Interview Leonard Boyarsky and the PA game

[Vault Dweller]

You mean that if it sold terribly, the publisher wouldn't care if he talked about sales figures?

I mean, like mathboy said, that Leon wouldn't have used "I'd like to tell you" phrase if there was nothing to tell.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

You mean that if it sold terribly, the publisher wouldn't care if he talked about sales figures?

I mean, like mathboy said, that Leon wouldn't have used "I'd like to tell you" phrase if there was nothing to tell.

Didn't we had some confirmation of how much units ToEE sold? I seem to remember some debate involving ToEE selling more than NWN expansion packs. Or was it just in a certain time frame, and not the whole thing?

 

[jiujitsu]

You mean that if it sold terribly, the publisher wouldn't care if he talked about sales figures?

I mean, like mathboy said, that Leon wouldn't have used "I'd like to tell you" phrase if there was nothing to tell.

I think he was just saying that if he was allowed to tell he would.

On the other hand he may have worded it that way on purpose so that we assumed it did well enough to tell people about.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Didn't we had some confirmation of how much units ToEE sold? I seem to remember some debate involving ToEE selling more than NWN expansion packs. Or was it just in a certain time frame, and not the whole thing?

That, as Volourn tirelessly and annoyingly pointed out, still doesn't gives us any idea about the numbers. Of course, considering that both HotU and ToEE were released in about the same time, and I'm sure that HotU sold decently, what's with Bio hype and all, that means that ToEE did well, but these are merely speculations.

I think he was just saying that if he was allowed to tell he would.

That's understandable, and doesn't require any other wording to emphasise that. Like I said, maybe I'm reading too much into it, but considering that the standard answer are "we can't disclose that information", Leon's "I'd like to tell you" stands out.

 

[Walks with the Snails]

That's understandable, and doesn't require any other wording to emphasise that. Like I said, maybe I'm reading too much into it, but considering that the standard answer are "we can't disclose that information", Leon's "I'd like to tell you" stands out.

Or quite possibly he's just a nice guy who'd gladly answer any questions that were asked of him if he were able to.

 

[almondblight]

You are right the placeholder DnD stuff won't be a hindrance in an orginal IP system. But I still do not see how ranged combat can be done effectively in RT not to mention area effect weps like grenades. I offer no insight in exposing this but it bears repeating.

Freedom Force pulled it off pretty well, they slowed down the action a bit, had less people on screen, gave good feedback and your characters reacted without much delay. Not sure if I would want to play an RPG with this system, but ranged can be done well.

 

[Crazy Tuvok]

Freedom Force pulled it off pretty well, they slowed down the action a bit, had less people on screen, gave good feedback and your characters reacted without much delay. Not sure if I would want to play an RPG with this system, but ranged can be done well.

Oh yeah. I forgot all about Freedom Force, which did pull it off pretty well. One potential big difference tho is that most of the ranged attacks in FF were kind of one - offs. So Johnny Thunderfire or whomever would fire his Ray of Electrifying Death and then have to wait to recharge. It is a little different if you are talking a firefight where everybody is using machine and hand guns and the projectiles are flying everywhere all the time.

Still, thanks for reminding me. FF did have a pretty good system (tho the way it played out they might have as well gone straight turn based, but whatever). Cool this gives me some hope.

 

[littleboy]

You could limit the ammo in each clip, each shot fires 3-8 rounds clip has 15-25 bullets, changing magazines takes as much time as a firing round. To get in close just wait behind cover till he has to change the clip. Especially if it's some sort of PA or rustic/colony setting and the guns are prone to jamming/blowing up/not working and bullets are very scarse/expensive. The personel shield that existed in dune were a cool idea, if you shot it with a lazer BIG exposion and it would slow down bullets so you could dodge them, making hand to hand combat particulay effective/neccisary.

Does anyone remember the cowboys in space cartoons from the eighties bravestar/galexy rangers/saber rider some sort of setting like this always appeled to me, especialy if it was set on mars and then earth go nucluar/asteroid, technology is limited, people are scarse and only some of the government and organizations from earth exist. Char could be on the last/only ship to escape from earth as the shit hits the fan.

 

[almondblight]

Actually, now that I think about it there are some range combat things, like suppression fire, that would be very difficult to do with turn based (only ever saw that done with Combat Mission, and even then it was give orders and then watch how the turn went). It probably wouldn't really make a difference with in a single player focused limited ammo game, but there might be other things that could be done better too. When thinking about how much real time sucks, we should also keep in mind that we've been given really, really crappy real time games.

 

[Reklar]

I played around with the character creation in Freedom Force and one of the ranged attack options you have is Pinstripe's machinegun fire. It's a fairly low intensity attack and it doesn't use a lot of energy, so if you consider that as reloading time then it's fairly doable in real-time with pause. That being said, I'd still prefer turn-based for a Troika PA game, but I have confidence that they could manage a RT with pause combat system decently.

As to setting, I wouldn't mind a sci-fi/space cRPG at all even if it has implants (think combat implants in Fallout 2), just so long as it doesn't get ridiculous. It certainly would be a lot more dangerous to get into a firefight out in the open though. One suit puncture and you very well could be a goner if you can't slap a patch in a real hurry.

-Reklar
(a Fallout/RPG fan)

 

[RGE]

Our goal is to present the player with a large variety of ways to develop your character, without overwhelming them with too many choices immediately. Our feeling is that you should be able to create the kind of character you want to play without a lot of difficulty and relatively quickly, and then as the game progresses you are given more and more options to define your character as you see fit.

I really like this part. At least if it means that I wouldn't start out with a level 1 character and proceed to level 20+ or what have you. I'm kind of tired of that setup, and wish for games where I get to design my character at the start and then not grow up on steroids during a relatively short time of living. Spreading the design decisions out over time might be good or bad though, depending on what decisions there are to be made after the character is already designed/developed to a large degree.

 

[triCritical]

Our goal is to present the player with a large variety of ways to develop your character, without overwhelming them with too many choices immediately. Our feeling is that you should be able to create the kind of character you want to play without a lot of difficulty and relatively quickly, and then as the game progresses you are given more and more options to define your character as you see fit.

I really like this part. At least if it means that I wouldn't start out with a level 1 character and proceed to level 20+ or what have you. I'm kind of tired of that setup, and wish for games where I get to design my character at the start and then not grow up on steroids during a relatively short time of living. Spreading the design decisions out over time might be good or bad though, depending on what decisions there are to be made after the character is already designed/developed to a large degree.

Well except you aren't born an infant. In other words, lets say you start the game at 20, or 30 there is a good possibility that you already know what kind of person you are. And you don't need in game decisions to help fashion your character, hence what the first 20-30 years of your life was for. In other words, I already know I am a thief, that I can climb walls and hide in shadows and pick pockets. And I only get better as I proceed in my particular profession. Its a lot like real life. Simplicity is a euphemism for dumbed down.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

*snip*

Usually, character creation or generation in CRPGs is not meant to represent what you were before, but rather, what you decide to be at one given point, how your past enabled you to have certain skills, attributes or powers at the point where the game begins.

 

[triCritical]

Usually, character creation or generation in CRPGs is not meant to represent what you were before, but rather, what you decide to be at one given point, how your past enabled you to have certain skills, attributes or powers at the point where the game begins.

This is sort of my point. Why is it a thief can move silenty and fighter can't, or why can one person shoot small arms very well and another throw rocks and yet at this point no one has a single experience point? The answer is we are to assume that prior to the game, or the campaigns starting point they trained in these aspects.

A better game would then allow a continual change to the character that continually allows your character to grow in very different ways. I however, can't really stand games in which you start out as a clone of every other character and it is only from the time of starting the game that you actually begin to learn anything.

 

[Whipporowill]

I'm all into the idea of starting the game as some random pig farmer with no useful skills (unless hog tending 101 counts as one) and where you have to make in-game choices as to what you are to be. I'm also a fan of games that give your character an extensive background - like being a blacksmith's son and having some minor smithing skills and so on. Both are interesting in their own way as they make you play the game differently.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

This is sort of my point. Why is it a thief can move silenty and fighter can't, or why can one person shoot small arms very well and another throw rocks and yet at this point no one has a single experience point? The answer is we are to assume that prior to the game, or the campaigns starting point they trained in these aspects.

True. For instance, I always pictured the ability to start out and decide your skills in Fallout to be derived from the training you would get from Vault archives... but having that same ability with no background in Fallout 2 felt iffy. How a tribal learns about Rocket Launchers and explosives is beyond me.

A better game would then allow a continual change to the character that continually allows your character to grow in very different ways. I however, can't really stand games in which you start out as a clone of every other character and it is only from the time of starting the game that you actually begin to learn anything.

Well, like I said, sometimes it can be excused as the defining moment you begin 'adventuring'. I think D&D had something similar, like having PCs be level 0 or have NPC classes which represented the players' skill before he started adventuring. Not sure about this, though.

In some games however, I assume a system like Darklands could be done. Choose a background (which will age the PC and give him skills, symbolizing advancement), then decide to train him further or not before starting the game. That seems well adjusted.

 

[RGE]

Well except you aren't born an infant.

I'm trying to wrap my mind about this sentence. What does it mean?

In other words, lets say you start the game at 20, or 30 there is a good possibility that you already know what kind of person you are. And you don't need in game decisions to help fashion your character, hence what the first 20-30 years of your life was for. In other words, I already know I am a thief, that I can climb walls and hide in shadows and pick pockets.

So far I agree, and personally I'd probably prefer no ingame advancement at all. But in my experience it's a lot smoother to play if I don't have to get used to everything at the start, and instead get more new options as the game proceeds. Usually this could be done by only providing opportunities to use a few new abilities at a time, thus having the game pace the learning curve. But this could be difficult or impossible to do in a non-linear game, and I don't want my RPGs to be linear.

And I only get better as I proceed in my particular profession. Its a lot like real life.

Well, I don't think a person should necessarily become significantly better during the short time that most CRPGs last. I'm sure spending a year in the post-nuclear wasteland after having lived only inside a vault can be a learning experience, but is it really enough to turn a somewhat ordinary vault-dweller into the best of the best in whatever field the player chooses to pursue? Well, apparently it was. And perhaps it's an important part of the CRPG experience to start out at the bottom and end up at the top. I just think I could do without it. I think perks are an excellent way of simulating learning experiences, while massive skill and HP increases seem more appropriate as results of long and dedicated work or training.

In a CRPG that's meant to simulate a lifetime or at least several years of life I could understand how someone could go from being a nobody to becoming a master, or develop completely new skills. So I don't think that people can't learn new professions, I just think that most CRPGs don't provide the time and the environment that I think would be needed for such developments.

Simplicity is a euphemism for dumbed down.

I'm not sure what this is referring to, but I don't dislike things just because they're simple. Too often it seems as if developers end up with things that are too complex for their game, which means that many choices end up being obviously bad choices, which in my opinion disqualifies them as 'real' choices. I think starting out as simplistic as possible is a good idea, and then only add complexity when the game calls for it. But what do I know? I just play the games...

 

[triCritical]

I'm not sure what this is referring to, but I don't dislike things just because they're simple. Too often it seems as if developers end up with things that are too complex for their game, which means that many choices end up being obviously bad choices, which in my opinion disqualifies them as 'real' choices. I think starting out as simplistic as possible is a good idea, and then only add complexity when the game calls for it. But what do I know? I just play the games...

Its not to say that simple means dumbed down. Its more like, when a developer simplifies something, it normally means dumbed down. Compared to a game like Europa Universalis, one might say that Civillization is dumbed down, but I think it would be more correct to say simplified. However, that is more the exception to the rule. As far as CRPG's are concerned its normally just dumbed down.

In a CRPG that's meant to simulate a lifetime or at least several years of life I could understand how someone could go from being a nobody to becoming a master, or develop completely new skills. So I don't think that people can't learn new professions, I just think that most CRPGs don't provide the time and the environment that I think would be needed for such developments.

This is that whole suspension of disbelief. Normally when I played PnP, at most I would gain was one level, max two. However, the majority of people just feel ripped off if that ub3ring part of their CRPG is missing. Case and point, how many games like darklands have been made since then Darklands?

I'm trying to wrap my mind about this sentence. What does it mean?

What I mean is you don't start the game a baby void of any skills. You assume up to that point you have gained some aptitude in certain skills which justify the kind of starting character you become. In other words, a more complex character development system in which you carefully plan out what character you are going to be is justified by prior training you may have had up to that point.

 

[Reklar]

I'm all into the idea of starting the game as some random pig farmer with no useful skills (unless hog tending 101 counts as one) and where you have to make in-game choices as to what you are to be. I'm also a fan of games that give your character an extensive background - like being a blacksmith's son and having some minor smithing skills and so on. Both are interesting in their own way as they make you play the game differently.

It might be fun in a PnP setting, but imagine your response to a Baldur's Gate type game where your blacksmith is having a hard time figuring out how to use a sword, his response when asked if he knows how to use it sounding incredibly like Antonio Bandaras in The Mask of Zorro, "Yeah, the pointy end goes in the other guy," as kobolds skewer your level one lump of clay. The idea of making choices that determine your characters skill preferences is not the problem, it's the developer's implementation of the system that usually falls well short of fun or engaging during gameplay. And while I will agree with those who say Troika is more likely to accomplish such a task than other developers, I don't see it as a likely event when their game development time is determined by their publisher and not their own idea of what is necessary and affordable.

-Reklar
(a Fallout/RPG fan)

 

[Whipporowill]

No, not really. As you begin as a nobody - the game will balanced thusly. Setting you up against small meek goblinoids and such. That's the easy bit.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Complexity can be incredibly retarded, especially when the developers try to pass off unnecessary complexity with poor interfaces as 'sophistication'. See: Republic the Revolution.

 

[Whipporowill]

I think they even admitted themselves that the interface was pretty bad in a recent interview.