Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
@Kos_Koa That would be interesting but the question is how much more work it would mean for VD. And in your example I don't see how a son of a member of some organization could change much, especially if that father would be unknown to adversaries (and if he was known it would be too convenient for my taste). Companions making the situation worse is more likely but then again why would I travel with someone who couldn't follow my lead and would be more trouble than he was worth? In other words it complicates things significantly. If implemented correctly it could be great but if it would mean that the date would go from 2020 to 2025 then no, thank you.
You are being dramatic, Goral. In pratice, this means just more writing with specific requirements. This doesn't represent anything substancial, because it's all scripted. Take a look inside a dialogue file of AoD and you will see what I'm talking about. The detailed crafting you are advocating would take much more work than this.
I like experimenting and I've always liked 'increase by use' systems (Dungeon Master, Daggerfall, Wizardry 8, Prelude to Darkness, Silent Storm, etc). Many had (or left on purpose) obvious exploits like casting spells all day or jumping or finding an object you can hit like that flint rock in Stonekeep, etc, so it will be very easy to fix these issues. It's the new issues, especially those related to non-combat gameplay that I worry about but hopefully we can fix them as well.
I will note that Silent Storm series got the best approach to control metagaming "increase by use" we can find. What they fail is mostly quality control and post-release fix
- Increase by use cost resource which come from three source: fixed time shop refresh, inmission loots, and random mission loots.
++ Their fixed time shop refresh is what it said: at fixed time point (generally after story mission) the shop refresh and provide new resources. The devs didnt make good balance, Allies campaign got good progress, but Axis campaign got fucked. And no post-release fix either.
++ In story mission and randoms we can loot resource. This also get balanced pretty well with Allies, but Axis got fucked. A good fix for Axis is to farm certain random mission in certain map/region.
- Increase by use generally lead to noncombat specialists, as in, you concentrate resource to raise skill of one character rather than spread even. Using all the resources, and all the metagaming tricks, your specialists can compare to the stock character that got autolevel. What's make people choose specialists instead of replacing them with stock character is that there's some better design for perk progress with better effect than the autolevel one.Kinda like in fallout Tactics we choose to keep our longtime characters instead of replacing them with new, autolevel, characters.
We can't use the same system in every game (well, we can but shouldn't), so we have to try new things while keeping the core the same. I don't think it really matters how exactly you raise skills, provided it's done in a balanced way. Sure you lose the option to distribute skills in the exact way you want but you gain feats which, hopefully, will make developing characters a lot more fun than simply distributing points.
For me, the CYOA narrative structure with text adventures is the best way to implement a cRPG. However, ITS succumbed to the plebe’s pressure and the new game will be more focused on exploration. The decline afflicts all of us.
Our brand of exploration won't be the time waster type, that's for sure. Plus it will have most of the things that made AoD interesting. In any case, you'll see in 3 years when we release the demo
You can't "fix metagaming", really. No matter what system you have, it's very crucial to plan your way throughout the game in a way that you can pass the checks and battles that you want. Only randomized content or low difficulty can really change that. Or having the character skills be much more static, like the basic attributes are in AoD - making money, prestige, etc. more valuable commodities than SP gains which are the premium currency in most RPGs.
Having to not only think about maximizing SP gains, but to look at every encounter as "which skill do I want to boost?" instead of just "how do I pass here?" makes the game MORE metagamey, not less.
It's not about removing metagaming, as you said, who wants to metagame will metagame. The thing we are trying to "fix" is how metagaming affects gameplay. If metagaming gameplay is "Which skill do I want to boost?", then you select what you want to boost, and continue playing, it's fine by me. Now, I AoD, metagaming was "play, find a check I can't pass, reload, spend SP, continue until the next check I can't pass", well, it wasn't good, especially the reloading part. Kills the flow of the game.
Now, that's one way of playing. In AoD you could spend SP, fail, suck it up and continue playing, reloading only on death, or starting a brand new character. And in the CSG you can play by just choosing what you want to character to do and have increased skills. Metagaming is NOT mandatory, but we are aware that's a way of playing that many people have (including ourselves ocassionally).
You never said dying, pal, just failure. Keep your arguments straight. Look, I have no problem discussing anything about games, but that was really close to trolling, and I don't have time to waste.
Dying is not the only type of failure, needless to say that reloading after dying is not mental or whatever. I can't believe I have to explain that.
You never said dying, pal, just failure. Keep your arguments straight. Look, I have no problem discussing anything about games, but that was really close to trolling, and I don't have time to waste.
Dying is not the only type of failure, needless to say that reloading after dying is not mental or whatever. I can't believe I have to explain that.
Sure, I exaggarated the point cause it is indeed obvious that reloading is completely normal gameplay - that's the point. Regardless if the failure killed you or not.
It's not about player's "inability to deal with failure" if they reload, it's just basic optimising your path through the game. Or how exactly do you imagine the process that a player plays the game for maximum enjoyment?
I personally prefer a combination of increase-by-use and spending points system, the way I see it tagging seems to address the problem of none of the characters having a direction, you can tag lockpick with a character and he will be your designated lockpicker for rest of the game which will get better at it as game progresses, similar to how you would have one character you spend points on lockpicking. It also does seem with more int giving more tags, you can have a smartypants character that does the non-combat related stuff with token combat skill.
The problem I have with this system is I don't see how it prevents following scenario:
You’ll have a fighter/talker, fighter/thief, fighter/fixer, which is something we’d like to avoid
You'll just have 3 party members that tag combat skills and a token non-combat skill that they will be doing rest of the game. I also don't see what is wrong with this in the first place. This seems like it would be the optimal group with everyone being ready for combat and having extra skills that are necessary, both realistic and fun with RP value.
I absolutely loved AoD but after my first 3 normal runs I found myself going around with 150 skill points, quick saving before interactions and using points to pass the interaction, reloading and checking other interactions to be able to optimally see as much content as possible as well. So in a RPG like AoD, I think a combination system like the one that is designed is still best, regardless of Fighter/Utility team possibility.
I would genuinely suggest not to worry about metagaming too much. Just concentrate on delivering high-quality content as you did for AoD. You can not help the err.. 'excessively determined'.
I would genuinely suggest not to worry about metagaming too much. Just concentrate on delivering high-quality content as you did for AoD. You can not help the err.. 'excessively determined'.
There are many different ways to construct a main quest in an RPG and every studio uses a different set of building blocks reflecting their own preferences and goals. We’re all about Choices & Consequences, which means 3 key types of choices:
Multiple quest solutions (you should be able to go through the game in a different manner if you decide to replay it with a different character)
Narrative choices (craft your own story by making different choices and reaping different consequences)
Moral choices (aka ‘you should not be forced to play a hero obsessed with helping people’)
Needless to say, there is a lot of work involved in supporting these choices and giving them depth. Narrative choices require multiple factions, a branching main quest, and multiple endings; moral choices – evil/opportunistic bastard path, etc.
Our main quest’s building blocks aren’t that different from the ones we used in AoD...
3-4 factions
Branching main quest (at some point you choices should take you into different directions)
At least 5-6 vastly different endings
... but we’ll use them in a very different way and craft a very different experience.
Before we talk about the CSG’s main quest design, let’s talk about the AoD’s main quest to illustrate some points without spoiling anything.
The main quest started vague – "go I know not where, bring back I know not what", and then the faction quests took over as the meat of the game. Essentially, the game wasn’t about finding the temple but instead working for the factions and slowly uncovering what happened in the past. By the time you’ve visited all 3 cities and learned what you can about the factions, the war, and the gods, you know where the temple is and you're ready to make your choice. That fairly important choice affects the ending slides, but not gameplay because the game is almost over at this point.
Naturally, we want to do better. So in the CSG we’ll get rid of the vagueness, move the main quest to the center stage, push the factions’ quests back, and allow you to make key choices earlier and thus enjoy the consequences earlier.
It will start simple – while scavenging you stumble upon something clearly valuable, a long-forgotten device that wasn’t meant to be used until the ship lands (but can be used in-flight). Not being an expert on such things, you need to know exactly what this thing is to figure out what one of the factions will pay for it, which is a good way to introduce you to the three main factions in Act 1, whereas in AoD the Noble Houses were introduced one Act at a time for storytelling reasons (escalating events):
Acting on his own, Carrinas seizes or attempts to seize power in Teron. Misreading the situation, Gaelius decides to strengthen his domain against the Imperial Guards and makes a deal with the Ordu. Thinking that Gaelius is about to start a war, Meru throws caution to the wind and accelerates his plans, thus triggering the very war he feared.
Once you know what that device is (at about 30% of the game), you’ll offer it to the faction of your choice, at which point your relationship with the other factions will go down, introducing an aspect we didn’t really touch in AoD – factions acting against you, attacking your base of operations, and turning locations under their influence against you, which will boost replayability.
At about 70% of the game, you might realize (via learning more about the ship if you’re smart enough) that what you’re doing might not necessary be what’s best for the ship (or you personally) and get an option to do things in a very different, "fuck all factions" way. The remaining 30% of the game will be dedicated to each path within this fork, presenting different challenges and choices. So far, that’s 3 'working for a faction' paths, 3 'fuck 'em' paths, and 7 different endings without counting permutations.
This way you’ll get to play through your key decisions, instead of being told about what happened next in the slides. Obviously, the slides will still be there but gameplay-to-slides ratio will be different.
Progress report:
I’ve been working on the game for 5 months now and so far it’s going well:
Finished the second iteration of the main quest. In the first iteration that "something clearly valuable" thingy was merely a disposable lead-in, introducing you to the factions. In the second iteration we changed it into a more important device, not something you just hand over and forget, which had a cascading effect and changed the entire main quest. In terms of AoD, imagine delivering the temple to one of the lords at the end of Act 1. It would have instantly changed the rest of the game.
That’s what I like about the iteration approach. You do the first draft and look for the weak spots. Sometimes it takes a few weeks to find a perfect "piece of the puzzle". You put it in place and it forces changes across the board, which in turn creates new weak spots waiting to be replaced. Eventually it settles down, but it takes time to slow-cook it to the point where you’re more or less happy with it.
Finished the overviews of the first 5 locations out of 16: The Pit, Armory, Shuttle Bay, Hydroponics, Industrial “District” and passed them to a new concept artist (can never have too much quality art). It seems my progress rate is one location a month, plus other things like the CSG systems, the dungeon crawler’s dialogues and “quests”, for the lack of a better word, etc. So I’ll need 11 months to do the remaining locations and that’s just the overview (visual, basic level design, quests/points of interest outline). On the plus side, IF everything goes well, we’ll have a pretty good foundation by March 2017 and still 3 years of development ahead of us to put it all together.
Finished the first draft of the starting ‘town’ quests, including a conflict that nicely fits into the main theme of the game: different societies and ways of governing.
Finished the first draft of the combat system; wanted to dedicate this update to it but decided to wait and work on it some more.
Not growing (not yet at least). He'll do the intro art for all 16 locations (similar to what we had for AoD but more detailed and up close). It will take a while; he's been working on the first piece for 2 weeks now, so assuming it takes 3 weeks per piece, it will take him about a year. Then we'll see if there's anything else he can do for us.
This early bombshell device greatly affecting your playthrough sounds superb. Yet another great idea that brings freshness to the genre (I can't recall any other RPG where idea like that would be used, probably because it will be very hard to implement right).
(...) On the plus side, IF everything goes well, we’ll have a pretty good foundation by March 2017 and still 3 years of development ahead of us to put it all together.
Does that take into account new engine being used? Or has Unreal engine been dropped and you're planning to use Torque?
Anyway, it would be awesome if the game was released on schedule. Hopefully you will get some press coverage during the development too (although it's unlikely).
(...) On the plus side, IF everything goes well, we’ll have a pretty good foundation by March 2017 and still 3 years of development ahead of us to put it all together.
No, I was talking about my 'domain' here. Once we move the game into "production", I don't want anyone waiting for me or be unsure of what we're doing here or there or make changes because I've thought of something else. The foundation (locations, rough level design, quests and points of interests that require extra work like places you can enter or reach) should be done before that.
So far Nick, Ivan, Oscar, and Mazin are working on the dungeon crawler, so Unreal remains our first choice engine but we haven't done anything with it yet.
.Who is this new concept artist?
