Interview ToEE Q&A at GameZone

[Saint_Proverbius]

Tags: Temple of Elemental Evil; Tim Cain; Troika Games

There's <a href="http://www.gamezone.com/news/09_10_03_02_07PM.htm">yet another interview</a> with <b>Tim Cain</b> about <A href="Http://www.greyhawkgame.com">Temple of Elemental Evil</a> over at <A href="http://www.gamezone.com/">GameZone</a>. Here's one of the interesting parts:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote><b>Q: Most of the RPG adventures of this sort evolve around similar plot themes. What plot elements do you think will set The Temple of Elemental Evil apart from the crowd?
<br>
<br>
Tim:</b> We have a big baddie at the end, but we have avoided the inevitable "you must kill the big baddie to win." There are other ways to win, including avoiding direct combat with the baddie, or even JOINING the baddie. Why not, if you are evil, agreeing to work for evil? ToEE is a rich game.</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Because everyone knows that <i>EVIL = GOOD GUY + GREED</i>, <b>Tim</b>!
<br>
<br>
Spotted this at <A href="http://www.bluesnews.com">Blue's News</a>.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Just as long as it's not:

PC: Hi, I've been questing against evil the entire game and my alignment is now 10,000,000++ and I'd like to join you.
Bad Guy™: Okay.

THE END. Roll credits.

 

[Psilon]

No for two reasons.
First, joining the evil villain in the other Troika game required you to kill quite a lot of stuff. ToEE will probably have something similar. Perhaps you have to go in and slaughter the local Hommlet leadership.

Second, party alignment rules will almost certainly remove that option unless you're playing a morally-deficient party.

 

[Crazy Tuvok]

I assume that ToEE is a little more constrained in joining the bad guy due to it being based on a pre-existing module, but what was nice for me in Fo and in Arcanum was joining the bad guy had a certain sense to it.
That is, even if I had played a "good guy" thru most of the game, there were still compelling reasons to join the big baddie at the end. A little nutty sure, but their motivations were not without merit.
I would love to see something like this in ToEE; the grayer the morality the better.

 

[Voss]

You wouldn't necessarily have to slaughter Hommlet... it could be required, but it really depends on how they decided to do it. I can think of several options off the top of my head... The real question is how much you could do after joining the big bad... theres a fair bit of free formness in getting to the big bad- you could kill everything else in the temple, or you could be fairly surgical/stealthy about it.

Hmm. This one is totally dependent on how Troika implemented it.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Your main character should be given the option to strangle a very small child to death with the chains of a flail as proof of joining the "dark side"

 

[DrattedTin]

But there's no children, remember?

 

[Elwro]

Unfortunately it cannot be so, Exitium, because they were forced to remove all the children from the game

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I still want to know what's so damned taboo about having children in a CRPG. It's not like you can kill children and not face reprocussions from doing so in games like Fallout. It's not like the rewards for killing children is that high, either. They're neve worth a lot of experience, they never carry very good items or loot and the consequences for killing them is usually severe.. So what's the fuss?

 

[Voss]

localization issues is about the only thing I can think of.

I bought Fallout 2 in Britain (and I believe Germany does this as well) and they ripped the kids out. Left several quests broken to boot. If the kids aren't there in the first place, nothing gets broken by their removal...

On the other hand... its just rather silly.

 

[Spazmo]

It's because retailers, parent groups and legislators are still fumbling around in the dark when it comes to games. Publishers have learned the hard way that giving players the option to be properly evil will just get them a lot of crap from Wal-Mart, Mothers Against Video Games and Joe Lieberman. From a muneh! point of view, best to play it safe and go with a Teen rating--and avoid those sci-fi games. They never sell as well as real-time D&D fantasy, right?

 

[Elwro]

I still want to know what's so damned taboo about having children in a CRPG. It's not like you can kill children and not face reprocussions from doing so in games like Fallout. So what's the fuss?

IMO they're just being secure, maybe over-secure. In Poland we have e.g. special newspapers for "Christian" zealots. Someone would just give them one bit of info: "There's a game out there in which you can kill children and still walk the world unharmed without any repercussion from the God" and they would tear the distributor to pieces.

 

[Azael]

This quote worries me a bit:

All followers will take a share of the loot that you find, and they sell it when they get back to town.

Now, I imagine that followers will be restricted from picking up some items, such as quest related ones, but I imagine it could be a source of frustration if the followers scope up the phattest of the l3wt right in front of the player and then clings on to it.

 

[EEVIAC]

Now, I imagine that followers will be restricted from picking up some items, such as quest related ones, but I imagine it could be a source of frustration if the followers scope up the phattest of the l3wt right in front of the player and then clings on to it.

I hope your followers also have some idea of just what constitutes "loot."

Me : "Virgil, would you kindly carry this Plate Mail with you on our way out of this cave and onwards to Tarant?"

Virgil : "Well... you see, Sir..."

Me : "What is it Virgil?"

Virgil : "Well, I have no room for it, my rucksack being full as it is with cocoa leaves, old newspapers, worn ladies shoes, and springs."

Me : "That's nice, Virgil. I'm glad you're so industrious."

 

[HanoverF]

They should make the no children in Hommlet part of the story at least, then its not so much of an issue

 

[Crazy Tuvok]

This quote worries me a bit:

All followers will take a share of the loot that you find, and they sell it when they get back to town.

Now, I imagine that followers will be restricted from picking up some items, such as quest related ones, but I imagine it could be a source of frustration if the followers scope up the phattest of the l3wt right in front of the player and then clings on to it.

Actually that is precisely what I like about it. More like PnP that way and much more sensible imo. Why wouldn't NPCs grab some of the good shit and their share of the gold? Adds to the atmosphere. That said I doubt that it is coded that they will be grabbing the only +3 sword in the game or something like that.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

I dunno, at the end of the day, it's a game and games are meant to be fun. Watching some stupid AI companion (and they are stupid, no matter how "Smart" they apparently are with OMFG super AI, they still suck) pick up the Super Sword of Leetness +4 and THEN GET THEM STUPID SELVES KILLED WITH IT thus leaving me without a companion AND without the Super Leet Sword of +4-ishness (which is BEHIND all the Goblins I'm attacking because Stupid NPC decided to go there) would really piss me off.

Frustration++

OF COURSE the PC is going to want Uber-Leet Shizzy-shizzy. If you stop the PC from getting super leet shizzy-shizzy, then PC get mad, PC get angry, PC kill followers just to get shizzy-shizzy or PC devise some scheme of always running forward into room so PC gets shizzy-shizzy before NPC does. Save, reload, save, reload until you can pull it off.

Realism++
Fun--

 

[Sharpei_Diem]

I think that's a very good point DarkUnderlord.

I like that npc's grab loot(and would prefer it if they did), but i agree wholeheartedly with your statements because until a time when they can make near flawless AI, having the allied ai make player-type decisions is just going to lead to frustration. You can almost predict this kind of scenario:

pc: wow, a lute! I bet it's magical!

henchman: it's mine.

pc: but I'm a bard...

h: it's mine

pc: and you're a paladin.

h: it's mine

pc: um, we're both lawful, right...

h: it's mine

pc: you know, needs of the many kinda thing...

h: it's mine


a better solution might have been to have the pc allocate treasure, and if the henchmen don't get what they think is a fair share, then they start to grumble/complain/scheme/assassinate...