Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

VD's sekret projekt - the first screen evar!

Sarkile

Magister
Patron
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
1,379
If you're going to use portraits it would be best if you have a variety so that every other person doesn't have the same face. This was another failing of NWN in my opinion.
Or, when you're not talking to someone important enough to warrant a portrait you could have the character pop up where the portrait would normally go.
 

Fresh

Erudite
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
1,057
Location
Vault boy's secret hideout
Concept art used inte various ways in the interface is TEH ROXXORZ! It can immensly heighten the look and feel of the game. Just think about the use of (concept) art in FO with Vault boy. Just a a wicked title screen image gets your juices flowing. And whener a game uses the Leonardo Da Vinci -type of concept drawings im pretty much sold.


As for the placement of the dialogue options etc.. I think the dialogue box is way too big, with a lot of dead area blocking the screen. Whats interesting is the TEXT, not a big ugly box. Hows this for an option:
http://img76.exs.cx/img76/5609/91963320 ... 0057gs.jpg
Char portrait, transparent, placed up in the right corner of the screen.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Fez said:
Personally, I'd be shitting myself that my game is going to get torn apart by a place like this, especially with you being on staff and joining in with many a lynch mob. I'm sure the tension is there. :D
Well, that was expected. For more information, please look at my signature :lol:

EEVIAC said:
Have you thought about doing away with the dialogue interface altogether and using floats like in Arcanum?
Yes, I did, but I prefer a "dedicated" window. There are a lot of dialogues in the game, and it would be more convinient to have a proper background for the text.

The problem, as it is now, is that you can't see who you're talking to
The problem here, I think, is that you can't see on THIS screen who you're talking to. When I play a game and click on a character, I know who he is, so when a dialogue window comes up and blocks half-a-screen, it doesn't bother me as much as at that point I focus on dialogues. That's how I see it anyway.

The other option would be to use the Fallout method and have an interface with a window that centres on the conversing NPC.
We can try that

Spazmo said:
Perhaps, but on the other hand, VD's got some really terrific artists at his disposal and the portraits would just be cool.
Thanks. We'll do the portraits. Personally, I like them, but wasn't sure until I saw the reaction here. I'll also see what we can do about improving the interface.
 

Volourn

Pretty Princess
Pretty Princess Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Mar 10, 2003
Messages
24,924
I think VD realizes that discussing something on the Codex means someone is gonna hate it. Watch when the game is released - some will like it; some will hate it. Thems the breaks.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
DarkSign said:
Stiff upper lip, chap. Doing a fine job. Keep us informed.
I sure will. We're updating/working on graphics at the moment. When we have more stuff, we'll post it for everyone to bitch about something.:lol:

I appreciate the criticism, really. There are some things that don't bother me, but if they bother someone else, and we can fix them quickly, why not?

Volourn said:
I think VD realizes that discussing something on the Codex means someone is gonna hate it. Watch when the game is released - some will like it; some will hate it. Thems the breaks.
Exactly. I don't expect everyone to like it, especially considering the number of people and sites I personally pissed off by bitching about something. I expect the courtesy to be returned, but, hey, them's the breaks. :wink:
 

Fintilgin

Educated
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
83
Intriguing. :D

Can't go wrong with more RPGs, especially 'hardcore' ones. Actually, this is the sort of thing I'd like to see the remaining Troika folks get up to. Pure game without all the fuss and bother of AAA budgets and marketing teams and stuff. For better or worse I think this kind of niche development is the future of the sort of games we all love.

The graphics look good, a nice step up from Avernum level, although they could use some sort of quick'n'dirty fake lighting. Even simple drop shadow on the trees would help add a lot of depth. Speaking of graphics, will there be a paper doll for our PC? I like paper dolls. ;)

I say go for the moron indicators. I like to know for sure if I'm actually using a skill or not. It leaves out the guessing game.

BTW: Kudos on the Roman thing. I've always wanted a Roman era RPG. I'm curious too, is this the sort of system, where you'll have a level cap and could, like D&D, transfer your character to a sequel? It would be neat to have a series of games where you travel around a world like this, taking your Roman to a nearby Egyptian or Persian style land for example.
 

Sarkile

Magister
Patron
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
1,379
I almost hope this turns out to be the most linear adventure game ever. But that few minutes of laughter would deprive me of a crpg to play.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Fintilgin said:
Speaking of graphics, will there be a paper doll for our PC? I like paper dolls. ;)
Who doesn't? Unfortunately, a paper doll isn't planned at the moment. What we have is similar to the Fallout system, i.e. in-game avatar.

I'm curious too, is this the sort of system, where you'll have a level cap and could, like D&D, transfer your character to a sequel?
No level caps. In fact there are no levels whatsoever. We have a skill-based system. You handle quests, get XPs that would depend on how you handled quests, increase your skills. That's all.

Theoretically, it would be possible to export your character, and since your character would never become a demi-god that might work, but it's too early to talk about that.

Sarkile said:
I almost hope this turns out to be the most linear adventure game ever
If there is one thing I can promise you, that would be the non-linearity thing with proper role-playing, choices, consequences, and such. That's the part that is done. I can't promise you that the graphics won't suck, but that's an entirely different matter.
 

Volourn

Pretty Princess
Pretty Princess Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Mar 10, 2003
Messages
24,924
VD is Developer Extradinaire. He even reads like one when replying to annoying posts by "fans". LOL
 

Llyranor

Liturgist
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
348
Hmm, I was thinking about those morons indicators.

Sounds like "success" and "failure" in the NPC's reaction to your replies is generally frowned upon around here, which makes sense. But that isn't the issue.

One thing I've been pondering is whether or not the actual skill being used really needs to be flaunted. The pro argument, like many have said already, is that the player feels rewarded that the skills s/he has invested in are actually being used.

Now, if, say, one intended to make good and frequent use of these skills in dialogue (as in, not having them be rare occurrences, more an integral part of conversation), would it not make the conversation flow more freely if the player was simply to read through the dialogue choices and interpret properly which ones would require which skill (assuming good writing that will make it obvious, yet subtle at the same time)? Having the [skill] appearing there has the potential to appear a bit "gimmicky" (though, of course, I see the merit of such a design decision).

Looking at VD's example screenshot, a player who takes the time to read and interpret the dialogue choices *should* theoretically be able to realize which one would require streetwise, and so on. However, without the tag sticking there, the flow would perhaps be more fluid. No 'I have to make a skill check here!' feeling from the player's part.

Assuming, again, of course, that the use of skills will be integral in writing dialogue. If it's a rare thing, then making the player feel 'rewarded' would indeed be a good thing. Otherwise, perhaps it would involve the player more by *not* including the tags? It will prompt the player to read through every response and to choose the one most appropriate for his/her character. In this way, it would perhaps even enhance roleplaying. Having it pointed out to the player which choice uses which skills might make the player be a bit lazy sometimes and opt for the one which uses the skills the player invested in, rather than the most appropriate choice. I know I've been guilty of that at times, choosing a dialogue choice BECAUSE it used a skill I had. Then again, that's just me.

Ultimately, both ways seem legitimate, and I personally wouldn't mind playing a game having either option. The advantages of including the skill tags are pretty obvious, as others have pointed out. I was just wondering if the merits of NOT using the tags would be worth it.

And VD, from a mere screenshot which doesn't even reveal much, you have managed to have me interested. If the rest of your game features prominent use of skills and roleplaying, I will indeed be following its progress.
 

Elwro

Arcane
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
11,746
Location
Krakow, Poland
Divinity: Original Sin Wasteland 2
Why not just include a "Disable Moron Indicators" option?

And if there was a [combat] tag, it could sometimes be intentionally misleading. It should mean that the PC intends to begin combat, but sometimes the NPC may say something or behave in a certain way that would prevent the fight.
 

Spazmo

Erudite
Joined
Nov 9, 2002
Messages
5,752
Location
Monkey Island
If the line of dialog reads, "I'm going to tear out your eyeballs and skullfuck you", do you really need it to say "[COMBAT/AGGRESSIVE/DANGER WILL ROBINSON]" in front of it? Now, if that was, instead, a line to be used with the intimidation skill specifically to avoid combat, then it's pretty important to the player to have it say "[INTIMIDATION]" in front.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Messages
2,443
Location
The Lone Star State
Llyranor said:
Now, if, say, one intended to make good and frequent use of these skills in dialogue (as in, not having them be rare occurrences, more an integral part of conversation), would it not make the conversation flow more freely if the player was simply to read through the dialogue choices and interpret properly which ones would require which skill (assuming good writing that will make it obvious, yet subtle at the same time)? Having the [skill] appearing there has the potential to appear a bit "gimmicky" (though, of course, I see the merit of such a design decision).

Yeah, I really feel the same way sometimes. It's that way in PnP, too, it generally kind of jars the mood when you're trying to get the guardsman to buy your story that you need to get through gate after hours to see dear old Uncle Joe (praying that there's some old guy named Joe in town who looks sorta like you) and then you're told "Okay, make a bluff check." Then you're yanked back to the world of statistics and dice again, and your primary concern isn't to come up with a convincing tale but to find out how to squeeze out an extra +5 to the check so there'll be a 80% chance there's a Joe in town instead of a 55% chance. Roleplaying and game mechanics don't always go together that well. I've also played games where the checks were all hidden and it still worked and I still felt rewarded.
 

Llyranor

Liturgist
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
348
Spazmo said:
Now, if that was, instead, a line to be used with the intimidation skill specifically to avoid combat, then it's pretty important to the player to have it say "[INTIMIDATION]" in front.
That's a good point. However, if the player couldn't even tell that the meaning behind the option was to avoid combat, then wouldn't the fact that it does make even less sense?

Intimidation while avoiding combat. "If you tell me where the four artifacts are, maybe I'll let you live." The intent here should be fairly obvious.

[Intimidate] "If you tell me where the four artifacts are, maybe I'll let you live." doesn't really add that much that the player shouldn't already know, imo.

As I said, if the wording is unable to express the intent, would a [skill] tag really help much? Perhaps it makes the intent more clear, but shouldn't that be the wording's job in the first place?
 

Llyranor

Liturgist
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
348
Walks with the Snails said:
Llyranor said:
Now, if, say, one intended to make good and frequent use of these skills in dialogue (as in, not having them be rare occurrences, more an integral part of conversation), would it not make the conversation flow more freely if the player was simply to read through the dialogue choices and interpret properly which ones would require which skill (assuming good writing that will make it obvious, yet subtle at the same time)? Having the [skill] appearing there has the potential to appear a bit "gimmicky" (though, of course, I see the merit of such a design decision).

Yeah, I really feel the same way sometimes. It's that way in PnP, too, it generally kind of jars the mood when you're trying to get the guardsman to buy your story that you need to get through gate after hours to see dear old Uncle Joe (praying that there's some old guy named Joe in town who looks sorta like you) and then you're told "Okay, make a bluff check." Then you're yanked back to the world of statistics and dice again, and your primary concern isn't to come up with a convincing tale but to find out how to squeeze out an extra +5 to the check so there'll be a 80% chance there's a Joe in town instead of a 55% chance. Roleplaying and game mechanics don't always go together that well. I've also played games where the checks were all hidden and it still worked and I still felt rewarded.
That's exactly why I'm leaning towards keeping the checks hidden. I don't want the mechanics to get in the way of the roleplaying.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
On one hand, the indicators cheapen lines without them, making them less appealing. When I have to chose between a line with a [skill] and a line without, I feel that the line without represents a less interesting response/solution.

On the other, the indicators show the value of your skills. Everyone can see what the value of a combat skill is. It's different with softer skills. For example, I have 3 diplomatic skills: persuasion, streetwise, and etiquette. When you have only one skill like persuasion you know that that's what's responsible for your better dialogue options. When you have several skills that can actively influence a conversation, and I have more than 3, then perhaps it's good to know what's doing what. Sure, you can replay and notice different options, but I think it's nice to know the value and the exact effect of a skill on gameplay without guessing.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Llyranor said:
However, without the tag sticking there, the flow would perhaps be more fluid. No 'I have to make a skill check here!' feeling from the player's part.
Just for the record, a [skill] line would appear only if you've already passed the check, i.e. you are skilled enough to pull that off. However, while the presence of such a line indicates auto success, it doesn't mean that one line is all it takes to get you what you want. There could be other checks and factors ranging from other skills, stats, dresscode, reputation traits, events outcome, etc.

Assuming, again, of course, that the use of skills will be integral in writing dialogue.
It's integral.

And VD, from a mere screenshot which doesn't even reveal much, you have managed to have me interested. If the rest of your game features prominent use of skills and roleplaying, I will indeed be following its progress.
Thanks.
 

Astromarine

Erudite
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
2,213
Location
Switzerland
considering what you say about [skill] lines being the result of successes instead of indication of attempts, how about instead of having the indicators behind the lines, you just show the 5 or 6 lines of dialogue possible, and on the "system messages" window you put some traces like "Passed Persuasion skill check" "Passed Trading skil check". That way the player knows his skill was useful, but he still has to interpret the lines on the screen and might not actually choose a skill line
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
I wrote two paragraphs explaining why this isn't such a good idea, when I realized that it IS a good idea. Thanks, Astro. Anybody else likes this idea?
 

Llyranor

Liturgist
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
348
I think that's a *great* idea. It both enhances the roleplaying and promotes player thinking AND it still rewards the player.
 

Fintilgin

Educated
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
83
That sounds like an elegant way of doing it.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom