RPG Design: Importing main characters to sequels

[EEVIAC]

All random world elements would get randomized anew and the game would not keep track of the stuff that previous characters did.

Well the reason I suggested it for Hajo's space game in the first place was because I liked the idea of having a galaxy that was too big to explore with one character. With generations you wouldn't lose all your experience/skills/loot (most, but not all,) but you'd be allowed to start a new character class (even with a new race) without multiclassing or losing all your game progress.

There's no reason why the same thing couldn't apply to the typical hack & slash rogue-like. I was imagining a massive dungeon complex under a town or an ancestral manor (for a more Victorian flavour.) Something so large that it becomes the family duty to clear out and explore the underworld through five generations of adventurers.

 

[Elwro]

I understand. A similar concept was present in Mordor and Demise: you have a big (I mean BIG) dungeon under a town. First you make a bunch of characters to explore the initial levels and draw some bits of maps, but you'll always end with making many characters who share their knowledge by adding new areas to the common map. You could e.g. make special "rescue parties" for lost characters. You can have a pool of, say, 20 characters always waiting in the town for you to choose them to your party.
But Demise is a party game. And has no breeding .

 

[Vault Dweller]

Yeah, because there is absolutely no way whatsoever in which the attitudes of most Codexers are similar.

That's one of them urban myths invented by those who are too stupid to read and understand the discussions here. Take this thread for example. Does it look to you like "the attitudes of most Codexeres are similar"?

Nor do you guys single out people who have differing opinions and give them special ranks!

False again. We have tons of people with different opinions and only 2 "dumbfucks". I wonder why?

If your ruleset contains lots of options and choices to choose from through all levels, you can still have interesting choices throughout all levels.

Interesting choices? Yes. Interesting character development? No. Why? Because by the time you hit high levels, you've already made all the important choices and defined your character in terms of specific skills, feats, and abilities. All that's left is to polish what you have, improve the existing skills basically.

As I said before, if you have the first game end at level 6 or 7 or whatever then make most of the new skills added for levels higher than 6. Then you still give the player lots of choices! It's amazing, really.

I've never argued that you can't end a game at lvl 6-7, but to me it seems kinda short and flawed in terms of character development. Similarly, you can stop a game at lvl 3, but that's hardly a reasonable solution.

You know, how someone who isn't so narrowminded can think of ways to make gameplay more fun!

You really love yourself, don't you?

And I'm the one with a dumbfuck tag? Yes, if you balance your game for level 1 and then have level 20 characters imported the balance is screwed. Of course, the developer would have to be retarded to do such a thing when you could <i>just design the game for level 20 characters!</i>

Of course, now you're probably thinking "what about people who didn't play the first game!?!" Well, they get to roll a level 20 character up right from scratch if they need to.

Wow! What an awesome scenario! Let's fuck anyone who doesn't want to play a lvl 20 char in a world populated by demi-gods and filled with uber loot. Let's skip the fun part of any RPG and condense hours of developing your character into 5 minutes of char generation.

Hey now, remember that I'm the one who thinks it's quite difficult for developers to come up with actual differing paths in their games. <i>You're</i> the one who thinks it's easy!

It's easy to make different paths for the first character who plays the game. It's impossible to represent all the choices, assuming that they were meaningful, that original character could have made in a second game.

 

[Twinfalls]

I'm completely with Vault Dweller on this.

I'd also like to add that the desire for 'importing previous characters' I see being mentioned a lot in the past few years, is possibly symptomatic of an increasingly bad influence on RPGs, namely:

The dumbfuck child who gets totally impatient with a game in which he starts off physically weak. The number of comments about Gothic (which to its great credit forced you to actually play a significant amount of game as someone weak and without strong weaponry, and therefore use your wits and actually improve your social standing) to the effect of 'it's too hard', 'Things kill me too easy from teh beginning', 'Why is my char so teh we@k0RZ' etc etc, suggests this to me.

Somewhat consoling however was the near-unanimous clamour that Morrowind (which we all know was a travesty in this regard) was too easy, that one was too rapidly 'uber', so maybe there's hope...

 

[Vault Dweller]

There's no reason why the same thing couldn't apply to the typical hack & slash rogue-like. I was imagining a massive dungeon complex under a town or an ancestral manor (for a more Victorian flavour.) Something so large that it becomes the family duty to clear out and explore the underworld through five generations of adventurers.

That actually sounds pretty cool. I love it. A Victorain family that mysteriously got rich decades ago, by discovering and plundering the huge dungeon on top of which the house was built. You can never have enough money, so year after year, the plunder and exploration continues. Of course, the deeper you go, the more dangerous it gets, so the family invests into scientific research designing its own means to combat the unknown and to understand and reuse the arcane knowledge found in the depth of the earth. The house is filled with secret laboratories, training rooms, its own smithy, arcane studies; the guardians are hired and golems are created. With every passing year the house slowly turns into a dungeon itself, or integrates itsef into the existing one :twisted:

 

[Sarvis]

Yeah, because there is absolutely no way whatsoever in which the attitudes of most Codexers are similar.

That's one of them urban myths invented by those who are too stupid to read and understand the discussions here. Take this thread for example. Does it look to you like "the attitudes of most Codexeres are similar"?

Let's see, in ONE thread you guys disagree. Great, but in 90% of the threads around here it's just a big circle jerk about how bad NWN is, how great Arcanum was and various attempts to redefine the CRPG genre so that it discludes most of the games made before Arcanum!

False again. We have tons of people with different opinions and only 2 "dumbfucks". I wonder why?

There's two now?

Why? Because we don't like Arcanum and realize that there were, in fact, CRPGs before Arcanum, and that's an unforgivable sin around here I'd guess.

Interesting choices? Yes. Interesting character development? No. Why? Because by the time you hit high levels, you've already made all the important choices and defined your character in terms of specific skills, feats, and abilities. All that's left is to polish what you have, improve the existing skills basically.

Bull. If there are more skills, feats and abilities to improve then you have more character development to do. Not to mention that you are limiting your thinking to D&D terms!

I've never argued that you can't end a game at lvl 6-7, but to me it seems kinda short and flawed in terms of character development. Similarly, you can stop a game at lvl 3, but that's hardly a reasonable solution.

Why? If levels are gained slowly, and there's a lot of gameplay from level 1 to level 3 there's not much wrong with that. The only people discouraged would be powergamers who need lots of uber 1337 loot and constant rewards.

You really love yourself, don't you?

No, just pointing out how incapable you are of a unique thought. You can think of a way to make importing characters fun so it's automatically bad, and anyone who disagrees is wrong... right?

Wow! What an awesome scenario! Let's fuck anyone who doesn't want to play a lvl 20 char in a world populated by demi-gods and filled with uber loot. Let's skip the fun part of any RPG and condense hours of developing your character into 5 minutes of char generation.

The fun part of any RPG should be <b>the whole thing</b>. And who said anything about level 20 being filled with demi-gods? Again you limit yourself to thinking in D&D terms.

It's easy to make different paths for the first character who plays the game. It's impossible to represent all the choices, assuming that they were meaningful, that original character could have made in a second game.

Bull.

There is no fundamental difference between carrying choices over various "chapters" of a large game and carrying them between sequels. In fact, it would become easier because you could use time to fade out a lot of the more unimportant choices!

For someone so stuck in D&D thinking you seem to forget that many PnP campaigns only cover a few levels, and people take characters between campaigns all the time. Importing characters in CRPGs is <i>the exact same thing!</i>

<b>DemonKing</b>

There was a second wave? EEP!

 

[Vault Dweller]

Let's see, in ONE thread you guys disagree. Great, but in 90% of the threads around here it's just a big circle jerk about how bad NWN is, how great Arcanum was and various attempts to redefine the CRPG genre so that it discludes most of the games made before Arcanum!

As usual (our first discussion about CRPGs), you post some unsupported bullshit that you really wish to be true. NWN was bad, that's for sure, although there are some people here who think that the toolset, the modules, the DM thingy was ok; I liked Arcanum a lot, but there are plenty of people who criticize its various aspects (Saint never misses a chance to bitch about the char system); and as for the CRPG definition it doesn't exclude (btw, what the fuck is disclude?) most of games made before Arcanum.

There's two now?

I betcha you thought that you were special. Well, you are, but not in the way you thought

Why? Because we don't like Arcanum and realize that there were, in fact, CRPGs before Arcanum, and that's an unforgivable sin around here I'd guess.

Uh, no, but thanks for guessing. The other gentleman doesn't care much about that topic. Btw, what's that obsession with Arcanum?

Bull. If there are more skills, feats and abilities to improve then you have more character development to do. Not to mention that you are limiting your thinking to D&D terms!

I dislike DnD so I don't use it as a shiny example of char development. What I'm trying to tell you that by the time you hit medium-high levels your character should be defined or the char system is pointless. Sure, there should be something else for you to do - and I think Wiz does a nice job there with uber abilities unlocked after you hit 100 in respective stats, but this is passive development and thus less interesting, in my opinion. You are confusing interesting and possible here. Sure, it's possible to add tons of skills, but would it be interesting after a certain point? In my experience, it wouldn't. If you get excited every time you get to upgrade a skill, more power to you. Literally. :wink:

Why? If levels are gained slowly, and there's a lot of gameplay from level 1 to level 3 there's not much wrong with that. The only people discouraged would be powergamers who need lots of uber 1337 loot and constant rewards.

If levels are gained slowly, your character's abilities become irrelevant (save for the initial choices). You basically play the game without any character development then.

No, just pointing out how incapable you are of a unique thought. You can think of a way to make importing characters fun so it's automatically bad, and anyone who disagrees is wrong... right?

What's unique about importing characters and starting a game at higher levels? You didn't think you've just invented that, did you? Btw, I didn't say that it was bad or wrong, I said "I don't think that importing your characters is such a good idea".

The fun part of any RPG should be <b>the whole thing</b>.

Then why replace some parts of the "whole thing" with substitutes?

There is no fundamental difference between carrying choices over various "chapters" of a large game and carrying them between sequels. In fact, it would become easier because you could use time to fade out a lot of the more unimportant choices!

There is a difference, too bad you can't see it. Assuming that KOTOR 2 would have anything to do with the original game, and you could play as Revan, the first question would be how people wouild treat you, as a savior, holier than most Jedi, or the worst Sith Lord evar? There couldn't be any reference to any planet you visited, because of different scenarios, etc. It could be easily done in the first game because the areas weren't connected and your choices affected little, but it would be impossible in the second game; and if the game is completely separated from the first one, then there is no need to play the original character. Importing worked well in the BG games, because there was no choices whatsoever expect some attitude ones, so it was easy to make sequels, but then again, adventure games are different :wink:

For someone so stuck in D&D thinking ....

I shall dub thee assumptor. You assume a lot, and it starts with an ASS.

...you seem to forget that many PnP campaigns only cover a few levels, and people take characters between campaigns all the time. Importing characters in CRPGs is <i>the exact same thing!</i>

I must invoke the holy name of Jesus Fucking Christ here. It's not the same thing. Read what I replied to Spazmo:

"That sounds really cool, but the important fact here is that you and your friends agree on the events. In case of CRPGs, the difference is obvious, these characters took different paths and unless the game sucks (or it's a Bio game and all paths lead to the same thing), it would be impossible to reflect all potential choices and satisfy everyone. I played a true shaper in GF, and all the references to a kind shaper in GF2 kinda bug me. I wish there was no mentioning of previous games whatsover in sequels."

 

[Sarvis]

As usual (our first discussion about CRPGs), you post some unsupported bullshit that you really wish to be true.

What do you want me to do, quote the entire damn forum?

NWN was bad, that's for sure, although there are some people here who think that the toolset, the modules, the DM thingy was ok;

Yeah, me.

I liked Arcanum a lot, but there are plenty of people who criticize its various aspects (Saint never misses a chance to bitch about the char system);

Never seen anyone here criticise Arcanum in any way.

and as for the CRPG definition it doesn't exclude (btw, what the fuck is disclude?) most of games made before Arcanum.

Really? That's interesting, because games like Pool of Radiance don't meet any of the criteria you guys so consistantly put forth, such as lots of choices which affect the plot or the ability to actually roleplay.

"Disclude" is a word, but it doesn't mean anything like what I thought it did... heh.

I betcha you thought that you were special. Well, you are, but not in the way you thought

Oh I'm special, just not in the way <b>you</b> think.

Does he have a ` too?

Uh, no, but thanks for guessing. The other gentleman doesn't care much about that topic. Btw, what's that obsession with Arcanum?

Nothing really, just springs to mind first. Could use Fallout or Geneforge just as easily. Actually, probably should use Fallout in this case since I think it came out first...

I dislike DnD so I don't use it as a shiny example of char development.

Maybe you do, but you've been speaking ENTIRELY in D&D terms. For example, considering level 20 to be high level, talking about feats.

What I'm trying to tell you that by the time you hit medium-high levels your character should be defined or the char system is pointless.

No, not true at all. A character can always grow, change and improve.

You should look at Torias' Epic Character builds for NWN. One of them, <a href="http://nwn.bioware.com/underdark/character_whirlingdeath.html">Whirling Death</a>, doesn't even start taking his third class until level 21 and doesn't get his defining feat until level <b>36</b>!

If levels are gained slowly, your character's abilities become irrelevant (save for the initial choices). You basically play the game without any character development then.

A proper balance is, of course, essential. But remember, CRPGs are supposed to be about roleplaying... not gaining levels and powergaming you munchkin!

What's unique about importing characters and starting a game at higher levels? You didn't think you've just invented that, did you? Btw, I didn't say that it was bad or wrong, I said "I don't think that importing your characters is such a good idea".

How does saying you don't thin ksometihng is a good idea fail to mean you think it's a bad idea?

And no, I didn't say I came up with a unique idea. I said you didn't think about it, just decided it was bad (I'm sorry, you decided it wasn't good ) rather than thinking of some way in which it could work and be fun for you.

Then why replace some parts of the "whole thing" with substitutes?

Because it adds something you can't get otherwise: The ability to carry characters you like through longer campaigns.

I'd KILL to get a sequel to ToEE where I could import my party. I'm quite fond of my ranger, and it just left me wanting more when the game ended at such a low level...

There is a difference, too bad you can't see it. Assuming that KOTOR 2 would have anything to do with the original game, and you could play as Revan, the first question would be how people wouild treat you, as a savior, holier than most Jedi, or the worst Sith Lord evar?

No, there isn't really a difference. What if you made that choice during the middle of KOTOR instead of at the end? Oh my god, then they'd have to account for it for half the game's encounters! It's the same amount of work.

There couldn't be any reference to any planet you visited, because of different scenarios, etc. It could be easily done in the first game because the areas weren't connected and your choices affected little,

If your choices affected little then they violate your own criteria of being meaningful. In other words, since those choices are so minor they wouldn't have much effect in the next game now would they? If something would, then it's the EXACT SAME THING as if you just went back to the same area later in the same game.

but it would be impossible in the second game; and if the game is completely separated from the first one, then there is no need to play the original character.

Wouldn't be impossible. If you completely seperate the games then you are right, there is no _need_ to play the original character. However many of us would WANT to, and that's the point isn't it? There's no need to play KOTOR2 at all, after all.

I shall dub thee assumptor. You assume a lot, and it starts with an ASS.

Not my fault you state everything in D&D terms.

I must invoke the holy name of Jesus Fucking Christ here. It's not the same thing. Read what I replied to Spazmo:

"That sounds really cool, but the important fact here is that you and your friends agree on the events. In case of CRPGs, the difference is obvious, these characters took different paths and unless the game sucks (or it's a Bio game and all paths lead to the same thing), it would be impossible to reflect all potential choices and satisfy everyone. I played a true shaper in GF, and all the references to a kind shaper in GF2 kinda bug me. I wish there was no mentioning of previous games whatsover in sequels."

Actually last time I played PnP we couldn't get one of the dudes to agree on the backstory we came up with. Dumbass wouldn't accept that a God could charm an Elf because elfs have resistance to charm.

Anyways, there's no need to remain in the same area for every campaign. In fact, aren't there very few campaign series? Not to mention that a game can track your choices to allow for them, and even cull them with storyline or time if needed.

Maybe there were a lot of possible choices at a family farm or something that developers can't deal with the complexity when your character returns. Quick solution: Goblins raided the farm after you left and killed everybody. You go back, and you can remember whatever the hell you want about them.

 

[Surlent]

High level characters usually don't get to make choices in character creation, which would be versatile enough and enchance the gameplay more differently than low level characters and/or totally new character creation. That's why character progress on high levels is usually just leveling up and getting more powerful versions of the same stuff.

But when I started this thread, I had features like Spaz and Elwro mentioned more in my mind.
Your previous characters as gods or high pillars of community sounds excellent.
And whole family of characters who own a manor, you could even spin a whole game around it.
Importin characters in those two examples wouldn't reduce gameplay, but make it would make it richer.

 

[Sarvis]

High level characters usually don't get to make choices in character creation, which would be versatile enough and enchance the gameplay more differently than low level characters and/or totally new character creation. That's why character progress on high levels is usually just leveling up and getting more powerful versions of the same stuff.

That's certainly true in a system like AD&D where there are few choices to be made. They fixed that even in 3E though, as those epic character builds I linked to show.

 

[Vault Dweller]

As usual (our first discussion about CRPGs), you post some unsupported bullshit that you really wish to be true.

What do you want me to do, quote the entire damn forum?

Some facts would have been nice

Never seen anyone here criticise Arcanum in any way.

And if you haven't seen something, it doesn't exist? Like I said, Arcanum has been criticized here as well. It's another misconception that people here are Troika's fanbois. The aspects in questions are the char system, combat, certain bottlenecks in the flow of the game, etc

Really? That's interesting, because games like Pool of Radiance don't meet any of the criteria you guys so consistantly put forth, such as lots of choices which affect the plot or the ability to actually roleplay.

Well, that's because it was a dungeon crawler sub-class of RPGs. As you know we like games like Silent Storm and cover them, yet it doesn't have any choices or role-playing. Many rogue-likes fit that profile as well.

Oh I'm special, just not in the way <b>you</b> think.

Does he have a ` too?

Lemme check... Yep, he does.

Actually, probably should use Fallout in this case since I think it came out first...

Yep, Fallout seems to be a better choice.

Maybe you do, but you've been speaking ENTIRELY in D&D terms. For example, considering level 20 to be high level, talking about feats.

The value of levels depends on game. DnD isn't the only system where 20 is a lot. In Fallout lvl20 was pretty high too. Same in Geneforge, MW, and Wiz, I believe.

You should look at Torias' Epic Character builds for NWN. One of them, <a href="http://nwn.bioware.com/underdark/character_whirlingdeath.html">Whirling Death</a>, doesn't even start taking his third class until level 21 and doesn't get his defining feat until level <b>36</b>!

That character was well defined way before he hit lvl15, and his active development was over at about the same time. The rest was icing on a cake, imo

A proper balance is, of course, essential. But remember, CRPGs are supposed to be about roleplaying... not gaining levels and powergaming you munchkin!

Imo, stats and skills play an important part in role-playing. Without being defined by your skills, you can pick and do whatever you want. That's one of the major flaws of Gothic for me.

How does saying you don't thin ksometihng is a good idea fail to mean you think it's a bad idea?

"isn't good" doesn't automatically mean "bad". It could be just ok too, and that's the case here.

I'd KILL to get a sequel to ToEE where I could import my party. I'm quite fond of my ranger, and it just left me wanting more when the game ended at such a low level...

Sure, good example.

No, there isn't really a difference. What if you made that choice during the middle of KOTOR instead of at the end? Oh my god, then they'd have to account for it for half the game's encounters! It's the same amount of work.

Basically, you could make that choice in the middle or even in the beginning - the game just say "whatever, until you kick Malak's ass nobody gives a shit who you are. Even if you as evil as before, at least you are helping us for now", etc; your actual choice is at the end.

If your choices affected little then they violate your own criteria of being meaningful. In other words, since those choices are so minor they wouldn't have much effect in the next game now would they? If something would, then it's the EXACT SAME THING as if you just went back to the same area later in the same game.

No, you misunderstood. The choices affected little because the game didn't care whether or not I killed all the sand people or helped that Zaalbar fella, BUT the next game, assuming it would refer to this events, should show something. It would be lame if the game just say "oh, well, you killed a lot of sand people, but more came, and things are back to normal again", etc.

Wouldn't be impossible. If you completely seperate the games then you are right, there is no _need_ to play the original character. However many of us would WANT to, and that's the point isn't it?

Well, can't argue with that. You have your opinion, I have mine. Ultimately, we can agree that it depends on a game and implementation. It would be good to importone of my ToEE parties, as the game was about killing stuff and the story was non-existent. From that point of view it's irrelevant whether I kill stuff in the prev game or in the new game, assuming that both games have similar selection of skills and abilities.

Maybe there were a lot of possible choices at a family farm or something that developers can't deal with the complexity when your character returns. Quick solution: Goblins raided the farm after you left and killed everybody. You go back, and you can remember whatever the hell you want about them.

That is a solution, but, like I said before, that cheapens whatever you did in the prev game. Why did I try to save the stupid bastards if they let some goblins to kill them afterall? I overcame tons of obstacles to restore my evil ass as the uber Sith Lord in the known universe, and now you tell me that I just walked away one day? Just like fucking that?

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Never seen anyone here criticise Arcanum in any way.

Dude! WTF?! You need to pay more attention then. I see it all the time.

 

[suibhne]

Never seen anyone here criticise Arcanum in any way.

Dude! WTF?! You need to pay more attention then. I see it all the time.

You seem to believe that Sarvis' claim was sincere, rather than a mere play for rhetorical gain. Allow me to disabuse you of that quaint notion. :wink:

Never mind Saint's persistent criticisms of its entire character system; Ex's disdain for Arcanum is pure enough, all by itself, to eternally consign the game to some manner of Hell.

 

[Sarvis]

Some facts would have been nice

The fact is that Arcanum, along with Fallout and Geneforge, is almost constantly held forth as the example of what a CRPG should be around here. Also, the fact is that searching for posts containing "Arcanum" made by Saint* only returns two threads... so I didn't feel like going through all the threads to find ones I had participated in... heh.

Well, that's because it was a dungeon crawler sub-class of RPGs. As you know we like games like Silent Storm and cover them, yet it doesn't have any choices or role-playing. Many rogue-likes fit that profile as well.

Really? That's pretty funny considering <b>your</b> definition of CRPGs:

Imo, an RPG is a game that allows you to play in a manner fitting your character using only your character's skills and abilities. For that purpose, a game should obviously have stats and skills that indicate both your character development, and ability to undertake certain tasks.

Without skills, you can do anything you want, and your success in any given task is meaningless.

Tell me now, in what way can you play a thief as fitting the character in Pool of Radiance? That's right, you can't because there is no sneaking or stealing! There are no choices, just glorious combat and excuses to go out and seek that combat.

How come dungeon crawls suddenly count as CRPGs?

Oh I'm special, just not in the way <b>you</b> think.

Does he have a ` too?

Lemme check... Yep, he does.
[/quote]

Bah, well I was still first!

The value of levels depends on game. DnD isn't the only system where 20 is a lot. In Fallout lvl20 was pretty high too. Same in Geneforge, MW, and Wiz, I believe.

Ok, but as you said the value of levels depends on the game. Only in D&D is level 20 associated with " a world populated by demi-gods and filled with uber loot."

That character was well defined way before he hit lvl15, and his active development was over at about the same time. The rest was icing on a cake, imo

Really? That's funny, because ONE of the key aspects of the class can't be gained until level 18. I mean, the point of the character development is to have a character that can hit lots of opponents at once and eventually kill lots of opponents in one attack, yet you think he's "done" before he even gets whirlwind attack?

At level 15 all you've got is a very weak fighter. The class doesn't even start to get interesting until level 20, and I can say that because I played it.

Imo, stats and skills play an important part in role-playing. Without being defined by your skills, you can pick and do whatever you want. That's one of the major flaws of Gothic for me.

Don't forget random factors!

Basically, you could make that choice in the middle or even in the beginning - the game just say "whatever, until you kick Malak's ass nobody gives a shit who you are. Even if you as evil as before, at least you are helping us for now", etc; your actual choice is at the end.

Well then maybe in the sequel everyone could just not care because "at least you are helping us now." Seriously, come up with an actual argument here rather than just pointing at KOTOR.

There is nothing you've said that wouldn't be an issue in one single game so far.

No, you misunderstood. The choices affected little because the game didn't care whether or not I killed all the sand people or helped that Zaalbar fella, BUT the next game, assuming it would refer to this events, should show something. It would be lame if the game just say "oh, well, you killed a lot of sand people, but more came, and things are back to normal again", etc.

And if, in the SAME GAME, you had gone back to where all the Sand People were or where you helped Zaalbar it should show something. What's your point?

There's no increased difficulty there.

In fact, all you'd do is set a variable for KilledSandPeople. Then in the next game you could have the area replaced with different opponents. If you killed the sand people the game sets up some explanatory text saying you killed them so other monsters moved in. If you didn't, the explanatory text says they moved on to better hunting grounds or something. (I'm assuming here that Sand People migrate a lot... if they don't I'm sure a whole new idea could be created! )

Well, can't argue with that. You have your opinion, I have mine. Ultimately, we can agree that it depends on a game and implementation. It would be good to importone of my ToEE parties, as the game was about killing stuff and the story was non-existent. From that point of view it's irrelevant whether I kill stuff in the prev game or in the new game, assuming that both games have similar selection of skills and abilities.

Getting rid of the pirates or not would have no effect on the future? Granted, there weren't a LOT of choices for the game but there were ones that set up different endings and future events.

Of course, tracking those to represent them in a sequel isn't any different than tracking them to show the proper ending! They just need to make sure they allow for the differences.

That is a solution, but, like I said before, that cheapens whatever you did in the prev game. Why did I try to save the stupid bastards if they let some goblins to kill them afterall? I overcame tons of obstacles to restore my evil ass as the uber Sith Lord in the known universe, and now you tell me that I just walked away one day? Just like fucking that?

Hey, it's a vicious fantasy world. Shit happens.

It's like that one episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. This one girl knows she's going to die, and Buffy saves her from being sacrificed, then saves her from a crossbow bolt trap... only to have the girl's heart give out and she dies anyway.

Does it seem like what she did didn't matter? Yes, and Buffy goes through a little crisis over it. Could be an important growth experience for your character! Roleplay dammit!

 

[Sarvis]

Never seen anyone here criticise Arcanum in any way.

Dude! WTF?! You need to pay more attention then. I see it all the time.

You seem to believe that Sarvis' claim was sincere, rather than a mere play for rhetorical gain. Allow me to disabuse you of that quaint notion. :wink:

Ah, too bad you're wrong. Nice try at being psychic though!

Seriously, it's not as if I read every thread on these forums...

 

[Sarvis]

Heh... forgot to respond to part:

I overcame tons of obstacles to restore my evil ass as the uber Sith Lord in the known universe, and now you tell me that I just walked away one day? Just like fucking that?

What, there's no new planets to conquer? You're going to become this "badass" Sith Lord and then just sit on a throne all day?

 

[Vault Dweller]

The fact is that Arcanum, along with Fallout and Geneforge, is almost constantly held forth as the example of what a CRPG should be around here.

That's true, but that doesn't mean that the flaws were unnoticed.

Also, the fact is that searching for posts containing "Arcanum" made by Saint* only returns two threads

Searching is fucked for some reasons after the upgrade.

Really? That's pretty funny considering <b>your</b> definition of CRPGs

And that's why I called it a dungeon crawler instead of a CRPG. It's my definition that doesn't affect the industry or the games being made, and it simply refers to games I prefer to play, and the features I want to see. It doesn't mean that any other games don't exit, but I see them as something else, but not as a pure CRPG. In many cases, it's a mix: adventure RPGs, action RPGs, combat RPGs, etc. You are free to think and define the genre in any way you like. I'm not on a quest to force everyone to accept my point of view.

Ok, but as you said the value of levels depends on the game. Only in D&D is level 20 associated with " a world populated by demi-gods and filled with uber loot."

Not really. If a Fallout game starting at lvl 20 were made, it would have to feature a challenging enemies (the ones who can possible survive a massive critical) and proper weapons, just like FO2 added gauss weapons, etc. These enemies equipped with uber loot would be able to wipe out an average FO town in 5-10 minutes. Not demigods?

Really? That's funny, because ONE of the key aspects of the class can't be gained until level 18. I mean, the point of the character development is to have a character that can hit lots of opponents at once and eventually kill lots of opponents in one attack...

From my earlier post: "If you get excited every time you get to upgrade a skill, more power to you. Literally". It's like FO, it was more fun for me to start and define a new character, add skills and perks that really matter, not to add Sniper or More Critical or Bonus RoF. Same here or at least that's how I see it.

...yet you think he's "done" before he even gets whirlwind attack?

Yeah, silly me, what was I thinking?

Well then maybe in the sequel everyone could just not care because "at least you are helping us now." Seriously, come up with an actual argument here rather than just pointing at KOTOR.

"Come up with an actual argument" means make shit up as you go? I'm using KOTOR as a specific example, where I don't need to explain events for you to understand them and can just refer to them to make a point.

And no, "at least you are helping us now" wouldn't work in a sequel because there is no logic there. Evil Revan could help the Jedi because he could have used them to bring Malak down. Once it happened, there is no need for further alliance.

No, you misunderstood. The choices affected little because the game didn't care whether or not I killed all the sand people or helped that Zaalbar fella, BUT the next game, assuming it would refer to this events, should show something. It would be lame if the game just say "oh, well, you killed a lot of sand people, but more came, and things are back to normal again", etc.

And if, in the SAME GAME, you had gone back to where all the Sand People were or where you helped Zaalbar it should show something. What's your point?

My point is that in the same game what you've done is shown (i.e. the sand people are dead). You have 2 choices, to kill or not, and you can pick one and then come back and either see them all dead or alive and happy. It's easy because the game knows what choice you've made. In a sequel it's complicated or even impossible because you could have made either one and the game should represent your actions accurately, especially if it dragged your ass out of one game into another.

In fact, all you'd do is set a variable for KilledSandPeople. Then in the next game you could have the area replaced with different opponents. If you killed the sand people the game sets up some explanatory text saying you killed them so other monsters moved in. If you didn't, the explanatory text says they moved on to better hunting grounds or something.

What about quests? Or it doesn't really matter? You either deal with sand people or some new people that moved in, or it doesn't really matter because they all ask you to bring the same shit?

Getting rid of the pirates or not would have no effect on the future? Granted, there weren't a LOT of choices for the game but there were ones that set up different endings and future events.

Wasn't the new game, AtG, supposed to take place somewhere else. That's why dungeon crawlers are a good choice for characters importing. All you do there is fight. Each game is like an arena where you practice you skills and strategies, level up, and collect loot.

What, there's no new planets to conquer? You're going to become this "badass" Sith Lord and then just sit on a throne all day?

Riiight. That's why Palpatine's always travelled everywhere scouting new planets and galaxies to conquer.

 

[Sarvis]

And that's why I called it a dungeon crawler instead of a CRPG. It's my definition that doesn't affect the industry or the games being made, and it simply refers to games I prefer to play, and the features I want to see. It doesn't mean that any other games don't exit, but I see them as something else, but not as a pure CRPG. In many cases, it's a mix: adventure RPGs, action RPGs, combat RPGs, etc. You are free to think and define the genre in any way you like. I'm not on a quest to force everyone to accept my point of view.

Then what's with all this arguing?

Also, all of those are RPGs. You can subdivide them all you want and that's fine, except that you probably use Adventure wrong. Essentially your personal definition of CRPG only fits one of those subdivisions, whereas the definition should be general enough to fit all the subdivisions whch can then be further defined.


In other words, Pool of Radiance, NWN and Arcanum are all CRPGs, but PoD and NWN are Dungeon Crawl RPGs and ARcanum is a SCI RPG.

Not really. If a Fallout game starting at lvl 20 were made, it would have to feature a challenging enemies (the ones who can possible survive a massive critical) and proper weapons, just like FO2 added gauss weapons, etc. These enemies equipped with uber loot would be able to wipe out an average FO town in 5-10 minutes. Not demigods?

Pres. Bush could wipe out an entire city by pushing one button, that makes him a demigod?

From my earlier post: "If you get excited every time you get to upgrade a skill, more power to you. Literally". It's like FO, it was more fun for me to start and define a new character, add skills and perks that really matter, not to add Sniper or More Critical or Bonus RoF. Same here or at least that's how I see it.

Now you get to explain what skill Whirlwind Attack is an upgrade for. Here's a hint: It's a completely new skill that changes the way your character would approach combat.

In fact, for that matter, even at low level many of the feats in D&D only upgrade skills or abilities. Improved Crit just improves your crit range, lots of the feats just increase saving throws, even the mage feats just make spells more powerful somehow.

So I guess even at low level there is no character development... especially since feats that give you entirely new attacks, like Whirlwind Attack, don't count!

Yeah, silly me, what was I thinking?

sometimes I don't even think _you_ know...

"Come up with an actual argument" means make shit up as you go?

Actualy, that's pretty much <i>exactly</i> what it means... heh.

I'm using KOTOR as a specific example, where I don't need to explain events for you to understand them and can just refer to them to make a point.

Err... actually I've never played KOTOR... sorry.

And no, "at least you are helping us now" wouldn't work in a sequel because there is no logic there. Evil Revan could help the Jedi because he could have used them to bring Malak down. Once it happened, there is no need for further alliance.

Maybe there's some other threat out there, a rival Sith Lord. Or maybe you just want to fuck with the Jedi. Or maybe there's a cute female Jedi you want to corrupt to the dark side. Lots of reasons you might form a new alliance.

My point is that in the same game what you've done is shown (i.e. the sand people are dead). You have 2 choices, to kill or not, and you can pick one and then come back and either see them all dead or alive and happy. It's easy because the game knows what choice you've made. In a sequel it's complicated or even impossible because you could have made either one and the game should represent your actions accurately, especially if it dragged your ass out of one game into another.

I think I see the point you are missing. If you store the choices made with the character, the new game can account for them. JUST LIKE the same game could account for those choices.

You'd only run into any problems if you wanted to re-use the same area for some reason, and there's little reason to do that PLUS the problems can be solved and your choices accounted for.

What about quests? Or it doesn't really matter? You either deal with sand people or some new people that moved in, or it doesn't really matter because they all ask you to bring the same shit?

Sure, why not? You'd never really know the difference. Of course, if the developers wanted they could have a couple different quests to cover different kinds of characters and situations carried over from the previous game. That's the sort of thing you people are always clamoring for anyway...

Wasn't the new game, AtG, supposed to take place somewhere else. That's why dungeon crawlers are a good choice for characters importing. All you do there is fight. Each game is like an arena where you practice you skills and strategies, level up, and collect loot.

AtG? New Game? They're making a ToEE sequel?

And no, fighting isn't all you do in ToEE. It's a LOT of what you do, but there are several quests before you enter the actual Temple which do not require much fighting. Some of them, returning the gypsy's crystal ball and reopening the whorehouse for instance, would even have affects on future games set in the same town.

Riiight. That's why Palpatine's always travelled everywhere scouting new planets and galaxies to conquer.

Palpatine never really actively did anything. Darth Vader would be a more appropriate comparison, and he was all over the place. He certainly didn't go to Dantooine twice!

 

[Vault Dweller]

Also, all of those are RPGs. You can subdivide them all you want and that's fine, except that you probably use Adventure wrong. Essentially your personal definition of CRPG only fits one of those subdivisions, whereas the definition should be general enough to fit all the subdivisions whch can then be further defined.

There is one, they are all computer games. Take Bloodlines for example, it's an action RPG. There is a clear and well defined RPG part, and there is a clear FP Shooter part. There is no need to try to call all these different games with one name. There is a difference between games like Fallout and Bloodlines, ADOM and Diablo, Daggerfall and Deus Ex, and people should know what's what and what to expect.

Pres. Bush could wipe out an entire city by pushing one button, that makes him a demigod?

Not the same. In every setting, including real life, there are people in charge whose orders could do some serious damage. I'm talking about a game where *most* denizens are godlike in comparison to an average human being.

Now you get to explain what skill Whirlwind Attack is an upgrade for. Here's a hint: It's a completely new skill that changes the way your character would approach combat.

Just like Sniper/Slayer is a completely new perk that changes the way your character would approach combat - every other hit is a critical. Yet it doesn't change or define your character significantly, you simply become an uber killing machine instead of a killing machine. The difference is basically the degree of efficiency.

So I guess even at low level there is no character development... especially since feats that give you entirely new attacks, like Whirlwind Attack, don't count!

You can have new skills and abilities even at lvl 100, that doesn't change the fact that there is a point where the actual development stops, and polishing and piling skills up begin.

Err... actually I've never played KOTOR... sorry.

Oops, my bad then.

Maybe there's some other threat out there, a rival Sith Lord. Or maybe you just want to fuck with the Jedi. Or maybe there's a cute female Jedi you want to corrupt to the dark side. Lots of reasons you might form a new alliance.

No, no, and no. Think Palpatine. Would he have started helping out the Jedi to score with some chick?

I think I see the point you are missing. If you store the choices made with the character, the new game can account for them. JUST LIKE the same game could account for those choices.

You'd only run into any problems if you wanted to re-use the same area for some reason, and there's little reason to do that PLUS the problems can be solved and your choices accounted for.

No, it's not about the point and workaround, it's about overall design. I'm talking about something deeper than a line in a conversation like "Oh, yeah, I like totally killed those bastards" or "Thank God, I was there to save them". If a game imports characters to continue the storyline, it should be related to the events of the prev game. If a game imports character to continue fighting and leveling up, then any references to the prev game aren't necessary. That's my opinion, not the absolute truth.

Sure, why not? You'd never really know the difference. Of course, if the developers wanted they could have a couple different quests to cover different kinds of characters and situations carried over from the previous game. That's the sort of thing you people are always clamoring for anyway...

I prefer to have in-depth quests related to situations and people, not something that could be assigned to everyone depending on a few flags.

AtG? New Game? They're making a ToEE sequel?

Don't think so, but there were some early comments about making Against the Giants module, but then Atari's lost the interest, at least for now. It's a shame to waste such an engine though.

And no, fighting isn't all you do in ToEE.

I know, but overall the non-fighting part wasn't that important. Basically, the game was about looting the temple, and thus, another game about looting something else with the same cast of grave-diggers would make sense and could be easily made.

Palpatine never really actively did anything. Darth Vader would be a more appropriate comparison, and he was all over the place.

Well, Revan was the numero uno guy, hence my original comment

 

[Sarvis]

There is one, they are all computer games. Take Bloodlines for example, it's an action RPG. There is a clear and well defined RPG part, and there is a clear FP Shooter part. There is no need to try to call all these different games with one name. There is a difference between games like Fallout and Bloodlines, ADOM and Diablo, Daggerfall and Deus Ex, and people should know what's what and what to expect.

Oh god just stop it. You are trying to walk both lines now, of saying PoD is an RPG (dungeon Crawler) one post and then trying to show that it's something else in another post. You're right, people SHOULD know what to expect... and the current <i>commonly accepted</i> definition of a CRPG gives us that. Your desired definition does not, and could cover games, such as Deus Ex, which are NOT CRPGs.

Not the same. In every setting, including real life, there are people in charge whose orders could do some serious damage. I'm talking about a game where *most* denizens are godlike in comparison to an average human being.

A single US Marine could probably wipe out entire african tribes in a few minutes, or even seconds. Does that make Marines demi-gods?

]
Just like Sniper/Slayer is a completely new perk that changes the way your character would approach combat - every other hit is a critical. Yet it doesn't change or define your character significantly, you simply become an uber killing machine instead of a killing machine. The difference is basically the degree of efficiency.

What the hell do you even consider character development? ALL feats just make you a more efficient killing machine, or increase survivability. If you mean char development purely as in personality then you are sorely mistaken, and just give up at some point that levels have nothing to do with. Any new skill is character development in terms of skills, and there is ALWAYS room for personality development.

You are just not making sense. Keep this up and there'll be a third Dumbfuck` around here.

You can have new skills and abilities even at lvl 100, that doesn't change the fact that there is a point where the actual development stops, and polishing and piling skills up begin.

When those new skills are nothing like the ones you had before, such as Whirlwind Attack, your are still developing.

For that matter, if you have an overall goal and the character does not meet that vision there is still development to be done. In terms of the theme of the Whirling Death class, that takes until level 36. Until then you are just working towards what you want the character to be, whether it is in the form of just skill upgrades or not.

Palpatine didn't stop developing at level 10, he kept developing his powers and ihs character until he was killed. If he hadn't he would have been a different character. Maybe with less lightning.

No, no, and no. Think Palpatine. Would he have started helping out the Jedi to score with some chick?

Ok, so if you are roleplaying Palpatine you wouldn't do that. You ever roleplay your OWN character? with his own damn motivations and passions? If not just go play some Metal Gear, you might as well have all your "RP" spoon fed to you anyway.

Hell, that's what I'm doing now anyway. Trying to show you ways in which you could roleplay a character while you show no inclination towards doing so.

Not to mention that you are just nitpicking a quick example of how somtehing can be done, and that there are always limitations on the roleplaying options you have in games anyway. Why the fuck is your total badass sith allying with Jedi in the first place? No sith I'd ever want to RP would stoop so low!

No, it's not about the point and workaround, it's about overall design. I'm talking about something deeper than a line in a conversation like "Oh, yeah, I like totally killed those bastards" or "Thank God, I was there to save them". If a game imports characters to continue the storyline, it should be related to the events of the prev game.

And the game can do that. There is NO REASON WHATSOEVER that it cannot be done, or at least no more reason than what prevents it from being done within a single game.

I prefer to have in-depth quests related to situations and people, not something that could be assigned to everyone depending on a few flags.

The two are not mutually exclusive, and you are only showing how narrow minded you are again by thinking that they are.

Don't think so, but there were some early comments about making Against the Giants module, but then Atari's lost the interest, at least for now. It's a shame to waste such an engine though.

Dammit, you got my hopes all up.

I know, but overall the non-fighting part wasn't that important. Basically, the game was about looting the temple, and thus, another game about looting something else with the same cast of grave-diggers would make sense and could be easily made.

But the non-fighting parts could easily be accounted for in a sequel, perhaps Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil.

Well, Revan was the numero uno guy, hence my original comment

I don't actually know who Revan is...

 

[Elwro]

Yeah, I also don't know, but I have a vague feeling that knowing that you were Revan spoiled the game for me, so I still haven't played KoTOR.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Oh god just stop it. You are trying to walk both lines now, of saying PoD is an RPG (dungeon Crawler) one post and then trying to show that it's something else in another post.

For God's sake, learn to read. Dungeon crawler is not a true RPG, imo, it's focused purely on combat ignoring all the other RPG aspects. JA2, SS, ToEE, PoR are all dungeon crawlers. One must understand that and not confuse them with or expect games like Fallout and Arcanum. Do you think you can comprehend that? You may disagree, but that's my opinion and my definition of RPGs, and there are no contradictions there.

You're right, people SHOULD know what to expect... and the current <i>commonly accepted</i> definition of a CRPG gives us that. Your desired definition does not, and could cover games, such as Deus Ex, which are NOT CRPGs.

First, the current definition is so broad it could be put on any game with stats, including Deus Ex. Second, my definition is based on the existing games, not some wishful thinking. My goal, however, wasn't to cover all games with stats or inventory, but to isolate a group of games with very specific traits that, imo, represent true role-playing. Fallout, Arcanum, Geneforge, Prelude to Darkness, Darklands, to name a few. Third, it doesn't cover games like Deus Ex. Try again.

Not the same. In every setting, including real life, there are people in charge whose orders could do some serious damage. I'm talking about a game where *most* denizens are godlike in comparison to an average human being.

A single US Marine could probably wipe out entire african tribes in a few minutes, or even seconds. Does that make Marines demi-gods?

Are you retarded? No, really? Can you maintain a discussion in its context without using rather childish and idiotic examples like that?

What the hell do you even consider character development?

I explained it many times in this thread. Some people have even commented on that. It's becoming pointless to repeat it over and over again. I'm under the impression that you are not even reading or trying to understand my points, even if only to attack them better.

You are just not making sense. Keep this up and there'll be a third Dumbfuck` around here.

I doubt that. The standards you've set are way to high.

When those new skills are nothing like the ones you had before, such as Whirlwind Attack, your are still developing.

You are taking things way too literally. I don't. Deal with it.

Palpatine didn't stop developing at level 10, he kept developing his powers and ihs character until he was killed.

Yes, he learned a magic trick just a few days before he was killed.

Ok, so if you are roleplaying Palpatine you wouldn't do that. You ever roleplay your OWN character? with his own damn motivations and passions? If not just go play some Metal Gear, you might as well have all your "RP" spoon fed to you anyway.

I'm not talking about role-playing Palpatine here, I'm trying to show you the absurdness of the suggestion you've made earlier. While you are free to role-play any character you want, you should also understand the nature of a character you are role-playing and his position. THAT's what role-playing is about, not about doing whatever the fuck you want 'cause u r roel-plaing here.

Not to mention that you are just nitpicking a quick example of how somtehing can be done...

Then give me a better example, the one that actually makes some sense.

...and that there are always limitations on the roleplaying options you have in games anyway. Why the fuck is your total badass sith allying with Jedi in the first place? No sith I'd ever want to RP would stoop so low!

A true Sith would gladly use his enemies to get at another enemy. No contradiction here. You may choose to RP a different character, but the above mentioned behavior is reasonable.

And the game can do that. There is NO REASON WHATSOEVER that it cannot be done, or at least no more reason than what prevents it from being done within a single game.

You keep repeating that nonsense. How about some examples comparing a specific situation in a first game, and then the consequences of it in the second game? If all you can come up with is "they were destroyed anyway" or "they moved away and didn't leave a mailing address", then don't bother.

I prefer to have in-depth quests related to situations and people, not something that could be assigned to everyone depending on a few flags.

The two are not mutually exclusive, and you are only showing how narrow minded you are again by thinking that they are.

And once again, some examples proving me wrong would be nice.

But the non-fighting parts could easily be accounted for in a sequel, perhaps Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil.

Easily? I doubt that. The pirate town, the Loth agent, the temple factions, and last but not the least the way you dealt with Zuggtmoy - too many variables for CRPG, if properly done, of course.

 

[Sarvis]

You really are an idiot, you know that?

For God's sake, learn to read. Dungeon crawler is not a true RPG, imo, it's focused purely on combat ignoring all the other RPG aspects. JA2, SS, ToEE, PoR are all dungeon crawlers. One must understand that and not confuse them with or expect games like Fallout and Arcanum. Do you think you can comprehend that? You may disagree, but that's my opinion and my definition of RPGs, and there are no contradictions there.

Well, that's because it was a dungeon crawler sub-class of RPGs.

I'm sorry if I got confused by your utter lack of consistancy!

Last I checked a sub-class of something could be considered that thing. A Honda Civic is a sub-class of a car, and it IS a car as well.

First, the current definition is so broad it could be put on any game with stats, including Deus Ex. Second, my definition is based on the existing games, not some wishful thinking. My goal, however, wasn't to cover all games with stats or inventory, but to isolate a group of games with very specific traits that, imo, represent true role-playing. Fallout, Arcanum, Geneforge, Prelude to Darkness, Darklands, to name a few. Third, it doesn't cover games like Deus Ex. Try again.

Sure it does, you can play a character the way you want in Deus Ex. You can play through without killing anyone, you can pick locks if you want, you can sneak past enemies instead of fighting them from what I hear. That's all your criteria.

Are you retarded? No, really? Can you maintain a discussion in its context without using rather childish and idiotic examples like that?

Are you retarded? You gave me an example of a few guys with superior weapons and training wiping out a village in 5 minutes, I gave you THE SAME EXAMPLE in a real life situation and it's suddenly out of context?

You really don't pay even attention to what you say do you? Let alone what other people are saying.

I explained it many times in this thread. Some people have even commented on that. It's becoming pointless to repeat it over and over again. I'm under the impression that you are not even reading or trying to understand my points, even if only to attack them better.

No you haven't. All you've said is that char development suddenly ends around the mid-levels. You implied, sort of, a couple times that getting new skills was character development... but you don't consider a completely new style of attack to count for that.

Again, inconsistant. Either new skills mean char development or they don't, you can't pull this "new skills are char development only if I say so for that specific skill" bullshit.

Or if you really want to, tell me right now what feats count for character development.

I doubt that. The standards you've set are way to high.

What, being right all the time? Being consistant? Not contradicting myself? Having actual logic for my arguments?

You are taking things way too literally. I don't. Deal with it.

You say character development stops for the Whirling Death class at level 15. He doesn't get a whirlwind attack until level 18, so you need to explain why Whirlwind Attack isn't "new" enough to a character to count as character development.

Yes, he learned a magic trick just a few days before he was killed.

Oh good retort there! Don't deal with the statement OR the point, just pretend it was ludicrously out of hand rather than just being evocative. You're taing things way too literally. Deal with it.

I'm not talking about role-playing Palpatine here, I'm trying to show you the absurdness of the suggestion you've made earlier. While you are free to role-play any character you want, you should also understand the nature of a character you are role-playing and his position. THAT's what role-playing is about, not about doing whatever the fuck you want 'cause u r roel-plaing here.

Yes you are. You are refusing to admit a character can have any motivations other than what you see in Palpatine. You say ALL Sith Lords wouldn't try to bring a hot chick over to the dark side because Palpatine wouldn't. Bull. Different Sith Lords will have different motivations, it's not as if they are brainwashed eunuchs after all!

You're trying to say developers can't come up with good scenarios to deal with past gaming decisions because you don't like the specific reasons I came up with. That hardly even proves anything anyway, I'm not a game designer (yet) and am certainly not going to come up with all possible ideas in a thread.

You are fighting the wrong battle, proving only that you don't like the specific examples I gave you while doing nothing to prove that it can't be made to work.

I'm giving examples of how it COULD be done, just because you don't LIKE the motivations I gave does not mean it can't be done.

Then give me a better example, the one that actually makes some sense.

No, I'm not going to bother. You will just claim that Palpatine wouldn't do it. There's no point.

A true Sith would gladly use his enemies to get at another enemy. No contradiction here. You may choose to RP a different character, but the above mentioned behavior is reasonable.

Not to me. Palpatine wouldn't do it!

You keep repeating that nonsense. How about some examples comparing a specific situation in a first game, and then the consequences of it in the second game? If all you can come up with is "they were destroyed anyway" or "they moved away and didn't leave a mailing address", then don't bother.

How's this: Take any quest from any game you want, take ALL the consequences from that quest you want. Then cut a LINE through the game RIGHT AFTER that quest and release everything before it as the first game and everything after that line as a second game.

THAT IS ALL WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Specific enough?

And once again, some examples proving me wrong would be nice.

Imagine any quest you want involving Sandpeople. Make it as complex as you wish. Then change Sandpeople to Jawas. Guess what, it probably still works.

And once again, developers who wanted to could make seperate quests for the different scenarios.

Wouldn't they haved to in a single game anyway? If you wipe out the Sandpeople in the first 1/4 of the game and then go back in the last 1/4 of the game and there's new quests you have <i>the exact same situation</i> as if it were divided up by two games.

But the non-fighting parts could easily be accounted for in a sequel, perhaps Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil.

Easily? I doubt that. The pirate town, the Loth agent, the temple factions, and last but not the least the way you dealt with Zuggtmoy - too many variables for CRPG, if properly done, of course.[/quote]

ROFL.

See, here's the thing. I think that taking so much complexity would be too much for a single RPG. That is why I argue so much about how it won't be done except in a very few games. It's the argument that earned me the Dumbfuck tag.

I'm saying it's no more difficult to do it over multiple games. If you think it is, then it is just as impossible in a single game.

Let's put it in a sort of timeline:

Events Happen
.
.
.
.
More Events Happen
.
.
.
.
Events happen that take into account the first two events.

Now, with multiple games.

Events Happen
.
.
.
.
More Events Happen
Game Ends
.
.
.
.
New Game Starts
Events Happen that take into account the first two events.


There is no fundamental difference except that the developers got to split things up a bit. They presented one part of the story to you and then kept working on the second part while you were playing the first.

There is no actual difference, other than the need to transport the information between the games.

 

[Vault Dweller]

You really are an idiot, you know that?

Ran out of arguments and decided to go with insults? Your choice, but I'd like to remind you again that out of hundreds (literally) dumbfucks who've visited this place, you were the first one to earn that rank. Just think about that, my not overly bright friend.

I'm sorry if I got confused by your utter lack of consistancy!

It's ok, I'm not surprised that you are confused, but I'm glad you can admit that and ask for help.

Last I checked a sub-class of something could be considered that thing. A Honda Civic is a sub-class of a car, and it IS a car as well.

One of those retarded explanation that became Sarvis' trademark. A Civic is a Honda AND a car too! What are you? 5? Anyway, if you insist on learning a new word today, I'll be happy to help.

Main Entry: sub-
Function: prefix
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, under, below, secretly, from below, up, near, from sub under, close to -- more at UP
1 : under : beneath : below <subsoil> <subaqueous>
2 a : subordinate : secondary : next lower than or inferior to <substation> <subeditor> b : subordinate portion of : subdivision of <subcommittee> <subspecies> c : with repetition (as of a process) so as to form, stress, or deal with subordinate parts or relations <sublet> <subcontract>
3 : less than completely, perfectly, or normally : somewhat <subacute> <subclinical>
4 a : almost : nearly <suberect> b : falling nearly in the category of and often adjoining : bordering on <subarctic>

Can you navigate through the explanation on your own, or do I need to chew it up for you?

Sure it does, you can play a character the way you want in Deus Ex. You can play through without killing anyone, you can pick locks if you want, you can sneak past enemies instead of fighting them from what I hear. That's all your criteria.

From what you hear? Cool fact. But no, even if you are correct, that does NOT fit my definition. Are you really that stupid that you can't see that? Come on, try harder.

Are you retarded? You gave me an example of a few guys with superior weapons and training wiping out a village in 5 minutes, I gave you THE SAME EXAMPLE in a real life situation and it's suddenly out of context?

It's not the same example, you dumb fuck. A single US marine wiping out a US town all by his fucking self would have been the same example in a real life situation. A single US marine from your example killing an African tribe isn't the same. If you don't get that, you are really fucking stupid and unable to understand, evaluate, and compare basic concepts.

I explained it many times in this thread. Some people have even commented on that. It's becoming pointless to repeat it over and over again. I'm under the impression that you are not even reading or trying to understand my points, even if only to attack them better.

No you haven't. All you've said is that char development suddenly ends around the mid-levels. You implied, sort of, a couple times that getting new skills was character development... but you don't consider a completely new style of attack to count for that.

Again, inconsistant. Either new skills mean char development or they don't, you can't pull this "new skills are char development only if I say so for that specific skill" bullshit.

Or if you really want to, tell me right now what feats count for character development.

Here is what I said before:
"It has nothing to do with the ruleset, it's the nature of things. Same in real life, staring out when all your options are open, making steps that open some doors, and close other is more interesting (from char development point of view) then becoming whatever it is you wanted to be. At this point the journey is basically over, and that was my point. Any game I've ever played was like that from FO to BG2 to Diablo 2. It doesn't mean, of course, that a system where char development at higher level is as good as it is at low levels couldn't be done, but would that be fun? The goal of char development is to become good at something, and the moment that you actually manage to do that, you lose some interest because you've achieved your goal"

I doubt that. The standards you've set are way to high.

What, being right all the time? Being consistant? Not contradicting myself? Having actual logic for my arguments?

No, being stupid.

You say character development stops for the Whirling Death class at level 15. He doesn't get a whirlwind attack until level 18, so you need to explain why Whirlwind Attack isn't "new" enough to a character to count as character development.

Read above.

Oh good retort there! Don't deal with the statement OR the point, just pretend it was ludicrously out of hand rather than just being evocative. You're taing things way too literally. Deal with it.

Ok, fine, to reply to your point, I think that Palpatine character was developed and defined way before he was killed. He may have gained a few more feats and abilities but that was icing on a cake.

Yes you are. You are refusing to admit a character can have any motivations other than what you see in Palpatine. You say ALL Sith Lords wouldn't try to bring a hot chick over to the dark side because Palpatine wouldn't. Bull. Different Sith Lords will have different motivations, it's not as if they are brainwashed eunuchs after all!

What's with the words twisting? I said that a Sith Lord and an Emperor wouldn't ally with the Jedi for some chick, that's too petty and stupid (well, that explains why you liked that idea). He would have different means of getting what he wants.

I'm giving examples of how it COULD be done, just because you don't LIKE the motivations I gave does not mean it can't be done.

You are not going to cry now, are you?

You keep repeating that nonsense. How about some examples comparing a specific situation in a first game, and then the consequences of it in the second game? If all you can come up with is "they were destroyed anyway" or "they moved away and didn't leave a mailing address", then don't bother.

How's this: Take any quest from any game you want, take ALL the consequences from that quest you want. Then cut a LINE through the game RIGHT AFTER that quest and release everything before it as the first game and everything after that line as a second game.

THAT IS ALL WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Specific enough?

The first game would suck though being pointless, incomplete, and leading nowhere.

Imagine any quest you want involving Sandpeople. Make it as complex as you wish. Then change Sandpeople to Jawas. Guess what, it probably still works.

Depends on a quest. Like I said I prefer something more complex than "bring me some creature skins". Sand people are VERY different from Jawas, and I'd expect that to be reflected in their quests. Sand people are fighters, they don't like you and want to kill you on sight. Jawas are traders, they need protection or good trades, and have no need to kill or intimidate a potential customer. I hope you realize that any *complex* quests involving them would have to be totally different and wouldn't work with both of them.

And once again, developers who wanted to could make seperate quests for the different scenarios.

And that's the impossible part, assuming that the choices in the previous game led to something.

Wouldn't they haved to in a single game anyway? If you wipe out the Sandpeople in the first 1/4 of the game and then go back in the last 1/4 of the game and there's new quests you have <i>the exact same situation</i> as if it were divided up by two games.

No. If you wipe them, and then go back there would be no quest there, assuming that there was one. Simple as that. A sequel would have to PICK ONE scenario and go with it. There are plenty of choices in Geneforge, yet it would impossible to reflect them all in GF2. The game picks one and goes with it. There is no other way. A pity you don't see it.

Easily? I doubt that. The pirate town, the Loth agent, the temple factions, and last but not the least the way you dealt with Zuggtmoy - too many variables for CRPG, if properly done, of course.

See, here's the thing. I think that taking so much complexity would be too much for a single RPG. That is why I argue so much about how it won't be done except in a very few games. It's the argument that earned me the Dumbfuck tag.

I'm saying it's no more difficult to do it over multiple games. If you think it is, then it is just as impossible in a single game.

Yet, the examples I gave were from a single game, weren't they? You lose.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

So, uhhhh......

When's the wedding? :D