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.

Interview Gothic 3 interview, part II

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,017
Tags: Gothic III; Piranha Bytes

Here is the <a href=http://www.rpgcodex.com/content.php?id=132>second part</a> of our <a href=http://www.rpgcodex.com/content.php?id=131>Gothic 3 interview</a> with Kai Rosenkranz.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote><b>9. Tell us about factions. It's been mentioned that you can join more than one faction, and that you can leave a faction. Can you explain how that works? Also, why did you decide to move away from the "join one faction and stick with it" model? Any Orcish factions/clans?</b>
<br>
<br>
We have increased the degree of freedom in most aspects of the game. To create a coherent gameplay, the guild-concept needed a little more freedom, too. The general idea is to turn limits into options. In the predecessors, joining a guild meant being forced into only one third of the game. So in fact one would have to play the game at least three times to get the big picture. In Gothic 3, the hero can pick out the plum jobs and sympathize with more than one guild, or with none. Whether or not a guild offers him a quest does no longer depend on his affiliation to the guild, but on its attitude towards the player.</blockquote>A controversial feature. If done right, it would add another layer of depth to the game. If not... deja vu.
<br>
<br>
<br>
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,017
The reputation system should take care of that problem naturally. Let's say you joined both Human Resistance and Orcish Overlords factions to see which one offers better dental benefits. You do some small missions, not enough to piss someone off. Still ok. Then you decide to free some humans. Suddenly the human faction likes a lot more, and the orcish faction likes you a lot less. Each quest adjusts your reputation (bonus to HR, penalty to OO) and has a reputation requirement, so now the humans offer you more important quests, and the orcs barely trust you and are one short step from attacking you on sight. If you try to balance it out, helping the orcs, and then helping the humans, you'll waste the available reputation points pool on maintaining low-level relationships with both factions, without using it to raise in ranks in one.

We did something similar in AoD.
 

Claw

Erudite
Patron
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
3,777
Location
The center of my world.
Project: Eternity Divinity: Original Sin 2
Yeah, it would be cool if it was done like that, but I find the "you only get to see part of the game" (and we want to fix it) attitude worrying.
 

Hazelnut

Erudite
Joined
Dec 17, 2002
Messages
1,490
Location
UK
Vault Dweller said:
If you try to balance it out, helping the orcs, and then helping the humans, you'll waste the available reputation points pool on maintaining low-level relationships with both factions, without using it to raise in ranks in one.

We did something similar in AoD.

Ooooooh - I like the sound of that. :D (AoD interest++)

Decisions, decisions. I both love and hate them being an indecisive bastard.. but it sure makes for a deeper game.
 

hiciacit

Liturgist
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
406
Location
I've been there
Kai said:
Question is, where is this button? To find it, the hero needs one of the magic red-button-seeking-gizmos. To get a gizmo, he has to talk to someone who... and so on.

Bah...at least in Oblivion you get the magic red-button-seeking-gizmo right from the get go.
 

denizsi

Arcane
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
9,927
Location
bosphorus
I find almost this whole interview part 2 worrying.

we just add the diplomatic dialogue options right from the beginning. The nameless hero has an innate sense of diplomacy, so to speak.

Considering the game doesn't feature any diplomatic "talents", this can't be bad right? Or can it? I don't know what to make of this.

In the predecessors, joining a guild meant being forced into only one third of the game. So in fact one would have to play the game at least three times to get the big picture

And what's wrong with it? I'm sure there are worse things to say for your game, but this ( all in once ) is still bad. Well anyway, it's not all that surprising that PB takes this "consumerism" approach as well. At least if it's really like VD explained, then it's ok I guess.

Question is, where is this button?

As I read on, I really hoped that he said something like "Question is, do I have enough power on my finger tip to press this button from the get-go?"

Axe and sword have always been different in terms of the damage they cause and the possibility to parry a strike. In Gothic 3 there is another significant difference: You can fight with two swords simultaneously, but you can't do that with two axes. On the other hand an axe has some fancy moves like a sweeping attack against encircling enemies

Of course, that's all the difference in the world between swords and axes!!

However, to give the credit where due, I liked the answer to 6th question, and particularly this sentence in 5th answer;

One-handed sword fighting is the basic perk he needs to be able to carry a sword without killing himself by mistake
 

Jora

Arcane
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Messages
1,115
Location
Finland
denizsi said:
Considering the game doesn't feature any diplomatic "talents", this can't be bad right? Or can it? I don't know what to make of this.
I think what Kai meant is that diplomatic dialogue choices don't require any kind of stat checks. It's just like in the previous games but in the role-playing point of view it's bad.
 

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