't be offering unlimited opportunities, thus it's a question of balance not design.

    Quote
    2.  In the interview that sent me here in the first place, you indicated that any party would end up "specialized" because fighters in a party lead by a diplomat wouldn't have many opportunities to flex their skills.  In this case, what's the point of having a party based game at all? 
    Are you implying that 'diversity' is the only possible reason to have a party?

    Since we're going with an 'increase by use' system, a party that fights a lot (i.e. solves all problems with violence) will have much higher combat skills than a party that uses a more balanced approach. Like a jack of all trades, the balanced party won't be exceptionally good at anything but would be able to handle a wider range of quests.

    Maybe not need too much non-linearity? AoD was very interesting, but i personally hope that in your next game you will make less main storylines in total, but longer ones (and not less unique).
    We won't have parallel questlines like in AoD so the main quest will be longer but more non-linear, not less.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up
    Print
    Jump to: