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.

The New World update #29: On C&C and Storytelling

Shilandra

Learned
Joined
Sep 22, 2016
Messages
152
Location
The Hive
I think hes more talking about the fake/forced grey of factions. Like "Jonas is a rugged frontiersman and staunch freedom loving individualist... But he also an aging pimp who beats his whores and slits childrens throats! Such complexity, very hard moral choices, wow!"
That's Mark's characterization, not mine. Rugged frontiersman often means killer as you have to fight to keep what you have and if you're doing well, it means you're pretty good at killing. See Jeremiah Johnson aka Liver-Eating Johnson:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liver-Eating_Johnson

Freedom-loving (in a lawless setting) often means 'will bow to no man and kill anyone who says otherwise'. Thus, I'm not saying he's a rugged frontiersman who loves freedom but he also hates kittens. I'm saying that the negatives are built-in into that freedom-loving frontiersman bit. See Dodge City or Deadwood or any other lawless town full of freedom-loving frontiersmen.

People tend to think they're right and have good reasons, no matter what they do.

I just don't know how it's possible for every side to look good and not turning it all into bullshit and demagogy.
Because each side has different reasons and arguments. For example, if you're leaning toward liberalism, you'd think that the Democrats are clearly in the right and the Republicans are clearly in the wrong. You'd find the Democrats' arguments sound and convincing and would think of the conservative as the obstacle if not the enemy. However, if you have conservative views, you'd feel the other way around. The Republicans are trying to save America and the Democrats are the enemy who is in the way. Thus, who's right and who's wrong is determined by your own views. You'll never think that both camps are right.

I think thats good. The raison d'être of the factions, good and bad, flow naturally from who they are in this environment, with their philosophies evidenced by how they act and conduct themselves. That level of transparency is cool and would allow the player to make as informed a choice about who to join as they can given the circumstances.

The only thing im struggling a bit with here is your good is determined by your point of view thing. Like, I understand what you're getting at with the liberal, conservative thing. It makes sense. What I think is missing is the advocates for things most people would agree is bad, like slavery and rape.

Now your metaphor could be extended to even that. You believe that some people are better than others and deserve to be enslaved for their own good and the good of society. If that is your belief then anyone fighting against that would necessarily be "evil" to you. However, even though a slavery faction could be justified in this way its existence might be avoided because on a meta level most people agree that slavery is something bad done by evil people. And because of this meta view a developer might avoid creating it because they want to avoid clear good and evil factions.

Now I dont know all the faction in the new world. There may very well be a slavery or cannibal faction or something else that's on its face repugnant yet still has internally consistent, logical justifications for why it exists and why it believes what it believes. But I think this fear of factional sophistry is being borne out of a perceived avoidance of evil. The freedom lover who kicks kittens for player gotchas is dumb but so is no faction being overtly and proudly bigoted or destructive in their in their philosophy or actions. Players can and do sympathize with that, especially if there are things in the game's setting or the player's upbringing that would justify a misanthropic or hateful outlook. That and some people just wanna see the world burn.
 

Fenix

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Jul 18, 2015
Messages
6,458
Location
Russia atchoum!
For example, if you're leaning toward liberalism, you'd think that the Democrats are clearly in the right and the Republicans are clearly in the wrong. You'd find the Democrats' arguments sound and convincing and would think of the conservative as the obstacle if not the enemy. However, if you have conservative views, you'd feel the other way around. The Republicans are trying to save America and the Democrats are the enemy who is in the way.

That's a part of a thing that concern me - why making every side as big as such political movement with Complex Moral Choice (tm).
Why we can't have somethign simple like slavery guild from Fallout2?

Or some drug-dealers who have no complex moral stuff and just sell drugs and poison/kill people as such.
 
Last edited:

Tigranes

Arcane
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
10,350
Look, there is Faction A & Faction B.

Faction A thinks that what they are doing makes sense, is the right thing to do. They will talk to you in those terms. If you should side with them, you might also have the option to spread their point of view.

Faction B also thinks that their way is what makes sense and what is right, etc.

Fallout 2 slavers, from what we could see, thought what they were doing is pretty fine. The Legion thought they were the good guys, sort of, in FNV.

This doesn't mean that A and B are both "equally neither right nor wrong" from a third party standpoint. The point is that most of the time, most people think what they are doing makes sense. Nobody says "oh I kill this person but I have no good reason to I am evil lols", they say things like "he deserved to die because X", "I can kill whoever because the strong rule the earth", or "i believe in total anarchy", or whatever.
 

Strange Fellow

Peculiar
Patron
Joined
Jun 21, 2018
Messages
4,013
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
For example, if you're leaning toward liberalism, you'd think that the Democrats are clearly in the right and the Republicans are clearly in the wrong. You'd find the Democrats' arguments sound and convincing and would think of the conservative as the obstacle if not the enemy. However, if you have conservative views, you'd feel the other way around. The Republicans are trying to save America and the Democrats are the enemy who is in the way.

That's a part of a thing that concern me - why making every side as big as such political movement with Complex Moral Choice (tm).
Why we can't have somethign simple like slavery guild from Fallout2?

Or some drug-dealers who have no complex moral stuff and just sell drugs and poison/kill people as such.
There are tons of games like that. There are few games as morally ambiguous as AoD. Why are you asking a developer that specializes in faction-based C&C for simplistic factions?
 

Shilandra

Learned
Joined
Sep 22, 2016
Messages
152
Location
The Hive
For example, if you're leaning toward liberalism, you'd think that the Democrats are clearly in the right and the Republicans are clearly in the wrong. You'd find the Democrats' arguments sound and convincing and would think of the conservative as the obstacle if not the enemy. However, if you have conservative views, you'd feel the other way around. The Republicans are trying to save America and the Democrats are the enemy who is in the way.

That's a part of a thing that concern me - why making every side as big as such political movement with Complex Moral Choice (tm).
Why we can't have somethign simple like slavery guild from Fallout2?

Or some drug-dealers who have no complex moral stuff and just sell drugs and poison/kill people as such.
There are tons of games like that. There are few games as morally ambiguous as AoD. Why are you asking a developer that specializes in faction-based C&C for simplistic factions?

I dont think he's asking the developer to make a simple slaver faction. I think he's asking for the devs to take the simple concept of a faction thats evil on its face like slavers and make them complex. Make them compelling. The devs of AoD are great at implementing faction based C&C right? Why should a slavery based faction not be given any consideration just because on a meta level players will see it as pure evil when they first hear about it?
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
For example, if you're leaning toward liberalism, you'd think that the Democrats are clearly in the right and the Republicans are clearly in the wrong. You'd find the Democrats' arguments sound and convincing and would think of the conservative as the obstacle if not the enemy. However, if you have conservative views, you'd feel the other way around. The Republicans are trying to save America and the Democrats are the enemy who is in the way.

That's a part of a thing that concern me - why making every side as big as such political movement with Complex Moral Choice (tm).
Why we can't have somethign simple like slavery guild from Fallout2?

Or some drug-dealers who have no complex moral stuff and just sell drugs and poison/kill people as such.
I was talking about conflicts. Naturally, there are gangs that aren't burdened by moral philosophy and are perfectly content with simply killing you and taking your stuff without justifying their evil ways to you or anyone else:

http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php/topic,7503.0.html
 

Fenix

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Jul 18, 2015
Messages
6,458
Location
Russia atchoum!
Fallout 2 slavers, from what we could see, thought what they were doing is pretty fine.

As far as I know they were just "sell man rape woman then sell too" kind of guys, where did you find that "pretty fine" I don't know.

Faction A thinks that what they are doing makes sense, is the right thing to do. They will talk to you in those terms. If you should side with them, you might also have the option to spread their point of view.

I see, but in the article were words "The player should feel that he/she is doing the right thing. Whoever the player sides with are the good guys fighting the good fight".
Why try to convince player he is a good guy?
How could you do that for slavery guild or cannibals? It's not a complicated thing like revolution with opposite beliefs, thay are just plain bad guys.
I don't know, probably those who are involved in black translplantology or weapon trading invented for themself various demagogic excuses, but they are easily detected as such.
Or maybe devs are avoiding put such simple thing, or just not interested in them.

I'm not stating ithis as absolute truth, maybe I'm wrong here, but I think world will be more alive with such things.
Or maybe it looks like that in theory, and in game it would be terrifically banal...

Anyway, I'm writing this with the best intentions.

I think he's asking for the devs to take the simple concept of a faction thats evil on its face like slavers and make them complex. Make them compelling.

Nope, I asking for bad guys who depicted as what they are and game shouldn't try to persuade player that they are good guys who fighting good fight.
It could be minor staff, nothing serious - but player could join and participate in Really Evil Deeds...
 

Tigranes

Arcane
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
10,350
I dont think its really about being a 'good guy'. Iron Tower never uses that description either.

a guy can rape and pillage a defenseless village and say its for religion, for power, for revenge, for triumph of the fittest, whatever. Now if you design a faction whic is really into ethnic genocide and they have rationale for it, doesnt make them 'good guys'. But that means some players may find that their methods or ideas have some political pros or such. Other players might still decide their rationale sucks ass and side against them.

Thats all different from 'hey we eat babies because the dark evil power is so awesome' and the player goes ok i also want to eat babies cos i might as well do an evil playthrough.

I think you are getting too focused on some of the language. We dont need slavers that are actually secretly good guys or anything. We just need slavers who think they have good reasons to do it and you can choose to sign up with that or tell them thats bullshit.
 

lukaszek

the determinator
Patron
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
12,620
deterministic system > RNG
 
Last edited:

HeatEXTEND

Prophet
Patron
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
3,928
Location
Nedderlent
A few weeks ago, I had the painful pleasure of reviewing a small dialogue from The New World. I say “painful” because I adored The Age of Decadence and had managed, despite its very public development, to go in without knowing much about its story or setting. Every time I learn more about TNW, I’m taking a usurious payday advance against when I finally get to play it in a few years. Sure, it’s fun to have a little something now, but I’ll be destitute when the release roles around.

And now I get to offer the same bitter pill to you, dear reader, because Vince asked me to share my analysis of the dialogue for this update. This is doubly brilliant, since it not only lets Vince put up a long-winded pretentious discussion about narrative themes while maintaining his own laconic reputation, but also will make his future posts seem even more practical and modest in contrast to this one. Given that Vince is basically a real-life Miltiades, I’m not sure why I keep following him into these alleys…

The dialogue at issue is a quest and mirror-quest where the player meets Lord’s Mercy, a gunslinging lady at the head of a gang of toughs. Mercy is currently in the employ of one Jonas Redford, the owner of a brothel and the de facto boss of the Pit. A powerful outsider gang, called the Regulators, was recently brought into the Pit to help keep out another faction, The Brotherhood of Liberty. But now the Regulators are themselves trying to take over the Pit, and their leader Jeremiah Braxton (erstwhile Faithful Gunner of the Church of the Elect) is hoping to take down Jonas. (Anyone familiar with the television show Deadwood should have an immediate sense for Jonas and the interlopers trying to give him the boot.) The player winds up on one side or the other of this conflict and needs to either make sure Mercy stays loyal to Jonas, or flip her to Braxton’s side.

At the outset of my conversation with Vince about the mechanics of the dialogue, I gave him my thoughts on what I understood the dialogue’s themes to be. (That’s because Lajos Egri’s The Art of Dramatic Writing persuaded me that when the writer knows what thematic significance a dialogue has, it helps him keep the dialogue lean and focused.) Now, with a little bit of editing, I share my thematic assessment with you.
:hmmm:
 
Self-Ejected

Harry Easter

Self-Ejected
Joined
Jul 27, 2016
Messages
819
Vault Dweller

I love this little updates you do and I can't wait to see all the pieces in motion :).

I have three questions, though:

- I TNW bigger or smaller in scale, compared to AoD? Meaning, are you trying to get bigger with this game or are you aiming for a smaller game with more replay-value?
- Speaking of the writing: is there a difference to AoD stylewise? Did you hire more authors or are the same people in charge of it?
- What are you most excited off to see in action in the finished game (companions, combatsystem, etc)?
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
- I TNW bigger or smaller in scale, compared to AoD? Meaning, are you trying to get bigger with this game or are you aiming for a smaller game with more replay-value?
I hope that TNW will be a much better game because we've learned much and because I know what we did well, what was overlooked, and where we failed. So that "much better" won't come from making the game more epic with more classes and locations but from tightening up the overall design. The New World will have 16 locations (AoD had 22 but many had a single point of interest), 21 skills (AoD had 23), 3 main factions and 3 smaller groups instead of 7 factions with parallell questlines in AoD. Some new features like learn by use and implants are based on AoD's designs (in AoD we had 3 skill pools: combat, civic, and general; now we'll have a pool for each skill so design-wise it's not some new and unexplored ground). The new features are party-based combat (but that's what DR was all about - focusing on combat exclusively to gain the experience), TB stealth (we had some rough designs for AoD but didn't have time), and gadgets/grenades which should be manageable since we won't have crafting or alchemy.

So the ambition is to make a better game, not a bigger game.

- Speaking of the writing: is there a difference to AoD stylewise? Did you hire more authors or are the same people in charge of it?
No difference. Hopefully better writing as my skills have improved over the years.

- What are you most excited off to see in action in the finished game (companions, combatsystem, etc)?
Probably the combat system.
 

Shilandra

Learned
Joined
Sep 22, 2016
Messages
152
Location
The Hive
The New World will have 16 locations (AoD had 22 but many had a single point of interest), 21 skills (AoD had 23), 3 main factions and 3 smaller groups instead of 7 factions with parallell questlines in AoD. Some new features like learn by use and implants are based on AoD's designs (in AoD we had 3 skill pools: combat, civic, and general; now we'll have a pool for each skill so design-wise it's not some new and unexplored ground).

Is there a post about skills somewhere?
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
x_065251.jpg
 

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