Editorial Leon Boyarsky - Thoughts on RPG development

[Deathy]

As for the argument about download speeds, I know a few people who warez games off 56k modems, as well.

lol....perhaps those people suffer enough for it :D

Not really. Usually, they just leave their connection running overnight.

It may take 'em a couple of weeks for a game, going off the time I downloaded ISO's for Red Hat Linux (2CDs, 1.2GB), but they still can get it without much trouble.

 

[TimCain]

I am always surprised when I read about sexism in CRPG's. I thought by adding gender-based stat adjustments to Arcanum, we would be eliminating this issue, since it made the sexes different but not unbalanced. I guess many people disagree. In any case, here is something I wrote over a year ago, when Arcanum first shipped and people were discussing the topic.

----

As for the history of this decision, we didn't have this in the original game design specifications. We only had the race adjustments. We had hoped that the game would contain a great deal of content that would allow people playing different genders to have different experiences, and we did end up with some. For example, there are quests that have different solutions depending on if you are a man or a woman, and many dialogs take into account gender difference too. But as the game progressed, the difference seemed superficial.

That bothered some of us at Troika. We had wanted every stat to mean something in the game. Otherwise, why have it? If a male human fighter and a female human fighter have the exact same experience in the game, why even have both in the game? It takes a TREMENDOUS amount of art resources to make the gender-specific art animations, which was the main reason we dropped the gnome and halfling females from the game (we had planned from the beginning to not include dwarf or half-ogre females, for story reasons).

So it was during our balance phase that this issue came up. We had already deleted or replaced some skills and spells that were not being used, and to be honest, I was the person who pointed out that the gender stat seemed to do very little in our game other than determine whether the player was called "ma'am" or "sir". True, there were a handful of quests that had different solutions based on gender, but none of them were main-story arc quests, and there were not many of them.

At this point, someone suggested giving stat adjustments to gender, just like we did for race. Our initial reaction was "we can't do that, people won't expect to see that, no other game does that". But the more we thought about it, the more we realized that it fit our philosophy of making every choice matter. Gender should be more than just different art and a different title. Someone playing a male character and a female character should feel a difference between them.

But like all of our other adjustments, we wanted it to be balanced. Neither gender should be better, but we liked the idea of them being different. The first idea was a bonus tied into gender, so depending on which gender you picked, you got a bonus to some stat. But then someone pointed out that we didn't have female choices for four of the races, so you would always get the male bonus. So someone else said "Why not have a balanced adjustment for just females? A plus and a minus, so they are not better or worse but certainly different?". We played around with the idea and several adjustments, and everyone liked the "+1 constitution, -1 strength" adjustments. It especially made sense with the elves, who were matriarchal and stong magic-users. So we added it, along with a background to get rid of it if someone didn't like it.

And some people heard about this change and hated it.

I must admit I don't understand most of the objections. We didn't make one gender better than the other, we just made them different. We didn't pidgeon-hole any gender, since the ultimate potential is the same for both genders. It wasn't a decision made by a bunch of anti-feminist males, as all of the women here liked the idea and a few of the men were hesitant (if only because they were afraid of people misunderstanding the change, not because they didn't like the change itself). We simply made genders different.

Personally, I am offended by games that don't let me choose gender, or that treat different genders as identical, as if there is no difference between them. Difference is NOT a bad thing. Having men and women be the same is as bad as having elves and humans be the same. Elves are NOT pointy-eared humans. Women are NOT men with different art. But because we made them different doesn't mean elves are the race of choice or that women are better characters to play than men. They are just different.

I guess it all boils down to this: Troika wants every choice you make in the game to matter and to affect something. We don't care if the effect is good, bad or neutral, but we want the choice to make the game feel different for the chooser. Gender did not have this effect until we added the stat adjustments.

 

[Rat Keeng]

Providing the choice is one thing. Having the choice effect you or the world around you is something you rarely see in games these days. It's more of a "5 dialogue options - 1 answer" attitude, and that's poison for a game's replayability.

I wouldn't mind seeing more differences in stats between genders, and i don't see how that can be percieved as sexist. You play a role in a game (wow, radical), choosing to play a woman should have it's ups and downs, as should playing a man. I'm not talking about extreme changes here, either gender shouldn't be so crippled as to prevent them from playing a certain type of character, but a male fighter could have advantages over a female fighter, and in contrast, a female thief might have advantages over a male thief.

 

[Steak]

This is my 1st post here, and it’s kind of rambling and super long (plus I’m on my second shot of scotch).


Let me start by saying I usually don't post on any boards -- more of a lurker I guess. But I'm incredibly impressed by the quality of responses here. People actually evaluate other people's comments objectively! Plus, I'm extremely impressed in the level of interaction that Leon and Tim have with their fanbase (here and elsewhere). That they take the time to give us the historical background behind decisions that were made and insight into your dealings with Sierra is a mind-blower.

This was a great article. Although I'd love for developers to take the "screw money, I'm an artist" philosophy, I totally get the business requirement to come up with a product to appeal to the masses. The weird thing is, most of the “hardcore” RPGs are the games that appeal to me, and I may very well be one of the masses. Not the "I bought Deer Hunter at the K-Mart" type, but I don't think that I'm an average RPGer.

Torment, Fallout 1&2 and Arcanum are among what I view as some of the best games I’ve ever played. Outside of the 2D games, Deus Ex and Morrowind are also high on the list. When I play, I think long and hard about my actions to see if they fit with the type of alter ego I want to create. Aside from Deus Ex, all of these games are stat-heavy (and thus usually classified “hardcore”). However, the reason I think of myself as a casual player is that the subject matter of these games appeals to me, whereas many of the pen-and-paper descended fantasy RPGs don’t – even though they share many of the same elements.

For example, in general, orcs and elves don’t do much for me. However, in the context of Arcanum or Morrowind, they “work” in my view of things. Although I like fantasy movies, I never really got into fantasy-themed literature and I never played pen-and-paper games, so the D&D inspired worlds don’t have that immediate draw they may have for those that grew up RPing. I’ve always been a sci-fi freak, so I’m probably more inclined to accept “psi skills” in a game even if they’re exactly the same as “magic” in a fantasy-themed game. A Fallout mutant really isn’t any different from an orc, but somehow I can accept it easier. Is it a fair bias? No. But it’s an admitted bias, and maybe its one that developers should play to in order to expand their reach.


For example, maybe the attention to details and stats could be retained, but focused on a more “mass appeal” genre. Why not a James Bond-inspired espionage RPG? How about a spaghetti western RPG? (probably even more of a niche than fantasy, but you get the idea). I’m guessing games like the upcoming Star Wars Galaxies could be ridiculously stat-heavy, but the masses would be more inclined to sign up for it than EQ2 because the subject matter is more accessible (from a pop culture POV). Lionheart seems like one I’d be likely to check out.

I’m losing sensation in my cheeks, so the scotch is definitely kicking in... here’s my stream of conscious advice to any developers that may read my ramblings:

Create a world that’s unique! After playing Arcanum and Torment, I really wanted to like BG so bad, but I couldn’t get beyond 2 hours of it. For no real reason, the BG world does nothing for me. It never did anything to suck me in and make me think that it was different from any other D&D inspired fantasy world. Although Torment is from that lineage, the storyline, characters, and creatures are so unique it can stand totally on its own merits. The Fallouts, Arcanum, Morrowind, etc. all gave me a compelling reason to see what was over the next hill.

Create some shades of grey! It seems like dialog in any RPG that features branching dialog trees features the “right response” and the “choose this if you’re a moron” response. I love the idea of hiding the “right” response from someone with a low INT stat – an orc moron shouldn’t be able to talk his way out of a conflict. However, there should be cases in which the “un-Politically Correct” response still gets results. For example, playing Fallout the first time, I wanted model my character after Snake Plissken from “Escape From New York.” In a confrontation, saying the smartass comment almost always results in a fight. I know programming it would be a pain, but in a true RP it seems as though some characters should be able to get away with such comments. If you’re playing a badass, mouthing off to the leader of a gang should earn you cred because you have cohones, not result in an immediate skirmish. If you have a high Charisma stat, you might get away with making some blatant sexual innuendo. I know all this would be hard to balance and program – but it would create a true RP experience.

Leave something to the imagination! I came up with this theory at another time, but it’s inspired by the amazing quality available in graphics today. The perception is that a Dungeon Siege or NWN must be better than an Arcanum because it has a rotatable camera and 3D graphics. However, I constantly think back to Zork and the other Infocom games I played on my C64 – in my mind, they still have the best graphics of any game that’s yet to be produced. Imagination is still the most powerful tool you have at your disposal (one of my old professors said it was the largest sex organ.). Vertex shaders, FSAA, bump mapping, etc. are groovy, but don’t worry about looks as much as story and gameplay.

If you’re making an RPG, include some RP! That doesn’t mean just some tweaks to starting stats – make race/gender/class matter. I never even finished Diablo, and Dungeon Siege is pretty but I’m halfway through and have no real reason to finish. Aside from getting more accurate/more damaging, leveling in these games doesn’t mean much as behavior doesn’t really impact your progress – you may as well just play Gauntlet.

Speaking of classes, don’t lock us in. I think classes are good to get the ball rolling, but once the game is started I want to develop however I want. If I’m a weakling mage that wants to use heavy armor and a club, let me do it. I won’t be effective, but gradually I’ll get better. Arcanum, SPECIAL and Morrowind do it right for the most part, and I love the idea of usage-based skill improvement.


Random shout outs and pontificating:
Chadeo – great points!
Piracy blows – pay if you’re gonna play.
Moontyger – You bring up good points about sexism, but I think that really the developers should provide equal opportunity for sexual exploitation. It’s all RP – if you’re a good girl, don’t put out. If you’re a bad girl – whore yourself to get what you want. But the same should go for men – maybe the elf that holds the key to the catacombs swings both ways. If you’re a strapping young buck, choose to take the easy way out and “pleasure” the person that can advance you through the story or choose to complete some painful quest that delivers the same result.

For those of you that made it through this posting: thanks, and take comfort in the fact that it probably won’t happen again for a very long while.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Steak, that has got to be one of the best f**king posts I've ever f**king read. Seriously.

TimCain, I can understand the reason for making the change between males and females, but I do think that even that is still rather superficial. In my mind, it doesn't make any real difference other than "Oh well, just need to increase my strength a bit more than".

What Steak has said gave me an idea. I'd like more dialogue options based on stats other than just intelligence. It's certainly possible in games like Arcanum and it was used, but not, I feel, to a great extent. I think the high Charisma characters should get options to whore themselves through the games. Ugly people wouldn't even think about it. Perhaps races/characters that are more "rough and tumble" would get more "rough and tumble" dialogue. Options for the witty remark and so on. A muscle character with high strength being able to threaten bashing someone for information, an option that doesn't appear for the weaklings.

Also, intelligence itself adjusted slightly. Put another range in there. Currently, the only options are either: Smart or dumb. Put another level in there for the really smart characters. Make the super-smart character have dialogue options that use little known, long, unheard of words. Give them that higher vocabularly to use. Also, a lower level might be good. A character with an Intelligence of 1 should only be able to grunt and "grr", a 2-5 (on a 20 scale) should get a few more options and so on.

I think this also helps create those "shades of grey" that Steak is talking about. The more options that don't result in just "yes" or "no". Actually, one of the quests I made for my Arcanum module was something I liked. I feel it fits the "grey" category. The PC (player character) starts off on a ship and can go below deck to find the cook. The cook's chickens have escaped and they're running around the kitchen. The PC can either help the cook, or insult his cooking and never get to talk to him again (I like "permanent" results. I never agreed with the "Oh, I'm sorry" that a lot of games gave you to make up for "mistakes" you made.) Once the PC helps the cook and catches the chickens (using stillwater rabbit cages) he gets the option to sample one of the cooks new recipes. At this point, the PC can insult him again, politely decline or accept the offer. After accepting, you get this:

[After a while you start to choke. You can feel the blood draining from your face and you start to turn a slighty purple colour. Rasputin carries on as if nothing is wrong] Tastes pretty good doesn't it? It's become my favourite recipe. Why, I reckon this'll make me a fortune!!
* [Spit the horrid tasting substance out onto the floor before you choke to death]
* [Put on a brave face, risk certain death and swallow what you're still trying to chew]
* [Throw up all over Rasputin]

My point is, which option do you choose? I tried to make it so that it's not clear cut. This isn't a "right or wrong". If you spit it out, you insult his feelings and he never talks to you again. If you throw up on him, he "mumbles something about you being ungrateful and wipes it off" IE: Not as bad as spitting it out and insulting him. If you swallow it though... You get blessed with +1 strength. (I was/am thinking of putting in a random thing here so that the result varies, or even checking a stat to determine if you pass out instead of getting the blessing)

So, as I said, I tried to make it interesting. Obviously swallowing it is the "right" option here, but I tried to make it hard to pick. Rather than an obvious "oh, that's what I'm supposed to say". If you want to spit it out though, throwing up is the best option, as he still talks to you. I think it makes it all that bit more fun.

The downside with making a game like this though, is the shed-load of grunt-work required to pull it off. :D (That quest took me two days of spare-time to make, putting in the vomit noises, making you able to catch the chickens, writing the dialogue and so on)

 

[Sharpei_Diem]

My point is, which option do you choose? I tried to make it so that it's not clear cut. This isn't a "right or wrong". If you spit it out, you insult his feelings and he never talks to you again. If you throw up on him, he "mumbles something about you being ungrateful and wipes it off" IE: Not as bad as spitting it out and insulting him. If you swallow it though... You get blessed with +1 strength. (I was/am thinking of putting in a random thing here so that the result varies, or even checking a stat to determine if you pass out instead of getting the blessing)

But you made a decision to reward the player if they chose the 'politically correct' options. In effect, you're saying 'to get the cheese, ya gots ta be nice', which is fine, but also farely standard fare for most rpgs(and perhaps the reason why many on this board seem displeased with the current state of them). True, you made the options harder to guess(which is good) and you made effects permanent(which is also very good - few things in an rpg are as ridiculous as being able to have the same dialogue tree sprout up with the same person even after you've just insulted them), but you also buried it beneath several layers of one-solution dialogues (which isn't that good).

It'd be cool if you were rewarded for playing the response that best represents your current alignment, or your abilities(and if you give a response that differs significantly from your alignment, your alignment shifts). So in that situation in the kitchen, if your character was good at bluffing, and bluffed a response (and it succeeded), and that response approximated their alignment, they get an increase to bluffing, or a gift or something...

hmmm, that just made me think of something else, in current rpgs you very rarely see any recognition of your pc's class or alignment represented in the dialogue tree. In certain cases you'd really expect this; the CE assassin isn't gonna want to open up just cause the paladin's asking, whereas the church locals would probably be gushing with enthusiasm(and gifts).

good choice on not putting the random event there; i think that kind of coding only promotes reloads (kinda like the point allocation system vs rolling - people will just keep doing it until the result is pleasing).

 

[Sharpei_Diem]

alignment

I've never really figured out why some games ask you for your alignment and then never do anything about it. Like sex it seems, alignment is underused as a crucial stat. People will be more open with you the closer you are to their ethical standard...

Another thing torment got right, it was great how you started neutral and your alignment drifted according to your actions...anyone know of other games that have done this?

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

This is my 1st post here, and it?s kind of rambling and super long (plus I?m on my second shot of scotch).

I was more of a bourbon guy, myself.

Let me start by saying I usually don't post on any boards -- more of a lurker I guess. But I'm incredibly impressed by the quality of responses here. People actually evaluate other people's comments objectively! Plus, I'm extremely impressed in the level of interaction that Leon and Tim have with their fanbase (here and elsewhere). That they take the time to give us the historical background behind decisions that were made and insight into your dealings with Sierra is a mind-blower.

Welcome aboard. It's always good to have a good poster sign on. I've also been fairly impressed with the members we've managed to draw in here. I hope it keeps up like this.

This was a great article. Although I'd love for developers to take the "screw money, I'm an artist" philosophy, I totally get the business requirement to come up with a product to appeal to the masses. The weird thing is, most of the ?hardcore? RPGs are the games that appeal to me, and I may very well be one of the masses. Not the "I bought Deer Hunter at the K-Mart" type, but I don't think that I'm an average RPGer.

They appeal to me as well, which is mainly all I play consistantly these days. I don't care much for the current trends in the Big Business CRPG Market, which is why I think Leon wrote that article.

There are still hardcore CRPGs being made though, it's just that most of them are developed by independents, it seems.

Torment, Fallout 1&2 and Arcanum are among what I view as some of the best games I?ve ever played. Outside of the 2D games, Deus Ex and Morrowind are also high on the list. When I play, I think long and hard about my actions to see if they fit with the type of alter ego I want to create. Aside from Deus Ex, all of these games are stat-heavy (and thus usually classified ?hardcore?). However, the reason I think of myself as a casual player is that the subject matter of these games appeals to me, whereas many of the pen-and-paper descended fantasy RPGs don?t ? even though they share many of the same elements.

I never really liked Deus Ex. It played too much like a first person shooter for my tastes.

I do like a good character system model, though. I think SPECIAL is one of the better systems. Spiderweb's games also use a GURPS like character system, which I think is ideal, since those systems allow for flexibility as opposed to class based systems, which really don't allow much flexibility because they're locked in to archetypical stereotypes.

I still think it's odd that in D&D, mages can't wear armor because of gesturing and movement constraints, yet dexterity doesn't play a part in that. Why wouldn't a breastplate work, since it doesn't cover the arms and hands? Basically, they have this idea that mages wear robes, and just came up with a reason why they do without a good basis for it. Things like that seem to stem from a class based system.

For example, in general, orcs and elves don?t do much for me. However, in the context of Arcanum or Morrowind, they ?work? in my view of things. Although I like fantasy movies, I never really got into fantasy-themed literature and I never played pen-and-paper games, so the D&D inspired worlds don?t have that immediate draw they may have for those that grew up RPing.

I'm a little tired of fantasy CRPGs as well. It was different back in the 1980s, when you got burned out on a setting for CRPGs, you could just play a starship CRPG, or Wasteland, or one of the other settings that they made CRPGs for back then.

Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, marketting people came up with the idea that CRPGs have to be fantasy to sell. This is probably because the D&D CRPGs tend to sell well, or Diablo. Outside of that, I'm not convinced they really do. I think if Blizzard made a sci-fi game similar to Diablo, it'd probably sell volumes as well, though.

I?ve always been a sci-fi freak, so I?m probably more inclined to accept ?psi skills? in a game even if they?re exactly the same as ?magic? in a fantasy-themed game. A Fallout mutant really isn?t any different from an orc, but somehow I can accept it easier. Is it a fair bias? No. But it?s an admitted bias, and maybe its one that developers should play to in order to expand their reach.

Fallout had a lot of fantasy themed motiffs that were slightly altered to fit the post apocalyptic setting. Midget shopkeepers, for example, filling in the role of gnomes.

I agree with you though, even though it can be similar, it's still more interesting than your standard themed fantasy game where you see, "You killed Orc" over and over again.

Just out of curiousity, have you tried Geneforge?

It's kind of fantasy, and kind of sci-fi, but not like Arcanum. You basically have genetic magic as the concept of the game, were all technology is dervived from using magic to manipulate life to suit the needs of the Shapers. It's kind of hard to explain in a few paragraphs, but it's a damned interesting setting.

For example, maybe the attention to details and stats could be retained, but focused on a more ?mass appeal? genre. Why not a James Bond-inspired espionage RPG? How about a spaghetti western RPG?

There's a CRPG in the works called Deadlands based on several PnP versions of the setting. It's basically Wild West with magic, demons, and undead.

(probably even more of a niche than fantasy, but you get the idea). I?m guessing games like the upcoming Star Wars Galaxies could be ridiculously stat-heavy, but the masses would be more inclined to sign up for it than EQ2 because the subject matter is more accessible (from a pop culture POV). Lionheart seems like one I?d be likely to check out.

I don't care much for MMORPGs because they really don't have much to offer other than the Quest to Gain More Levels.

Create a world that?s unique! After playing Arcanum and Torment, I really wanted to like BG so bad, but I couldn?t get beyond 2 hours of it. For no real reason, the BG world does nothing for me. It never did anything to suck me in and make me think that it was different from any other D&D inspired fantasy world. Although Torment is from that lineage, the storyline, characters, and creatures are so unique it can stand totally on its own merits. The Fallouts, Arcanum, Morrowind, etc. all gave me a compelling reason to see what was over the next hill.

I agree. The Planescape setting is a hell of a lot better than the tradiational Forgotten Realms faire that's been done to death. There are some interesting settings in D&D, but pretty much all the CRPGs are Forgotten Realms.

Create some shades of grey! It seems like dialog in any RPG that features branching dialog trees features the ?right response? and the ?choose this if you?re a moron? response. I love the idea of hiding the ?right? response from someone with a low INT stat ? an orc moron shouldn?t be able to talk his way out of a conflict.

Low INT dialogue should also keep a player from getting quests and doing things the same way as a smart character. That's one thing Fallout and Arcanum both did exceptionally well, and Fallout 2 somewhat floundered on.

Leave something to the imagination! I came up with this theory at another time, but it?s inspired by the amazing quality available in graphics today. The perception is that a Dungeon Siege or NWN must be better than an Arcanum because it has a rotatable camera and 3D graphics. However, I constantly think back to Zork and the other Infocom games I played on my C64 ? in my mind, they still have the best graphics of any game that?s yet to be produced. Imagination is still the most powerful tool you have at your disposal (one of my old professors said it was the largest sex organ.). Vertex shaders, FSAA, bump mapping, etc. are groovy, but don?t worry about looks as much as story and gameplay.

This is why I suggested Geneforge for you. The graphics aren't that good, but it's got gameplay down in spades.

If you?re making an RPG, include some RP! That doesn?t mean just some tweaks to starting stats ? make race/gender/class matter. I never even finished Diablo, and Dungeon Siege is pretty but I?m halfway through and have no real reason to finish. Aside from getting more accurate/more damaging, leveling in these games doesn?t mean much as behavior doesn?t really impact your progress ? you may as well just play Gauntlet.

That's basically what I think of Diablo 2. It's Gauntlet for a new generation. It's basically a cross between the rogue-likes and Gauntlet. You have the randomly generated dungeon to crawl through, but you also have the action component.

Diablo 2 isn't a bad game, it's just not a CRPG. Like Gauntlet, it's more fun with multiple people, only there's no food to shoot. :D

Speaking of classes, don?t lock us in. I think classes are good to get the ball rolling, but once the game is started I want to develop however I want. If I?m a weakling mage that wants to use heavy armor and a club, let me do it. I won?t be effective, but gradually I?ll get better. Arcanum, SPECIAL and Morrowind do it right for the most part, and I love the idea of usage-based skill improvement.

Geneforge has classes, but you're not locked in to what they can do. It's harder to turn a Guardian in to a magic flinger, but still possible.

Moontyger ? You bring up good points about sexism, but I think that really the developers should provide equal opportunity for sexual exploitation. It?s all RP ? if you?re a good girl, don?t put out. If you?re a bad girl ? whore yourself to get what you want. But the same should go for men ? maybe the elf that holds the key to the catacombs swings both ways. If you?re a strapping young buck, choose to take the easy way out and ?pleasure? the person that can advance you through the story or choose to complete some painful quest that delivers the same result.

100% Agree.

For those of you that made it through this posting: thanks, and take comfort in the fact that it probably won?t happen again for a very long while.

That'd be a shame. You're the kind of poster more sites need, including ours.

 

[Mistress]

This is my 1st post here, and it’s kind of rambling and super long (plus I’m on my second shot of scotch).

Let me start by saying I usually don't post on any boards -- more of a lurker I guess. But I'm incredibly impressed by the quality of responses here. People actually evaluate other people's comments objectively! Plus, I'm extremely impressed in the level of interaction that Leon and Tim have with their fanbase (here and elsewhere). That they take the time to give us the historical background behind decisions that were made and insight into your dealings with Sierra is a mind-blower.

Welcome to RPGCodex! I agree, the quality of posts we've been getting just lately is excellent, I hope it continues this way.

[quoteThis was a great article. Although I'd love for developers to take the "screw money, I'm an artist" philosophy, I totally get the business requirement to come up with a product to appeal to the masses. The weird thing is, most of the “hardcore” RPGs are the games that appeal to me, and I may very well be one of the masses. Not the "I bought Deer Hunter at the K-Mart" type, but I don't think that I'm an average RPGer.[/quote]

The "hardcore" RPGs are what appeal to me most these days. I've moved on from a phase where I was mainly playing FPSs and fantasy dungeon crawlers like Icewind Dale, and now I really want a lot more from a game.

Torment, Fallout 1&2 and Arcanum are among what I view as some of the best games I’ve ever played. Outside of the 2D games, Deus Ex and Morrowind are also high on the list. When I play, I think long and hard about my actions to see if they fit with the type of alter ego I want to create. Aside from Deus Ex, all of these games are stat-heavy (and thus usually classified “hardcore”). However, the reason I think of myself as a casual player is that the subject matter of these games appeals to me, whereas many of the pen-and-paper descended fantasy RPGs don’t – even though they share many of the same elements.

I'd agree with all those except Deus Ex (and FO2 purely because I haven't played it yet!). I really couldn't get into that game for some reason.

For example, in general, orcs and elves don’t do much for me. However, in the context of Arcanum or Morrowind, they “work” in my view of things. Although I like fantasy movies, I never really got into fantasy-themed literature and I never played pen-and-paper games, so the D&D inspired worlds don’t have that immediate draw they may have for those that grew up RPing. I’ve always been a sci-fi freak, so I’m probably more inclined to accept “psi skills” in a game even if they’re exactly the same as “magic” in a fantasy-themed game. A Fallout mutant really isn’t any different from an orc, but somehow I can accept it easier. Is it a fair bias? No. But it’s an admitted bias, and maybe its one that developers should play to in order to expand their reach.

I think a lot of my problem with fantasy/DnD CRPGs is the fact that the market is so saturated with them in various forms. I like variety in the games I play, and I just don't feel that there is enough of that in recent "mainstream" RPGs. Some represent a better implementation of DnD rules, some are better in terms of story and atmosphere, some are more challenging, some are just downright annoying. But they mostly come down to the same thing - elves, dwarves, orcs, good vs evil and if you want to play evil - that just means you demand money etc. Its okay in small doses - but when that's pretty much all that's out there it's pretty disheartening. Just some variety would be nice, and not just variety in terms of - NOW WITH DROW! MAKE YOUR OWN UBER DRIZZT CHARACTER!!!! I have a serious aversion to dual wielding drow rangers in games like Neverwinter Nights.......

For example, maybe the attention to details and stats could be retained, but focused on a more “mass appeal” genre. Why not a James Bond-inspired espionage RPG? How about a spaghetti western RPG? (probably even more of a niche than fantasy, but you get the idea).

Those ideas might be nice, if only to give that variety I mentioned before. I don't always want to "play the role" of a nobody turned super adventurer on a mission to save the nearby city besieged by goblin forces.

I’m guessing games like the upcoming Star Wars Galaxies could be ridiculously stat-heavy, but the masses would be more inclined to sign up for it than EQ2 because the subject matter is more accessible (from a pop culture POV). Lionheart seems like one I’d be likely to check out.

I have a great dislike for MMORPGs. I really don't like the fact that every other game at the moment is a massively multiplayer affair. I don't think its the future of gaming, I think its a step back in terms of quality in games and gameplay. If I play a game multiplayer, especially an RPG, I want to play it with people I know I will enjoy the experience with. I don't want to waste my time playing with a group of idiots and I don't want to treat it like an online lonely hearts club. I want to play a good game and enjoy it. Games should partially be a form of escape from morons, not a new way to encounter them.

Create a world that’s unique! After playing Arcanum and Torment, I really wanted to like BG so bad, but I couldn’t get beyond 2 hours of it. For no real reason, the BG world does nothing for me. It never did anything to suck me in and make me think that it was different from any other D&D inspired fantasy world. Although Torment is from that lineage, the storyline, characters, and creatures are so unique it can stand totally on its own merits. The Fallouts, Arcanum, Morrowind, etc. all gave me a compelling reason to see what was over the next hill.

I can see exactly what you're saying here - there's something particularly unmotivating about playing a game when you know exactly what's round the corner - more orcs and another village with chests full of gold in the streets.... Although I did, to some extent, enjoy playing Baldur's Gate, I had a lot more periods where I grew tired of it than when playing Torment or Fallout, in the end, I didn't feel compelled to play it, more determined to finish it because I had paid for it.

I agree with Saint's reply here also - it would at least be nice to see some more settings being used, other than Forgotten Realms.

Create some shades of grey! It seems like dialog in any RPG that features branching dialog trees features the “right response” and the “choose this if you’re a moron” response. I love the idea of hiding the “right” response from someone with a low INT stat – an orc moron shouldn’t be able to talk his way out of a conflict.

Yes, this would be nice to see in more games. While going for the comedy option in a lot of games, and providing an obvious and stupid dialogue option, there is a lack of interest and realism. It would be nice if there were more scope for hitting the wrong tone in dialogue.

Leave something to the imagination! I came up with this theory at another time, but it’s inspired by the amazing quality available in graphics today. The perception is that a Dungeon Siege or NWN must be better than an Arcanum because it has a rotatable camera and 3D graphics. However, I constantly think back to Zork and the other Infocom games I played on my C64 – in my mind, they still have the best graphics of any game that’s yet to be produced. Imagination is still the most powerful tool you have at your disposal (one of my old professors said it was the largest sex organ.). Vertex shaders, FSAA, bump mapping, etc. are groovy, but don’t worry about looks as much as story and gameplay.

Yes! The most important thing for me right now in terms of the games I play is story. There is far too much focus on making the most visually stunning, graphics intensive games - something has to give, and its the story. I think this is also the case with the trend for having a multiplayer element in games. Certainly this was the main problem with Neverwinter Nights - they may aswell have just released it as a multiplayer campaign, at least then I would have known to steer completely clear of it.

If you’re making an RPG, include some RP! That doesn’t mean just some tweaks to starting stats – make race/gender/class matter.

This would be nice. Some games pull it off, but there are far too many that really just seem to have superficial differences in things like gender and class.

Speaking of classes, don’t lock us in. I think classes are good to get the ball rolling, but once the game is started I want to develop however I want. If I’m a weakling mage that wants to use heavy armor and a club, let me do it. I won’t be effective, but gradually I’ll get better. Arcanum, SPECIAL and Morrowind do it right for the most part, and I love the idea of usage-based skill improvement.

This is one thing that has always bugged me about the DnD system. Spellcasters should be able to wear armour - based on their attributes and skills attained throughout their progress.

For those of you that made it through this posting: thanks, and take comfort in the fact that it probably won’t happen again for a very long while.

It wasn't a case of "making it through" - I enjoyed reading and replying, and reading other responses. I like to see well thought out and detailed responses to things, and I would love to see more and more of it here!

 

[DarkUnderlord]

But you made a decision to reward the player if they chose the 'politically correct' options. In effect, you're saying 'to get the cheese, ya gots ta be nice', which is fine, but also farely standard fare for most rpgs(and perhaps the reason why many on this board seem displeased with the current state of them).

True and I agree to an extent. The only problem is that getting blessed for throwing up doesn't quite make sense. I think, in any situation, you have to be nice to get someone to do something for you. Even if the character is evil, you need to "suck up" to them, otherwise they'll push you away. It's only in a rare circumstance where a character will love you for insulting them, because that's their personality. Even then, that can become a bit over-used if done too often.

I suppose I could make the rat burger an item tha's on Rasputin's person. Thus, if the PC steals it from him or kills him and takes it, you can still get the goods.

True, you made the options harder to guess(which is good) and you made effects permanent(which is also very good - few things in an rpg are as ridiculous as being able to have the same dialogue tree sprout up with the same person even after you've just insulted them), but you also buried it beneath several layers of one-solution dialogues (which isn't that good).

I'm actually interested in what people think of this. When I get home, I'll paste the entire dialogue file in and you can tell me what you think.

EDIT: See this post here for the quest.

It'd be cool if you were rewarded for playing the response that best represents your current alignment, or your abilities. So in that situation in the kitchen, if your character was good at bluffing, and bluffed a response (and it succeeded), and that response approximated their alignment, they get an increase to bluffing, or a gift or something...

Sounds like a decent idea, I'd be damned doing it myself in Arcanum though It's a move to more of a "use skills, skills improve" system though, rather than a user selects. I'm not sure what kind of gift you could give them. Alignment is one of the hard things to work out uses for, other than the simple "Me evil character, me not talk to you unless you evil too".

Just on this though:

(and if you give a response that differs significantly from your alignment, your alignment shifts)

Quests are given alignment adjustments. So I can make an "evil" quest by sticking in a -10 in a quest field. An evil character completeing that quest gets -10 alignment, a good player doing that quest also gets a penalty to alignment. There's not much more you can do than that though, really.

good choice on not putting the random event there; i think that kind of coding only promotes reloads (kinda like the point allocation system vs rolling - people will just keep doing it until the result is pleasing).

Only if they know to expect a pleasing result. My two thoughts on this were:
1) Randomly choose between:
* choking and losing HP until Rasputin saves you with the heimlich manouvre (spelling?) (Also, if I put it as a food item on Rasputin and you've killed him to eat it, you don't get saved)
* fainting for a moment
* forced vomit/spitting out of substance
* swalling it okay with nothing happening
* blessing

2) Doing the above options, but making it dependant on stats. IE:
* choking and losing HP: Constitution (8- )
* fainting: Constitution (9)
* forced vomit: Constitution (10)
* swalling okay: Constitution (11)
* blessing: Constitution (12+)
(Numbers are just approx for now)
The only problem is, not many people that I know of boost constitution, so making all these options is a moot point, as no-one's going to see them. It's also more dialogue writing to do for just one quest. Which, because you're doing it in your spare time, becomes a hassle. There were times when after a month, I'd only done one decent dialogue because I lacked the time to do anything properly. That's essentially why I gave up on it.

 

[Section8]

What Steak has said gave me an idea. I'd like more dialogue options based on stats other than just intelligence. It's certainly possible in games like Arcanum and it was used, but not, I feel, to a great extent. I think the high Charisma characters should get options to whore themselves through the games. Ugly people wouldn't even think about it. Perhaps races/characters that are more "rough and tumble" would get more "rough and tumble" dialogue. Options for the witty remark and so on. A muscle character with high strength being able to threaten bashing someone for information, an option that doesn't appear for the weaklings.

Going on a slight tangent here, but this reminds me of a conversation I had with Saint Proverbius a while back. Something that would add a great deal of complexity, but may compromise certain character choices to some extent, would be varied communities that look for different qualities in people.

The general model seems to be Charisma (or equivalent) is the main determining stat and Intelligence also tends to be pretty helpful, with the general rationale being that intelligent NPCs warm to those who are on the same level as them, and dumb characters are easily outsmarted.

However, there are certain subcultures, easily seen just about anywhere in the world that pride themselves on varied personal qualities. For example, something that is a somewhat fading tradition in Australia is being "blokey" ie, steering clear of preening, posturing, fashion, etc in favour of showing your abilities as a beer drinking, a bit of a tough nut, being relaxed and mildly offensive around the lads and only trying to impress if you think it is going to get you sex.

To rationalise in a SPECIAL way, seeing as a great dal of this community knows and understands Fallout, the determining factors here are Endurance and Strength.

To further the example, anyone who shows themself as intelligent is likely to be resented, something called Tall Poppy syndrome (as in "cut 'em down to size" for those unfamiliar with the term.) However, it's quite possible for an intelligent person to fit in by learning the mannerisms, colloquialisms and general patters of behaviour. There are also ways for an intelligent person to approach the "trials" offered, such as levels of beer consumption, such as feeding drinks to a pot plant (Want some rye? 'course ya do) or by informing your company that your tolerance to alcohol is a bit low because the ex-missus didn't approve.

Likewise, a charismatic character will be an outsider if they flaunt it. Using Charisma in the SPECIAL sense, ie representative of physical beauty and charm, a person possesive of high charisma is likely to be ostracised if they use it too much. A well-dressed guy drinking designer drinks and easily chatting up the ladies the blokes have been eyeing off is likely to wind up in a lot of trouble. However, a character possesing equal stats who doesn't bother to dress up, drinks beers with the rest of the lads, and can't help the fact that the ladies flock to him, but is quick to try and fix his mates up is likely to be accepted and well liked.

So the question we ask now is, should intelligent and/or charismatic characters be able to charm/outwit within any society, therefore preserving the equal validity of making character choices toward a diplomatic role as compared to a combat role, or should there be certain societies that simply don't accept those who aren't in line with the norm?

It would certainly add more spice to the game if a diplomat was powerless to reason with a certain society/culture, but there must be ample compensation, or prohibitive circumstances for other character choices, which is my personal preference as I am not a fan of completist attitudes toward games. I much prefer a game that you can play over again with different experiences.

With all the talk of shades of grey in other threads, I think this is another area where things could definitely benefit from not being so clear cut. It would make dialogue choices a little more blurred because until you've become somewhat acquainted with a community you don't really know how to play to the gallery, so to speak.

We now return to our scheduled programming.

 

[Sharpei_Diem]

I think, in any situation, you have to be nice to get someone to do something for you. Even if the character is evil, you need to "suck up" to them, otherwise they'll push you away.

I suppose I could make the rat burger an item tha's on Rasputin's person. Thus, if the PC steals it from him or kills him and takes it, you can still get the goods.

Hmm, so if the rat burger was on his person, you add a lot of complexity to it:

1) kill him, take the burger (maybe not without consequences): for those of evil/neutral and/or violent dispositions
2) steal it: for thief type people
3) charm him(etc) and get it from him: for magic-using types
4) be nice and talk to him: for good types

Any way the player wants to play their character, they have a possibility to acquire the prize(which only works in certain circumstances anyways)...a pretty cool solution.

Sounds like a decent idea, I'd be damned doing it myself in Arcanum though It's a move to more of a "use skills, skills improve" system though, rather than a user selects. I'm not sure what kind of gift you could give them. Alignment is one of the hard things to work out uses for, other than the simple "Me evil character, me not talk to you unless you evil too".

I liked the idea in BG where your characters had a reputation and it modified the degree to which people liked/loathed you (depending on their disposition). I think they were a little too easy with it though, and I didn't like the idea that you could tithe your evil away.

But really, are a group of surly pirates that are sitting in a pub getting drunk going to want to talk to a paladin?

What'd be fantastic is if:

7 pm-3 am - pirates drinking : will talk with evil/ rogue/female players (otherwise say something like 'piss off' or perhaps fight)

3am-11 am - passed out on ship : can be awoken and threatened to talk by initimating players(high str/con or level > them+2)

11am-4 pm - working on ship : can't be talked to unless permission given by captain

4 pm - 7 pm - eating: approachable by all.

Quests are given alignment adjustments. So I can make an "evil" quest by sticking in a -10 in a quest field. An evil character completeing that quest gets -10 alignment, a good player doing that quest also gets a penalty to alignment. There's not much more you can do than that though, really.

I was thinking of this, and thought that one might be able to give the player an 'order stat' ranging from 0-100 where 1-33 is chaotic, 34-67 is neutral, etc and an 'ethos stat' ranging from 0-100 where 1-33 is evil etc.

You'd still let the player only see the translation of their alignment LE(for 70/20) but you could adjust those stats pretty freely (for x action then ethos +5, order -10) for an action that is lawful, but evil. Eventually the player's actions will decide their alignment: if they're wishy-washy they'll come off as neutral...

Only if they know to expect a pleasing result.
The only problem is, not many people that I know of boost constitution, so making all these options is a moot point, as no-one's going to see them. It's also more dialogue writing to do for just one quest. Which, because you're doing it in your spare time, becomes a hassle. .

Good point. Personally I prefer knowing what's going on("You're stronger") than not ("Something happened" or no msg at all).

I think it's better to give them the reward for the appropriate action(whatever appropriate in the case means: ie, rescueing or killing someone) and making that reward consistent, but make the condition for the conversation somewhat random(cook isn't in the kitchen, he doesn't want to talk right now - but maybe if you brought him some real meat...)

 

[HanoverF]

So the question we ask now is, should intelligent and/or charismatic characters be able to charm/outwit within any society, therefore preserving the equal validity of making character choices toward a diplomatic role as compared to a combat role, or should there be certain societies that simply don't accept those who aren't in line with the norm?

It would certainly add more spice to the game if a diplomat was powerless to reason with a certain society/culture, but there must be ample compensation, or prohibitive circumstances for other character choices, which is my personal preference as I am not a fan of completist attitudes toward games. I much prefer a game that you can play over again with different experiences.

Well someone with a high intelligence should know pretty quickly if their attepts to ape local customs is going well or making them look like an ass, and if you're very charismatic your likeable no matter how alien, to an extent. In a good game there should be towns/societys/cultures where your abilities dont work in the straightfoward manner you're accustom, but theres a roundabout way you can fit in.

Such as a charismatic person in a town full of robots, it doesn't matter how charming you are interfacing with a robot, you wont get what you want, but you can find an intelligent human who you can charm into getting you what you want.

Or a weak intelligent person in a town where you get respect according to how strong of a monster skull you wear around your neck. You'll just get some chuckles wearing a large rat skull around, but theres a big dumb guy with two deathclaw skulls who will trade one for your miniature trans-spatial rattal demon skull.

The player shouldn't have to change the way he plays (read a lot of science books/kill a deathclaw) to succeed in those towns, or just have to flat out bypass them.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I suggested to Eric Dallaire, many moons ago, that Charisma and Intelligence be less of a factor when dealing with Feralkin in Lionheart. Feralkin are imbued with animal spirits, basically, so it would make more sense to me, at least, if Strength wasn't what determined whether or not they liked you.

After all, the animal kingdom is pretty much ruled by Strength, since the strongest are typically the ones who get to breed and lead the pack. Charisma may be a factor in leadership with straight up humans, but this is just not the case with animals.

Instead of the Charisma followed by Intelligence thing that's so common in CRPGs, at least the good ones, it should most likely be Strength followed by Charisma. Charisma still should be a factor, since you can relate that with animals having courting rituals, or an inate ability to posture themselves to get what they want. However, Strength is the litnus test for animal bonds.

 

[Constipated Craprunner]

This was a great article. Although I'd love for developers to take the "screw money, I'm an artist" philosophy, I totally get the business requirement to come up with a product to appeal to the masses. The weird thing is, most of the “hardcore” RPGs are the games that appeal to me, and I may very well be one of the masses. Not the "I bought Deer Hunter at the K-Mart" type, but I don't think that I'm an average RPGer.

However, to some extent what we are beginning to see in the mass market of games is a trend for any kind of game to have hardcore RPG elements, while at the same time not being an RPG. For instance, Fable will (hopefully) be a unique take on the hardcore genre with absolutely minimum stats. Most Diablow clones allow have stats in spades.
In many ways, the RPG market is not fading away- it is just being consumed by other genres. The free form environment that has been so stereotypical in our beloved old skool RPGies is going into immensely popular games left and right- Grand Theft Auto 3 is currently selling amazingly well, and at the same time creating an environment that not only allows but encourages going off the beaten (to death) path.

the reason I think of myself as a casual player is that the subject matter of these games appeals to me, whereas many of the pen-and-paper descended fantasy RPGs don’t – even though they share many of the same elements.

An interesting thought, and worth looking into. Perhaps Lionheart will shed some light on to this issue.

The Aurora engine that NWN uses was also used in MDK2, which was published back in May, 2000.

I still find it funny that NWN could, in theory, be easily ported to the Dreamcast.

The general model seems to be Charisma (or equivalent) is the main determining stat and Intelligence also tends to be pretty helpful, with the general rationale being that intelligent NPCs warm to those who are on the same level as them, and dumb characters are easily outsmarted.

A good post Sec8, and an interesting topic. Am I the only one who thought that PST handled this issue well?

 

[brianwh]

>Until video games lose their "childish" stigma, I never see a story based >game breaking the 1mil mark.


Actually, story games regularly pass the one million mark on consoles. Look at the Final Fantasy series for a few examples:

FF VII Over 8 million
FF X Over 5 million

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

>Until video games lose their "childish" stigma, I never see a story based >game breaking the 1mil mark.


Actually, story games regularly pass the one million mark on consoles. Look at the Final Fantasy series for a few examples:

FF VII Over 8 million
FF X Over 5 million

Those are console games, though.

You know the funny thing about console games? They advertise on TV a hell of a lot. I rarely see a PC game advertised on TV. Wonder why that is.

 

[Droog White Smile]

What an embarrassing read.

I see people clamoring on the boards all the time for more "Fallouts", but which do you think a publisher is more interested in, a Fallout (app 300,000 - 400,000 worldwide over its lifetime) or a Diablo 2 (1 million units in a week)?
<...>
Faced with this reality, most people throw up their hands and just decide to go for the Diablos (which are easier to make than a hardcore RPG, by the way).
<...>
Publishers always look to the past for their numbers - if you're making a Fallout style game, expect Fallout style numbers.
<...>
Well, not really "we" - I'm too busy trying to make RPGs that sell.

What a fag.

It's no fuckin' wonder that he decided to join Blizzard to "make RPGs that sell".

 

[Black]

Create Undead is a-go!

 

[Darth Roxor]

 

[ghostdog]

What bullshit is this ? He's a fag for basically stating the facts ? No edgy points for you Drog.

You get some points for necromancing this thread though. Interesting read from a time when RPG developers actually frequented this forum.

 

[Derper]

See if you can spot the decline

 

[Grunker]

a) He's just saying the truth - that you can't be a developer without focusing solely on money instead of quality games!

b) ?????

c) It's a shame developers don't come here anymore.

?

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

It's sad that there are no longer cRPG developers that are good enough to be able to post on Codex.

 

[Darth Roxor]

It's sad that there are no more cRPG developers