Interview Torment 2 Interview with Brian Fargo at NowGamer + First Concept Art

[catfood]

Settings are overrated. Plot and momentum are twin kings.

Sometimes the plot is weak and never gains momentum and yet, the game is memorable for its setting. Not even considering gameplay and whatnot.

True, I suppose. Morrowind springs to mind at the moment. Awesome setting, but a pretty shitty plot overall. In fact I would go so far as to say that the 'main plot' wasn't about Dagoth Ur, but rather the whole lore of the game and the individual pieces of information scattered around the island.

 

[SCO]

Momentum is somewhat relative to the rest of the game i feel. I have no major problem with very slow books, if the climax is meaningful (there is at least one).
So in morrowind, i'd say the 'momentum' was when you get infected by corpus and cure it and that 6th house thing when the lore intercepts with the larping or when you're collecting the hortador title.
It's a bit weak overall obviously.

 

[DwarvenFood]

Well, they did a lot with the setting, I doubt that *any* game in the Planescape setting would automatically have interesting atmosphere etc., and Numenera looks interesting enough to expand upon and make a computer game with it.

 

[ironyuri]

Bros, I just heard that "setting" and "narrative" are intrinsically linked concepts and can't be divorced by autist binary thinking.

Ps. Momentum is just another word for "Narrative pacing" which is also contained with the overall concept of narrative.

 

[Irenaeus]

Bros, I just heard that "setting" and "narrative" are intrinsically linked concepts and can't be divorced by autist binary thinking.

Ps. Momentum is just another word for "Narrative pacing" which is also contained with the overall concept of narrative.

I'm not sure I want to adhere to these definitions.

 

[SCO]

Bros, I just heard that "setting" and "narrative" are intrinsically linked concepts and can't be divorced by autist binary thinking.

You're wrong, autist binary thinking can divorce anything, eg: TVTropes.
It's just not a good idea.

 

[GarfunkeL]

I really think they tried very hard to make the player understand how their universe works - and succeeded - not an effort was spared.

Lots of infodump at the Smoldering Corpse bar.

It was necessary, but not really an elegant way.

I remember it being interesting to read - unlike most of the ME/DA-codex crap.

 

[~RAGING BONER~]

I'm really digging what I've seen of the Numenera setting so far. I hope this game can surpass its spiritual predecessor in terms of setting at the very least. Scope as well tbqh. I know this is just the FargoHype machine gearing up but i am hopeful nevertheless.

And while I wantit to be like Torment, in the personal sense, I also want it to develop the setting as much as possible...I want to see more games set in the far distant future rather than the standard medieval bullshit we've been getting for decades.

 

[CappenVarra]

Planescape was one of the best things to come out of the 2nd edition era. I sure hope Numenera can match and exceed it, and I have a pledge reserved for this to show it. However, it is a high mark to aim for, and a reasonable amount of healthy skepticism is not unwarranted.

That said, the eternal cycle of technological advancement and decline, so inevitable you can set your millennial clocks by it (like shore-dwellers have been organizing their lifestyles around tides)... It has potential.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

Part of what helped Planescape, IMHO, was that through its various settings, TSR had built up a bazillion lore elements for it to draw from. Most of them were fairly banal shit boring, but some were good (or had the potential to be good with a little help). Planescape did a pretty good job in separating the wheat from tjhe chaff and incorporating ideas that worked well with its own new material. So I'm I bit hesitant to say that Planescape was great while everything else sucked (except Dark Sun) because without all that suckage Planescape would have had as much material to draw from.

 

[Moribund]

For all SCO's posturing it's amazing how clueless he is. Maybe if you go mental at the sight of someone who disagrees with you you are the problem not them.

All the momentum of casual exploration?!?!

Plot and momentum are what drives games like ME.That's why you don't feel like you're playing a game.

Also, you know, stuff actually happens in those games. In Torment nothing really happens, there's no TWISTS every 4 minutes.

It's like Hamlet, a journey of existential exploration. It's the least plot-driven RPG since darklands and that's a lot of the reason it's good.

 

[Lancehead]

I really think they tried very hard to make the player understand how their universe works - and succeeded - not an effort was spared.

Lots of infodump at the Smoldering Corpse bar.

It was necessary, but not really an elegant way.

I remember it being interesting to read - unlike most of the ME/DA-codex crap.

Well, that's because Planescape setting is on a whole another level plane to ME/DA crap. I'd say Torment could've used DA-codex style entries, which would've allowed them spread the lore around places a bit, and may have even allowed a lot more lore to be explained than was possible in the game.

 

[The Bishop]

I feel that when I like a particular setting it actually has very little with the setting itself as strange as it might sound. It's similar to having an emotional attachment to a thing if it reminds you of a memorable event or a person in your past. It isn't really that object that is the reason of your attachment. In reality it could be anything, the most insignificant and useless trinket.

Same thing with settings. If you really liked the experience you had with a particular game, you also tend to develop an emotional attachment with the setting. For me any unfamiliar setting sounds awful until I actually have a chance to see it used. And then if I like my experience with a game/story/film the setting grows on me in the process.

 

[DraQ]

I suppose combat XP rewards are also intended to provide a less 'bursty' form of levelup or ability gain in games with not so many quests. Bloodlines had lots and lots of dots to place, but it had so many xp giving quests and so many possible new dots at a time, that it effectively served the same purpose, even allowing you to bumrush a ability to get maximum ability-raising book benefits, or controversially to save xp to gain juicy disciplines early with no major problems; so there was variability still (some quests 'alternate solutions' put out more XP - thou mostly 1 pt - for 'harder' solutions with often more tedious - routes though, which annoys metas (things like the gang deal infiltration). But it's mostly well behaved).

I guess it can be a problem with simpler rulesets with less knobs to turn and things to fill used on a game with less quest density, like a early BG1 (though that generally had two quests per area and many more in the city).

I don't see it as a problem in a game like fallout, much less fallout 2 though.

Actually, the solution would be to limit XP rewards to only goals along critical path, with optional universally desirable goals serving as the only bonus XP source. Progress along critical path would open and close access to side content as well.

There is always the 'simulationist' argument too, that combat is the main parts of the ruleset, so combat competence progression should be modelled as a result of doing it.
This argument sucks though.

That's not the problem. The problem is that taken to logical conclusion that argument yields us a use based system, so it can't be used to justify any XP based one.

 

[hiver]

Thats why there needs to be Xp rewards for completing missions and specific goals and additional use based system that will reward the skills you use in the meantime.

Hybrid system instead of going fully for one or the other.

 

[DraQ]

Thats why there needs to be Xp rewards for completing missions and specific goals and additional use based system that will reward the skills you use in the meantime.

Hybrid system instead of going fully for one or the other.

Why double your workload, working at two completely different levels of abstraction as well?

You either make a tight, goal- and plot-oriented game, and take lean, simple system capable of recognizing and rewarding achievement of those goals, or create a gargantuan sprawling simulationist sandbox, where any explicitly defined goals may well be just an afterthought, and integrate powerful simulationist system that can evaluate and reward progress even in the absence of any predefined checkpoints.

 

[hiver]

Because it covers everything. If you sneak, you sneak skills improve, if you fight, fighting skills improve, you lockpick and lockpicking improves, but when you complete the mission you get a big reward for doing a big work.
No need for sandbox either. Works in any setting if it is properly adjusted, of course... but that is a matter of execution itself rather then general theory.
And it doesnt double the workload if you plan the whole system like this and build it like this from the start.

I proposed the same thing already and got through arguing about it. Still think it makes sense.
Of course, using skills can only give small increases to skills, no need for huge boosts, but that depends on the content and what you want to emphasize more.

Also, i think Wasteland 2 will function like this?

It also partially deals with the problem of getting xp from diplomacy and then investing in combat skills or vice-versa, which i never liked.
But to strengthen that i would also prefer a system that notes what skills you used to achieve bigger goals and limits skill points or xp only towards those skills or skill categories.

 

[DraQ]

Because it covers everything. If you sneak, you sneak skills improve, if you fight, fighting skills improve, you lockpick and lockpicking improves, but when you complete the mission you get a big reward for doing a big work.

But you've already covered your character growth, why not settle for material or status rewards?

 

[hiver]

Just seems more fluid and organic. You get immediate rewards for doing something, but youre not deprived of bigger rewards either. And why not include material and status rewards?

What do you mean with "covered your character growth already"?

 

[St. Toxic]

I'm with hiver on this, up to a point. I think a system of familiarity is a good addition to a standard exp/skill system, as such a system covers both aspects of learning -- the theoretical and the practical -- and forces you to actually utilize your acquired knowledge in order to remain proficient with your selected skills, while at the same time allowing for a more flexible style of play in situations where your specific character-build is less than adequate, and this without the need to neurotically balance and streamline the entire experience. I do however consider use-based skill systems to work best as temporary bonuses, skills that decay over time if they aren't being used, to prevent characters from reaching a God-like status by merely doing mundane tasks for hours on end or OCD'ing every aspect of the game in a single play-through.

 

[hiver]

Definitely, grinding should be disabled and discouraged by all means available. Diminishing returns after you reach thresholds in specific skills or general levels would work well for that.

Example: lockpicking simple locks would stop to increase your skill after a specific point and you would need to find better, more complicated ones to improve the skill.
Same thing for combat. After all a master swordsman has hardly anything to improve by killing peasants.

 

[St. Toxic]

Definitely, grinding should be disabled and discouraged by all means available. Diminishing returns after you reach thresholds in specific skills or general levels would work well for that.

Example: lockpicking simple locks would stop to increase your skill after a specific point and you would need to find better, more complicated ones to improve the skill.
Same thing for combat. After all a master swordsman has hardly anything to improve by killing peasants.

I guess that works to some degree, but you can still grind yourself up to God mode and it's still a mundane task. Even as you're switching to a higher tier of challenge just as you've exhausted the less 'challenging' one, by essentially being overqualified for it, you're negating any actual increase in challenge with the switch. From a simulationist 'realistick' pov it also doesn't entirely add up, as while you certainly gain some amount of proficiency by doing, there's no guarantee that you'll be as efficient and masterful as someone with the proper training and technique (though a high int stat might improve your chances).

The way I see it, if your master swordsman has no choice other than to go under the mountain and fight rock-golems, he's better off switching to a pick-axe, and taking the initial hit as he familiarizes himself with this new instrument, than he would be blunting his blade. But once he switches back to slice-and-dice mode and takes a few practice-swings to get back on familiar ground, he'll gradually end up none the wiser on pickaxes, unless of course he took the opportunity to put some points into 'proper training'. There's a lot that can be done with perks, skills and stats to mess around with the decay/advancement ratios, but I think a system that rewards sticking to what you know and penalizes indecisiveness, but still allows for experimentation without the need to permanently invest exp, really is the way to go.

And there'd really be no point in grinding, as while you were grinding one ability another would undoubtedly expire.

 

[hiver]

Definitely, grinding should be disabled and discouraged by all means available. Diminishing returns after you reach thresholds in specific skills or general levels would work well for that.

Example: lockpicking simple locks would stop to increase your skill after a specific point and you would need to find better, more complicated ones to improve the skill.
Same thing for combat. After all a master swordsman has hardly anything to improve by killing peasants.

I guess that works to some degree, but you can still grind yourself up to God mode and it's still a mundane task. Even as you're switching to a higher tier of challenge just as you've exhausted the less 'challenging' one, by essentially being overqualified for it, you're negating any actual increase in challenge with the switch. From a simulationist 'realistick' pov it also doesn't entirely add up, as while you certainly gain some amount of proficiency by doing, there's no guarantee that you'll be as efficient and masterful as someone with the proper training and technique (though a high int stat might improve your chances).

Agreed. Im not making a simple absolutists statemant here. Just looking at one tool to improve the overall experience, out of many available.
Grinding can be further minimized by not providing content for it.
No silly stupid respawn shit all over.

Sure some beasties may recover from slaughter... but it should take a lot of time. And happen only in some specific places where it makes sense.
In other places wiping out one type of creature could cause other type to take over - also should take time.

But many places should remain empty. Or taken over by friendlies.

Anyway - i would never rely simply on use based skill improvements.
Trainers - teachers should be added and they can provide a diverse range of improvements, instead of just numerical increase of skills.
Learning new techniques can provide new abilities and moves, increase critical chances, allow you to tackle enemies you couldnt before etc.
Perks, traits... you name it.

The way I see it, if your master swordsman has no choice other than to go under the mountain and fight rock-golems, he's better off switching to a pick-axe, and taking the initial hit as he familiarizes himself with this new instrument, than he would be blunting his blade. But once he switches back to slice-and-dice mode and takes a few practice-swings to get back on familiar ground, he'll gradually end up none the wiser on pickaxes, unless of course he took the opportunity to put some points into 'proper training'. There's a lot that can be done with perks, skills and stats to mess around with the decay/advancement ratios, but I think a system that rewards sticking to what you know and penalizes indecisiveness, but still allows for experimentation without the need to permanently invest exp, really is the way to go.

And there'd really be no point in grinding, as while you were grinding one ability another would undoubtedly expire.

Its an interesting radical suggestion but i dont think it would fly very well. It is easy to argue that things do not work like that in reality - most things or skills you learn stay available. Riding a bike? Swimming?
Of course, martial arts are different matter but not that much, especially if you reach some sort of mastery in them.

Unless there is some huge time passing by in which skills would deteriorate a little bit... but thats something that cannot be implemented into the game without various further negative consequences.
Besides... its hard to believe a master in some martial art would stop training and maintaining his skill or constitution or strength in such a way that his skills would seriously deteriorate.

Still, i can certainly see an incentive in letting rarely used skills deteriorate.
Even if a lot of skills give synergistic effects on others so reverting back to complete zero would be a bit too disingenuous.

 

[DraQ]

Just seems more fluid and organic. You get immediate rewards for doing something, but youre not deprived of bigger rewards either. And why not include material and status rewards?

What do you mean with "covered your character growth already"?

If you covered how you can become smarter, stronger, faster, or more willful, as well as skill in particular areas of expertise, wwhat else remains?

XPs and use-based are attempts to look at the same thing from different perspectives. There is no point applying this same thing twice.

I guess that works to some degree, but you can still grind yourself up to God mode and it's still a mundane task. Even as you're switching to a higher tier of challenge just as you've exhausted the less 'challenging' one, by essentially being overqualified for it, you're negating any actual increase in challenge with the switch.

There is no challenge in base mechanics - in this case rolling against some threshold.

Challenge can arise from whole situations and those are beyond skill-up mechanics.

From a simulationist 'realistick' pov it also doesn't entirely add up, as while you certainly gain some amount of proficiency by doing, there's no guarantee that you'll be as efficient and masterful as someone with the proper training and technique (though a high int stat might improve your chances).

So why not account for this? Make use based unlocked by training, make use-based limited by attributes, make int have a random chance to unlock stuff without training, make tree of skills with individual skills and perks being unlocked by training but improved by use and so on.

Nothing stops you.

The way I see it, if your master swordsman has no choice other than to go under the mountain and fight rock-golems, he's better off switching to a pick-axe, and taking the initial hit as he familiarizes himself with this new instrument, than he would be blunting his blade. But once he switches back to slice-and-dice mode and takes a few practice-swings to get back on familiar ground, he'll gradually end up none the wiser on pickaxes, unless of course he took the opportunity to put some points into 'proper training'. There's a lot that can be done with perks, skills and stats to mess around with the decay/advancement ratios, but I think a system that rewards sticking to what you know and penalizes indecisiveness, but still allows for experimentation without the need to permanently invest exp, really is the way to go.

And there'd really be no point in grinding, as while you were grinding one ability another would undoubtedly expire.

OTOH reminding yourself once learned skills is generally fast and easy, so maybe it can be ignored or reduced to temporary malus, while some other factor, like brain's finite capacity for knowledge and skills should be more relevant?

For example, each skill increase would make all further increases in this or other skills more difficult.

 

[hiver]

Just seems more fluid and organic. You get immediate rewards for doing something, but youre not deprived of bigger rewards either. And why not include material and status rewards?

What do you mean with "covered your character growth already"?

If you covered how you can become smarter, stronger, faster, or more willful, as well as skill in particular areas of expertise, wwhat else remains?

No need to cover the whole character development just with use based.
In fact, it is better not to.

Use based should give just small, incremental increase of skills.
Maybe open up a perk or two.
New techniques you learn from trainers, masters of particular craft - NPCs.
Big xp chunks reward solving bigger quests or missions. (even better if system tracks the use and gives xp points that can be only spent on combat, or only on diplomacy, or only on stealth, etc)
Depending on what you used.

XPs and use-based are attempts to look at the same thing from different perspectives. There is no point applying this same thing twice.

That depends on how you implement it.