Vault Dweller said:Games like that don't sell a lot, which is why nobody is interested in making games like Darklands or Torment. Sad, but true.
Actually, none. It just seems too good to be true, that's all. Before I start believing everything just to be disappointed again I cloak myself in skeptism.Vault Dweller said:It's true. Out of curiosity though, what part sounds like bullshit or wishful thinking?
We'll see. It's been some time since "games like that" have been made. Just don't repeat Zero Sum's mistakes (a premature release and as good as no marketing). I'm not saying you'll make millions that way, but it could be enough if in fact you reach all potential customers (enough to be able to stay in business that is). Besides, I'm hoping your game will pave the way for *your* and other such games. Just a reminder so you actually feel that burden...Games like that don't sell a lot, which is why nobody is interested in making games like Darklands or Torment. Sad, but true.
Your screenshots spoke for themselves.They are very business-like. When you enter the guild for the first time, it will be described and the business-like "may I take your order?" nature of the establishment will be noted.
Sounds good to me. As long as it's logical I'm fine.No. I've considered such an option, but decided against it. I don't recall now what screens I gave to RPG Vault (and I'm too lazy to check), but it goes something like that. The guildmaster asks if you are good with crossbows. If you say no, he tells you that xbows are easy to handle (which is true) and that you can't miss from a few meters. He also sends you to a guy who will give you a few tips (increasing your skills by up to 10 points if it's too low), and that's it.
$25 - the standard shareware price.k_bits said:VD - how much are you expecting to charge for this badboy, once it comes out?
Yep, similar to the Spiderweb/Zero-Sum setup. You download the game, start playing, but can't leave a certain area until you unlock the rest of the game.How will the free portion of the game work - do you pay for a code and input it or something else?
Hard to say. Technically, it's completed, as in you can play it and finish it, but about every aspect of it (graphics, atmosphere, writing, quests (I changed quite a few already), money system, inventory, balance, etc) should be improved. Why? Well, take a look at Gothic 3, for example. It's still a pretty good game, but it could have been a fantastic top 10 game if the developers were able to spend 6 more months on it.Also - if you had to give it a %, how far along are you towards completion?
No big hurdles, but a shitload of redoing & improving what we can.What do you consider are the biggest hurdles you have left?
Absolutely. That's always been my dream.Perishiko said:So, if it sells reasonably well for a "game like that", will you continue to make games?
I hope you don't mean it literally. Because if you do, then it's an artificial design constraint. And a very common one.In the interview Vault Dweller said:2. Conflicts: each successfully completed side quest must piss some people off.
Not entirely true. Games "like that" are harder to advertise and make popular, but it is still possible. Pathologic, for example, sold quite good. And it very far from being mainstream.Vault Dweller said:Games like that don't sell a lot, which is why nobody is interested in making games like Darklands or Torment.
Gambler said:Sounds very good, except this one:
I hope you don't mean it literally. Because if you do, then it's an artificial design constraint. And a very common one.In the interview Vault Dweller said:2. Conflicts: each successfully completed side quest must piss some people off.
Sometimes it is interesting to pursue win-win resolutions. That's what people frequently do in real life, and that's what diplomacy is supposed to be about. I'm not saying that there always should be a way to make everyone in the quest happy, but sometimes it should be an option (albeit the most difficult one).
Sure, but if that's an option then the situation changes from being an interesting choice, to a clear success/relative-failure (once all solutions are known).Gambler said:Sometimes it is interesting to pursue win-win resolutions... but sometimes it should be an option (albeit the most difficult one).
I do.Gambler said:I hope you don't mean it literally.
Not really. Any basic conflict requiring you to pick a side will force some consequences on your ass. I simply don't have any quests requiring you to do some meaningless activities that nobody gives a shit about.Because if you do, then it's an artificial design constraint.
Depends on the conflict.Sometimes it is interesting to pursue win-win resolutions.
Diplomacy is about getting what you want through persuasion. If you got what you wanted, that means that somebody didn't get what he/she wanted and had to settle for less.... and that's what diplomacy is supposed to be about.
How good is quite good? In units sold.Pathologic, for example, sold quite good.
Nicolai said:One question, though. Shouldn't it be "tears start running down your face/your cheeks/the side of your face/something to that effect" instead of "tears start running down" in this dialogue option?
Why all solutions should be known?galsiah said:Sure, but if that's an option then the situation changes from being an interesting choice, to a clear success/relative-failure (once all solutions are known).
Are you implying that meaningful activity absolutely has to involve conflict between several parties where you have to pick sides?Vault Dweller said:Any basic conflict requiring you to pick a side will force some consequences on your ass. I simply don't have any quests requiring you to do some meaningless activities that nobody gives a shit about.
Only in zero-sum situations.If you got what you wanted, that means that somebody didn't get what he/she wanted and had to settle for less.
They needn't - which is why I qualified my remark.Gambler said:Why all solutions should be known?
I agree - on the condition that time/money have a real, significant, long term cost to the player. Usually they don't: there's no time limit, and there's an unlimited amount of money to gain over time.1) Win-win situation doesn't have to be "a clear success". You can make all involved parties happy, but spend a lot of time and money doing so.
Mostly, yes - if it's a solution which the developers have specifically elected to support. Sure, it might be realistic to have the occasional "solution" which makes things worse from every perspective - but why include such a solution?2) Are you saying that different options should always yield similarly beneficial outcomes, because it's "more balanced" that way?
Sure, but what do these things gain you?3) There are things like risk, ethics, curiosity, sympathy, etcetera. Neither motivation, nor outcome has to be purely quantitative.
With a wide definition of "parties" and "sides", that's true.Are you [VD] implying that meaningful activity absolutely has to involve conflict between several parties where you have to pick sides?
Not true. Zero-sum games mean that there's an exact quantitative balance between winner and loser about zero. In the following situation this isn't the case:Only in zero-sum situations.
In an RPG? Yes. However, I would welcome some not-overly-lame examples proving me wrong.Gambler said:Are you implying that meaningful activity absolutely has to involve conflict between several parties where you have to pick sides?
Examples please.Only in zero-sum situations.If you got what you wanted, that means that somebody didn't get what he/she wanted and had to settle for less.
You are thinking inside the box. My whole point is that gains and losses by themselves should not be the criteria that decides which options are included in a role-playing game. That might (or might not) be a good approach to design strategies, but RPGs are not supposed to be about choosing the "right" way to do it.With either of these alternatives, you're just delaying the upside/downside of the action.
That's often the case because a high-risk solution is obviously interesting, and others are obviously boring. Again, it's player motivation vs character motivation. Entirely different things. You can make all solutions equally interesting to the player without making them equally beneficial for the character.Adding a high-risk win-win solution might well encourage players to go for that solution (if they can see it), in spite of their particular character's very low odds of success.
But I did not propose to design any games in such way. In fact, such trade-off would be another artificial design constraint. I spoke about qualitative difference between options. Think real life.I think it's too often the way that games are designed with a choice between doing-the-right-thing (no material reward), and being EVIL for material gain.
Not everything has to be a conflict to be interesting. And not all conflicts are between two parties. And picking sides is sometimes not possible.With a wide definition of "parties" and "sides", that's true.
You never heard that term being used in a broader sense?Zero-sum games mean
Your statement is not justified. Examples of win-win situations are endless. If they are so rare, why people try to pursue them so often? Why are there craploads of books on conflict resolution?Very rarely there might be a solution that is the best from every party's perspective, but this is hardly common. Eliminating this possibility makes very little difference.
Investigative work. You are hired to gather information about some subject or person. Nobody tells you why, you just do it for money. No conflict, no sides, but this could be very interesting in terms of gameplay. Speak with people, use various skills, gather evidence, etc.Vault Dweller said:In an RPG? Yes. However, I would welcome some not-overly-lame examples proving me wrong.Gambler said:Are you implying that meaningful activity absolutely has to involve conflict between several parties where you have to pick sides?
Examples of what? Mutual benefit resolution? Okay. Someone tells main character about possible assassination of a high-raking... whomever by some organization. Mr. Whomever has something you need.Vault Dweller said:Examples please.Only in zero-sum situations.If you got what you wanted, that means that somebody didn't get what he/she wanted and had to settle for less.
Win/win is a silly concept invented by people trying to justify having things their way. In fact, when I hear "... so it's win/win", that's the first sign that I'm getting screwed. The concept of win/win goes against the very definition of conflict.Gambler said:Your statement is not justified. Examples of win-win situations are endless. If they are so rare, why people try to pursue them so often? Why are there craploads of books on conflict resolution?
It means convince one or both parties to be more reasonable and settle for less. It doesn't imply that these parties will be overly enthusiastic about it.Heck, when someone says "resolve conflict" that usually does not mean "to screw up one party for the sake of another."
Such are the horrors of war, my child.So, effectively, inability pursue win-win solutions means that player character can't truly resolve any conflict.
Surely you are jesting. If there were no conflicts, nobody would have hired you to gather information. There are two parties here: party A that wants the info, and part B that doesn't want the info to be given to A. There is no win/win here.Investigative work. You are hired to gather information about some subject or person. Nobody tells you why, you just do it for money. No conflict, no sides, but this could be very interesting in terms of gameplay. Speak with people, use various skills, gather evidence, etc.
You should try that in the Middle East. Anyway, if the guy changes his behavior, that means he had to abandon his plans and had to settle for less. And he had to hand the thingy over. Yep, he's one happy camper right now.4) Negotiate. Make the Organization to postpone the assassination. Cut a deal with Mr. whomever, which makes the Organization less unhappy about Mr. Whomever. Be sure to include the thing you need as part of the deal. Win-win. Everyone are happier than they were before, and nobody blames you for anything.
Sure - I agree with that. I've said before that I'm in favour of making failure an interesting possibility.Gambler said:If you do something wrong, game just cuts off the juice, so to say. Quest failed. Game over. That's what usually makes choosing "wrong" options so bad, not the in-game results (since there are none). If character fails something in a way that yields meaningful and interesting effects, than game will go on. In fact, having such possibility will make any game much more interesting. So it is important to differentiate between character failure and player failure.
Sure, but again I'd draw the distinction between a direct player(character) choice, and an indirect branching due to circumstances outside the player's direct control.You can make all solutions equally interesting to the player without making them equally beneficial for the character.
Sure - real life frequently sucks and is boring. It's not a good model for RPG design....I spoke about qualitative difference between options. Think real life.
Any interesting decision automatically involves conflict on some level - there needs to be a conflict between courses of action, or there would be nothing to make the decision interesting.Not everything has to be a conflict to be interesting. And not all conflicts are between two parties. And picking sides is sometimes not possible.
"Zero sum" has no broader sense. It means you sum the scores and get zero. If that doesn't apply, you're not talking about a zero sum situation.You never heard that term being used in a broader sense?
Relative win-wins sure. Not absolute win-wins. It's very rare that every side gets exactly what they want. People persue resolutions that are pleasing to both sides, and are thus called "win-win". These solutions are hardly ever ideal to both sides - just perhaps as good or better than they were expecting.Your statement is not justified. Examples of win-win situations are endless. If they are so rare, why people try to pursue them so often? Why are there craploads of books on conflict resolution?
Unless there are many "win-win" solutions, the existence of one makes the situation less interesting as soon as the player knows of it.So, effectively, inability pursue win-win solutions means that player character can't truly resolve any conflict.
What I meant was that you usually take many things into consideration before doing something in real life. And they are rarely all quantifiable.galsiah said:Sure - real life frequently sucks and is boring. It's not a good model for RPG design.
Yes, it does. It is frequently used to refer to situations where someone's gain results (or is perceived to result) in someone's loss even in cases where those things are not directly connected, not precisely quantifiable, or where ratios of gain to loss are skewed. Google for "zero-sum mentality" and open some political website. In any case, you're nitpicking semantics. It's not a mathematical game theory debate."Zero sum" has no broader sense.
Without player interference he would be dead, player would not have the item, and the organization would spend money on assassination and deal with consequences. Whether you consider the alternative outcome a win-win situation or not, you have to agree that neither The Organization, nor Mr. Whomever would be angry with the main character after that. And that is precisely why I quoted that interview - you said that such situations must not be. I just don't see the reason why.Vault Dweller said:Anyway, if the guy changes his behavior, that means he had to abandon his plans and had to settle for less.
The organization wouldn't as they got the item and forces the guy to stop being a pain in their asses. The guy, however, should be very pissed off. Anyone would.Gambler said:Whether you consider the alternative outcome a win-win situation or not, you have to agree that neither The Organization, nor Mr. Whomever would be angry with the main character after that.
For a simple reason - nobody likes to get less when they want to get more. They may accept the so-called win/win scenario, but that doesn't mean they will like it. Take Iran, for example. If Iran is forced to abandon the nuclear program in exchange for whatever, do you think they will be happy about it? Someone may find a great solution for them, but it's still NOT what they wanted in the first place.And that is precisely why I quoted that interview - you said that such situations must not be. I just don't see the reason why.