Development Info Wasteland 2 Progress Update

[St. Toxic]

Heh, I'm not sure if this is appropriate as an Official Kodex Kartoon.

Yeah, I guess it's a bit too edgy and mature. Wouldn't want to dissuade more Skyrim fans from joining. I'd poke him myself, but I don't use twitters and the like.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Jokes aside, remember Smiley the trapper? You either tell the girl to fuck off, which kind of makes you an asshole, or you put on some rubber boots and go get the bastard. Or, you wade through sludge and grow extra appendages.

Same thing here. Either risk your health, use your wits (like, as someone already said, throw in a rope) or mind your own business. No matter what, you're always trading. Rope for safety. Rad-count for karma. Karma for don't-give-a-fuck. Take your pick.

Sounds good, doesn't it? Rope for safety. Rad-count for karma. You make it sound so romantic that it's easy to forget that neither rad-count nor karma mattered much, and the quest was basically "would you like to go an exciting adventure and see an optional cave of wonders with a high-tech basement or ... not?"

Why would you choose "no, I'm good"? Sure, the cave was dangerous, which is the most compelling reason to explore it. Sludge? Weren't the boots conveniently located near the entrance? Unlike the drowning kid example, this quest wasn't about deep moral choices and grey areas but about sending you adventuring.

 

[St. Toxic]

Sounds good, doesn't it? Rope for safety. Rad-count for karma. You make it sound so romantic that it's easy to forget that neither rad-count nor karma mattered much, and the quest was basically "would you like to go an exciting adventure and see an optional cave of wonders with a high-tech basement or ... not?"

Why would you choose "no, I'm good"?

What, you mean nobody ever passed on the Smiley quest? I usually pass out of pure principle; people who can't save themselves shouldn't be allowed to live. Not everyone is going to save that drowning kid, not everyone is capable or feels it's their duty to. If there are witnesses, of course you should be able to kill them to keep the word from spreading. Consider that our most recent "so-called" rpg's won't even allow kids to die, would never let the player hurt a child and witnesses are invisible sentries that instantly lower your karma if you so much as steal a fork from a drawer.

Sure, the cave was dangerous, which is the most compelling reason to explore it. Sludge? Weren't the boots conveniently located near the entrance? Unlike the drowning kid example, this quest wasn't about deep moral choices and grey areas but about sending you adventuring.

No, but it's the same sort of setup. And it was fun. You're probably the only one who feels the need to complain that there wasn't a big obstacle in the way of enjoying the quest, that there wasn't a mechanic-related reason for turning the quest down. The boots could be found early on, yeah, but plenty of players (myself included) missed it on their first run and grew that extra toe, same way people will forget they even have rope and go out swimming to get that brat. So what if they don't keel over and die from it (even if they do, they can always reload), if there's a "creative" penalty involved, it might even be worth it.

 

[Vault Dweller]

No, but it's the same sort of setup. And it was fun. You're probably the only one who feels the need to complain that there wasn't a big obstacle in the way of enjoying the quest, that there wasn't a mechanic-related reason for turning the quest down.

You misunderstood what I said. I'm not complaining and it was a good quest - you get a cave to explore, dangerous creatures to kill when you aren't armed to the teeth yet, the trapper can teach you a useful ability, and you discover an elevator, which gives you a reason to return there later, as you probably won't be able to open it at that point.

My point was that the quest wasn't about moral choices, it was about exploring a cave. Most quests are like that and there is nothing wrong with it. You talk to an NPC who gives you a reason to go to place X. It's good. It works. There is absolutely no need to give the player a reason not to.

What Fargo described is not a quest, it's a "situation" (and it shouldn't be compared to that Fallout 2 quest). It offers you nothing (the way he presented it) but a moral choice - to save the kid or not and a twist on top it, to kill the witness or not. It's not a unique concept - in older RPGs you can find plenty of similar situations aimed to provide additional entertainment and role-playing opportunities for your character:

These situations are a flavor element and they work well enough. If you play a game and come across a drowning a kid, but instead of saving it, say fuck it, and then see a witness and kill the bastard too, nobody's gonna complain and psycho-analyze the situation to death. Why? Because it's a minor thing and even if the design isn't the greatest, well, who cares, as long as there is better shit for you to do. The reason this design attracted so much attention is because:

- It's presented as an example of deep moral choices, when there is nothing deep about it, not even remotely;
- It's the first and only example of said choices, which raises all kinds of questions;
- Brian can't stop talking about it, which draws even more attention to this example;

 

[General Maxson]

No, but it's the same sort of setup. And it was fun. You're probably the only one who feels the need to complain that there wasn't a big obstacle in the way of enjoying the quest, that there wasn't a mechanic-related reason for turning the quest down.

You misunderstood what I said. I'm not complaining and it was a good quest - you get a cave to explore, dangerous creatures to kill when you aren't armed to the teeth yet, the trapper can teach you a useful ability, and you discover an elevator, which gives you a reason to return there later, as you probably won't be able to open it at that point.

My point was that the quest wasn't about moral choices, it was about exploring a cave. Most quests are like that and there is nothing wrong with it. You talk to an NPC who gives you a reason to go to place X. It's good. It works. There is absolutely no need to give the player a reason not to.

What Fargo described is not a quest, it's a "situation" (and it shouldn't be compared to that Fallout 2 quest). It offers you nothing (the way he presented it) but a moral choice - to save the kid or not and a twist on top it, to kill the witness or not. It's not a unique concept - in older RPGs you can find plenty of similar situations aimed to provide additional entertainment and role-playing opportunities for your character:

These situations are a flavor element and they work well enough. If you play a game and come across a drowning a kid, but instead of saving it, say fuck it, and then see a witness and kill the bastard too, nobody's gonna complain and psycho-analyze the situation to death. Why? Because it's a minor thing and even if the design isn't the greatest, well, who cares, as long as there is better shit for you to do. The reason this design attracted so much attention is because:

- It's presented as an example of deep moral choices, when there is nothing deep about it, not even remotely;
- It's the first and only example of said choices, which raises all kinds of questions;
- Brian can't stop talking about it, which draws even more attention to this example;

I sure hope Brian, and the rest of inXile read this. Or at least someone there that read relevant W2 Codex threads.

 

[St. Toxic]

My point was that the quest wasn't about moral choices, it was about exploring a cave. Most quests are like that and there is nothing wrong with it. You talk to an NPC who gives you a reason to go to place X. It's good. It works. There is absolutely no need to give the player a reason not to.

What Fargo described is not a quest, it's a "situation" (and it shouldn't be compared to that Fallout 2 quest). It offers you nothing (the way he presented it) but a moral choice - to save the kid or not and a twist on top it, to kill the witness or not.

But if Smiley died without your help... I mean, wouldn't that be the same thing?

These situations are a flavor element and they work well enough. If you play a game and come across a drowning a kid, but instead of saving it, say fuck it, and then see a witness and kill the bastard too, nobody's gonna complain and psycho-analyze the situation to death. Why? Because it's a minor thing and even if the design isn't the greatest, well, who cares, as long as there is better shit for you to do. The reason this design attracted so much attention is because:

- It's presented as an example of deep moral choices, when there is nothing deep about it, not even remotely;
- It's the first and only example of said choices, which raises all kinds of questions;
- Brian can't stop talking about it, which draws even more attention to this example;

It's his new rabid-dog thing, since apparently people were really impressed by that. You can't say that the drowning kid situation couldn't be made to present interesting moral choices, that it doesn't inherently branch off to give different results further down the line. It's just that it's described in a vague and diffuse way that implies nothing about how it's constructed, what happens behind the scenes, what happens further down the line. What it does imply, however, is that the player is allowed to

- Kill kids.
- Do bad shit, like killing kids, without being penalized for it. As long as nobody saw you.

That's a piece of information, not about one specific scenario, but about the game in its entirety. Set sail for deep, moral choices indeed.

Does your game offer that VD?

Certain real life aspects are hard (if not impossible) to recreate in a role-playing game. At the top of the list - anything that can be filed under "fear for your life", true selflessness, and realistic emotions..

Fear for your life? Probably not. Areas that your character simply cannot survive (yet) and thus should avoid (entirely)? Easy. Game-mechanics wise it's the same thing, though getting the player to crap his/her pants is optional.

"True" selflessness? Why does it have to be true? Even if a player expects a great reward for pulling a kid out of toxic waste, there's no logical reason why he should get it and no binding contract involved. So, why not have quests where inaction incurs a penalty and decisive, successful action rewards you only by not penalizing you? If the penalty is reputation related, and you can kill off witnesses, it's merely another, probably easier, but equally viable solution to the quest. Then, choosing to help the npc rather than kill off those who give a shit, well, it is kind of selfless. More work for the same end-result. That said, pretty sure most players have been indoctrinated to go the Mother Teresa route, whether or not it's the most beneficial way of playing.

Realistic emotions? I don't know, I think that's debatable. There's obviously no way a designer can force players to get emotionally attached to a bunch of scripts and some dialogs, but there's no denying that it does happen. That players feel guilty about various adverse effects they might have on the world, or get attached to companions and feel the loss when they end up getting killed. I mean,

So, you hear a boy calling for help. Why wouldn't you help him? Is the player given any reasons, other than "I'm a psychopath"

doesn't make sense without at least some underlying emotional ties to the game. Looting the boy's corpse and killing the guy who saw it all has a lot more potential in terms of gameplay, loot, exp and the like. Besides, the boy isn't really drowning, isn't really a boy and you're not really helping, so maybe the choice is between letting yourself get emotionally attached to the make-believe world, imposing a set of principles on your character(s) or going over the scripts and writing in a detached manner, looking for +'es and -'es.

Since your character is, for all intents and purposes, immortal, you'll bravely send him into the deepest dungeons and pit him against the most terrifying foes. The only emotions your character feels when looking at a towering dragon who can burn him to a crisp and swallow him whole are greed (loot!) and bloodlust (Imma gonna kill me some of that, I bet it gives tons of xp!).

Well, it's certainly one way of looking at things and why hack'n'slash sells. Maybe that's why Ds is so attractive, with opponents that cost too much to kill and the only reward, really, is being able to do it. Plenty of rpg's, though, have beasties that'll just fuck up your game and that you're better off avoiding entirely. I think greed and bloodlust are viable motivators for all players, but I fear for your game if you think they're the only ones out there.

If a stranger asks you for a magic potion to heal his sick relative, both acts mean nothing to you - you know that you will never run out of potions and you don't give a shit about his stupid relative, who probably doesn't even exist in the game.

And, what's the problem? You mean you'd care more if the same situation occurred in real life?

Geneforge had a cool moment when an NPC asked me to prove my beliefs by breaking a canister - a limited and very valuable resource that increases skills and abilities. Now that was something, but most games' design doesn't come close.

Right, because permanently closing quest-lines or missing out on unique items/maximum exp choices isn't the exact same thing -- no wait, worse. Come on, picking the wrong line of dialog might mean you don't get a piece of important back-story, and that shit is way more important than some fucking skillpoints. You'll finish the game thinking "What was the point of all this?" as many greed & bloodlust players do and live the rest of your life in ignorance. Nobody goes back to a game because they didn't max out their fighting skills.

 

[Vault Dweller]

My point was that the quest wasn't about moral choices, it was about exploring a cave. Most quests are like that and there is nothing wrong with it. You talk to an NPC who gives you a reason to go to place X. It's good. It works. There is absolutely no need to give the player a reason not to.

What Fargo described is not a quest, it's a "situation" (and it shouldn't be compared to that Fallout 2 quest). It offers you nothing (the way he presented it) but a moral choice - to save the kid or not and a twist on top it, to kill the witness or not.

But if Smiley died without your help... I mean, wouldn't that be the same thing?

You're comparing a quest, where the trapped trapper is just an excuse, with a "moral situation". The quest isn't about the trapper, it's about exploring the cave and fighting geckos. You know what to expect the moment the NPC says "he went to these caves and didn't come back". The caves from where people don't come back is the hook here. For all you know, the trapper is long dead, but you must see these caves yourself.

I'm sure you'd agree that the quest would have been a lot less enjoyable had you simply come across a wounded trapper and had an option to heal him or kill him and take his stuff, but even that is a lot more interesting than "save a drowning kid? y/n"

It's his new rabid-dog thing, since apparently people were really impressed by that.

What's your point? That he'll make a dumb game because people are amused by dumb things?

You can't say that the drowning kid situation couldn't be made to present interesting moral choices...

I didn't. I said that as presented it's not an interesting moral choice at all. In fact, it's hardly a choice as you're given no reasons (in the example) not to save the kid.

It's just that it's described in a vague and diffuse way that implies nothing about how it's constructed, what happens behind the scenes, what happens further down the line.

It described as "Look, guys, there is this kid and he's drowning and you can either save him or let him drown. That's what you wanted! That's what I wanted!"

It reminds me a lot of : and I'm surprised that instead of calling Fargo on it, people are so eager to make excuses and look for things that aren't there. I can only imagine the rage if this example was in a Bethesda interview.

What it does imply, however, is that the player is allowed to

- Kill kids.
- Do bad shit, like killing kids, without being penalized for it. As long as nobody saw you.

That's a piece of information, not about one specific scenario, but about the game in its entirety. Set sail for deep, moral choices indeed.

Indeed.

Does your game offer that VD?

Is it about my game now?

Certain real life aspects are hard (if not impossible) to recreate in a role-playing game. At the top of the list - anything that can be filed under "fear for your life", true selflessness, and realistic emotions..

Fear for your life? Probably not. Areas that your character simply cannot survive (yet) and thus should avoid (entirely)? Easy. Game-mechanics wise it's the same thing, though getting the player to crap his/her pants is optional.

It's not the fear for your life. It's the fact that here you're getting insta-killed, so wait until you level up. It's very mechanical and have nothing to do with emotions.

"True" selflessness? Why does it have to be true?

Because giving a peasant 100 coins means nothing to you. It's a pretend-selflessness. Make-believe to make little Timmy feel good about himself.

Even if a player expects a great reward for pulling a kid out of toxic waste...

Toxic waste now, is it? Nah, not enough. How about "Even if a player expects a great reward for pulling a kid out of toxic waste filled with monsters..." Yeah, much better now.

The modders will fix it, eh, Toxic?

... there's no logical reason why he should get it and no binding contract involved. So, why not have quests where inaction incurs a penalty and decisive, successful action rewards you only by not penalizing you?

It already exists and it's called .... you better sit down for this, Toxic, it's gonna blow your mind ... experience points! Ta-da! They reward decisive, successful actions and penalize inaction!

 

[St. Toxic]

You're comparing a quest, where the trapped trapper is just an excuse, with a "moral situation". The quest isn't about the trapper, it's about exploring the cave and fighting geckos. You know what to expect the moment the NPC says "he went to these caves and didn't come back". The caves from where people don't come back is the hook here. For all you know, the trapper is long dead, but you must see these caves yourself.

Come on, I was talking about the various ways to react to the request, not the fluff. You could do it the easy way, the hard way or just not do it, and the game would respond accordingly.

I'm sure you'd agree that the quest would have been a lot less enjoyable had you simply come across a wounded trapper and had an option to heal him or kill him and take his stuff, but even that is a lot more interesting than "save a drowning kid? y/n"

Beg pardon? If Quest A is more enjoyable than Encounter B, why ever make Encounter B? In fact, why not make Quest A over and over in different iterations? Oh right, because enjoyment of a specific element in a game means fuck all and designing quests with people's potential enjoyment of them in mind is retarded.

What's your point? That he'll make a dumb game because people are amused by dumb things?

No, just that dropping the rabid dog story is an easy way to convey information without going into specifics. Fargo and Cain and the others have been doing that for years as an example of a player's emotional response to game elements. But I guess rpg's never forced the player to do something he didn't like since Wasteland.

I didn't. I said that as presented it's not an interesting moral choice at all. In fact, it's hardly a choice as you're given no reasons (in the example) not to save the kid.

We didn't get any reasons for wanting to save the kid either. In fact, we didn't get any reasons for anything, maybe there aren't any in WL2. *Spoiler*

It described as "Look, guys, there is this kid and he's drowning and you can either save him or let him drown. That's what you wanted! That's what I wanted!"

It reminds me a lot of : and I'm surprised that instead of calling Fargo on it, people are so eager to make excuses and look for things that aren't there. I can only imagine the rage if this example was in a Bethesda interview.

You got a point, but has it occurred to you that you too are looking for something that isn't there? If you, me and Todd were designing a game, and Fargo burst in and said "I want you guys to get cracking on that drowning kid thing ASAP." and we all did our own take on the subject, no matter which one was chosen as the final one he'd still describe it as "Drowning kid. Save or don't." If you don't trust the devs to do their jobs properly, that's fair enough and cause for concern, but if there's a good way to make the encounter then there's no inherent flaw in the options presented to the player which, so far, are the only things that we know.

Is it about my game now?

Err, of course? As soon as you open your mouth about game-design. So, was that last addition killable kids or what? I don't remember killing any toddlers in the demo.

It's not the fear for your life. It's the fact that here you're getting insta-killed, so wait until you level up. It's very mechanical and have nothing to do with emotions.

It is completely mechanical and it doesn't have to do with emotions. Nonetheless, people do feel emotions as a response to the mechanic, and some even fear for their lives.

Because giving a peasant 100 coins means nothing to you. It's a pretend-selflessness. Make-believe to make little Timmy feel good about himself.

Right, selfless acts aren't selfless unless you're giving an arm and a leg. Giving money to a beggar on the street is make-believe charity, unless I'm worse off than he is.

Toxic waste now, is it? Nah, not enough.

Curses! My plan of making it more emotional by turning the water into green goo has failed! No, wait, what?

How about "Even if a player expects a great reward for pulling a kid out of toxic waste filled with monsters..." Yeah, much better now.

Say, which part of Eastern-Europe were you from?

It already exists and it's called .... you better sit down for this, Toxic, it's gonna blow your mind ... experience points! Ta-da! They reward decisive, successful actions and penalize inaction!

Right. And not getting paid is a penalty for not having a job. Hey VD, you're crazy essé.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Come on, I was talking about the various ways to react to the request, not the fluff. You could do it the easy way, the hard way or just not do it, and the game would respond accordingly.

Which is irrelevant because we're talking about a very specific example Brian provided and the reaction to that example. The very attempts to build something on top of it - the water is not a water but a toxic sludge! the kid is John Connor, you must save him to save the mankind! there MUST be more to this quest - suggest that the example is very flawed. So, can't we just tell Brian to give us a better example and stop defending the first one?

Beg pardon? If Quest A is more enjoyable than Encounter B, why ever make Encounter B?

Way to miss the point, bro. Allow me to repeat myself:

These situations are a flavor element and they work well enough. If you play a game and come across a drowning a kid, but instead of saving it, say fuck it, and then see a witness and kill the bastard too, nobody's gonna complain and psycho-analyze the situation to death. Why? Because it's a minor thing and even if the design isn't the greatest, well, who cares, as long as there is better shit for you to do. The reason this design attracted so much attention is because:

- It's presented as an example of deep moral choices, when there is nothing deep about it, not even remotely;
- It's the first and only example of said choices, which raises all kinds of questions;
- Brian can't stop talking about it, which draws even more attention to this example;

No, just that dropping the rabid dog story is an easy way to convey information without going into specifics.

A drowning kid with a witness who must be killed to keep the fact that you didn't save the kid (wait, you realize how retarded it sounds, right?) IS going into specifics. The problem is, the specifics suck.

We didn't get any reasons for wanting to save the kid either.

Saving a child is human nature 101.

You got a point....

Why, thank you, you're awfully kind to me today.

... but has it occurred to you that you too are looking for something that isn't there?

I'm looking at the only thing that is there - an example given to illustrate deep moral choices. I found the example neither deep nor interesting. Is there more to the situation? Maybe, but Brian didn't mention it and I see no reason to invent stories to make this example better.

If you, me and Todd were designing a game...

We should totally do it one day.

Is it about my game now?

Err, of course? As soon as you open your mouth about game-design.

You got a point there. I'll stay away from discussions about other games' design in the future.

Right, selfless acts aren't selfless unless you're giving an arm and a leg. Giving money to a beggar on the street is make-believe charity, unless I'm worse off than he is.

You're giving something real to the beggar, even if it's only 5 bucks. You take from yourself to give to another human being. In games, money have little value - if you need more, go and kill a few baddies and loot a few chests - and you don't take anything from yourself. Few exceptions apply, of course, when games offer you to give something you really care about, but these examples are extremely rare.

 

[tuluse]

Vault Dweller, you're right that this example is flawed. I'm assuming this is because it's not the entire scenario. You're assuming that it is (or close enough). Neither one of us has any evidence to back up our point of view.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I'm not drawing any conclusions about the game based on that example. I'm commenting only on the example itself and not assuming anything else.

 

[Brother None]

- It's presented as an example of deep moral choices, when there is nothing deep about it, not even remotely;

Is it? He calls it a "small moment", an example of choices having "real" consequences, and an example of how each area has "so many combinations and permutations", including small bits like that. I'm interpreting here so other viewpoints are fine, but seems to me he brought up this example to discuss the high density of decisions and uniqueness of playthroughs, and how even "small" decisions have consequences, rather than just happening with no afterthought. I don't see where he mentions it being an example specifically of deep moral choices. In fact, of those three words, the only one he mentions is "choices", he doesn't call it deep, or moral. If it was meant as an example of that then yeah, weaksauce, but I'm not seeing how it is.

 

[St. Toxic]

Which is irrelevant because we're talking about a very specific example Brian provided and the reaction to that example. The very attempts to build something on top of it - the water is not a water but a toxic sludge! the kid is John Connor, you must save him to save the mankind! there MUST be more to this quest - suggest that the example is very flawed. So, can't we just tell Brian to give us a better example and stop defending the first one?

There is a small moment in the new Rail Nomads camp in which you hear a boy calling out for help as he is drowning. This time it would be a lack of action that could cause his death. Do you swim out to middle of the lake and save him or ignore his plea? And what happens when you are spotted ignoring his plea by a local resident? Do you shoot him before he can let others know of your behavior? These are situations that play out in the Wasteland.

It's either

or

but it sure as hell doesn't say which.

Way to miss the point, bro. Allow me to repeat myself:

Again, same response from me. Go re-read it if you want, I don't want to repeat myself.

A drowning kid with a witness who must be killed to keep the fact that you didn't save the kid (wait, you realize how retarded it sounds, right?) IS going into specifics. The problem is, the specifics suck.

Your imagination sucks.

Saving a child is human nature 101.

Human unemotional, unattached nature in computer games dictates we save programs that imitate children. Goddamn it Vd, stop flip-flopping all the time.

You're giving something real to the beggar, even if it's only 5 bucks. You take from yourself to give to another human being. In games, money have little value

5 bucks has little value.

- if you need more, go and kill a few baddies and loot a few chests - and you don't take anything from yourself.

Apart from time. I mean, I could go beg for those 5 bucks, which really takes no effort on my part.

Few exceptions apply, of course, when games offer you to give something you really care about, but these examples are extremely rare.

See, maybe that says more about you than about the games?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Brother None.

Unless the game is filled with kids in need of rescue, it's the same kid that was mentioned 2 months ago:

"The story now is 900 pages long," said Fargo. How does that compare to the original Wasteland? "It's much bigger," Fargo noted. "I'm doing one of the smaller maps, and I'm at 40 pages so far, and I'm not verbose. It's a lot of content. What if I rescue the kid? What if I don't rescue the kid? That's what everybody wants."

"I think it's going to be one of the densest, deepest RPGs ever; just the cause and effect is fantastic. Ultimately, that's what everybody wants. That's what made GTA so great, it's what made Sim City so great - when you do something it has an effect, and things hold together smartly."
...
So, he praises his own game Bethesda-style, praises everything: depth, content, choices, consequences, and then gives a quick example with the kid, which could be easily ignored as an off-hand comment, but he adds that this is what everyone wants, thus emphasizing that it's not some minor element, but "the real deal" - that's what people wants and he's giving it to them.

Then he repeats the example 2 months later. This time it's fleshed out. The kid is drowning and there is a mysterious witness for extra depth. He does say that it's a small moment, which most likely means that that's all there is to it (i.e. no other details, it's a simple "old-school" encounter designed to adjust the karma and help you either reinforce your goodness (rescue), your badness (ignore the kid, kill the witness), or the grey area in-between), but the fact that he used the same example to illustrate the game awesomeness and "what everyone wants" attracts more attention to it than the example deserves.

 

[Vault Dweller]

A drowning kid with a witness who must be killed to keep the fact that you didn't save the kid (wait, you realize how retarded it sounds, right?) IS going into specifics. The problem is, the specifics suck.

Your imagination sucks.

There are no bad games, just not enough imagination!

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Roleplaying

Saving a child is human nature 101.

Human unemotional, unattached nature in computer games dictates we save programs that imitate children. Goddamn it Vd, stop flip-flopping all the time.

Where do you see flip-flopping? I explained what doesn't work in games - fear, because you feel none, selflessness because you give what has no value to you, and a few other. In other words, there is a wall there that separates you from your character. When it comes to good deeds or bad deeds, there is no wall. Many people were unable to sacrifice Morte because they like him and thought of him as their faithful companion. Etc.

So, again, when a reason not to save the child isn't given (both times Brian doesn't mention it, focusing on the choice instead - to save or not), most people would save a child because it's their nature and it doesn't cost them anything. It's not true selflessness, because even if the water is a toxic sludge (in which case the child is fucked anyway and your deed is pointless), it will affect the child but not you, because "radiation +10" in your example is nothing but flavor.

Like that sick guy in Fallout who needs the anti-venom. Ever noticed that you don't?

I understand that we all want to believe that the world is dangerous and that you can die from radiation, thirst, hunger, and other threats, but surely you've played enough games to know what to expect.

You're giving something real to the beggar, even if it's only 5 bucks. You take from yourself to give to another human being. In games, money have little value

5 bucks has little value.

It has some value, which is better than none. It can buy you a drink, a pack of cigarettes, a snack, a magazine or a cheap book, even a fast-food meal, etc. It was yours, but you gave it away because another person needed it more.

See, maybe that says more about you than about the games?

Deep.

 

[l3loodAngel]

I would complain that there are no truly evil choices in this example, but it seems that the whole design is so far of...

How about:

- Save that boy and ask for a ransom for the boys life.
- Let the boy drown and blame the witness for the boys death and let the angry mob kill him.
- Let the boy drown and frame the guy you were contracted to kill.

 

[St. Toxic]

I explained what doesn't work in games - fear, because you feel none

Goddamn Demon's souls. Also, a bit of Grimrock when I'm into it.

, selflessness because you give what has no value to you,

You've never felt loss in a game? Really?

and a few other. In other words, there is a wall there that separates you from your character.

There better be some wall, but goddamn if they don't make those thin sometimes.

So, again, when a reason not to save the child isn't given (both times Brian doesn't mention it, focusing on the choice instead - to save or not), most people would save a child because it's their nature and it doesn't cost them anything. It's not true selflessness, because even if the water is a toxic sludge (in which case the child is fucked anyway and your deed is pointless), it will affect the child but not you, because "radiation +10" in your example is nothing but flavor.

No, but I don't see why this has to be a selfless act to be good. It merely sets the scene for future encounters in that area. If it's a thinly spread game, and this encounter really is purely for artistic flavor, like a false-choice cut-scene to get you into the mood, we've gone into LARP and Bethesda territory. I mean, hell, I guess it's possible that's exactly what he's going for, but it's clearly an interpretation based on your expectations. I'm certainly not expecting Fargo to deliver a game, where we fall in love with a computerized little boy, and slave away for days trying to pull him out of a bog, at the cost of our lives outside of the game. Where we have to buy 25$ rope dlc just to finally pull him out and end the quest, and he looks at you with his big brown eyes and says "Mister, I was getting ready to meet my maker. When I fell in there, I couldn't see anything but the dark pits of hell into which I was slowly sinking. I prayed for a miracle, and God gave me one." And your character sheds a single tear just as you're crying rivers, and suddenly the boy gasps and convulses and dies in your arms. And you're stunned. You don't understand what just happened, and you let the body fall to the ground as you look away into the distance. Someone's running up, you hear the trampling of feet. It's the boy's mother and father, with tears in their eyes.
- You killed him, he says, the father. You killed my boy.
And as the character slowly rises and starts walking away, walking back into the bog, ending his own miserable existence, you load a round into the chamber and blow your brains out all over your dandelion wallpaper.

But I don't fucking care. That does nothing for me. I'd rather grow some weird extra finger, or just get my stats scrambled, from some radiation. That shit is fun, y'know? Like, quirky?

Like that sick guy in Fallout who needs the anti-venom. Ever noticed that you don't?

Oh Lordy Lord, someone's never wrestled a rad-scorpion. Quick, we need to make all games shit to compensate!

I understand that we all want to believe that the world is dangerous and that you can die from radiation, thirst, hunger, and other threats, but surely you've played enough games to know what to expect.

Look, man. I don't want to argue with you, because I'm tired of laughing. I mean, it's a strong possibility that you may be right on the money; of this I have no doubts whatsoever. But even so it worries me. It worries me that you read this,

There is a small moment in the new Rail Nomads camp in which you hear a boy calling out for help as he is drowning. This time it would be a lack of action that could cause his death. Do you swim out to middle of the lake and save him or ignore his plea? And what happens when you are spotted ignoring his plea by a local resident? Do you shoot him before he can let others know of your behavior? These are situations that play out in the Wasteland.

and don't see any possibilities. I mean, if it was Skyway, sure. But a professional game designer? You sure that quitting your job was the right thing to do?

I would complain that there are no truly evil choices in this example, but it seems that the whole design is so far of...

How about:

- Save that boy and ask for a ransom for the boys life.
- Let the boy drown and blame the witness for the boys death and let the angry mob kill him.
- Let the boy drown and frame the guy you were contracted to kill.

That's good stuff. It pays to tie up quests together, makes it look more seamless. Ransom/Blackmail options are a must. And blaming the witness, that's your speech-check. Two other obvious outcomes already exist; you drowning because you suck at swimming, and the hostile mob kicking your ass / you cleaning the town. But they're not even scripted, just the direct result of base game mechanics.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Also, a bit of Grimrock when I'm into it.

The fear of square-dancing?

, selflessness because you give what has no value to you,

You've never felt loss in a game? Really?

Is this how we're going to play it? I make a specific comment, you reply with a sweepingly broad generalization?

No, but I don't see why this has to be a selfless act to be good. It merely sets the scene for future encounters in that area. If it's a thinly spread game, and this encounter really is purely for artistic flavor, like a false-choice cut-scene to get you into the mood, we've gone into LARP and Bethesda territory. I mean, hell, I guess it's possible that's exactly what he's going for, but it's clearly an interpretation based on your expectations.

It's an interpretation based on what was said and in what context, nothing more, nothing else.

I'm certainly not expecting Fargo to deliver a game, where we fall in love with a computerized little boy, and slave away for days trying to pull him out of a bog, at the cost of our lives outside of the game. Where we have to buy 25$ rope dlc just to finally pull him out and end the quest, and he looks at you with his big brown eyes and says "Mister, I was getting ready to meet my maker. When I fell in there, I couldn't see anything but the dark pits of hell into which I was slowly sinking. I prayed for a miracle, and God gave me one." And your character sheds a single tear just as you're crying rivers, and suddenly the boy gasps and convulses and dies in your arms. And you're stunned. You don't understand what just happened, and you let the body fall to the ground as you look away into the distance. Someone's running up, you hear the trampling of feet. It's the boy's mother and father, with tears in their eyes.
- You killed him, he says, the father. You killed my boy.
And as the character slowly rises and starts walking away, walking back into the bog, ending his own miserable existence, you load a round into the chamber and blow your brains out all over your dandelion wallpaper.

God damn, Toxic!

But I don't fucking care. That does nothing for me. I'd rather grow some weird extra finger, or just get my stats scrambled, from some radiation. That shit is fun, y'know? Like, quirky?

I can't read it because I still have tears in my eyes.

and don't see any possibilities. I mean, if it was Skyway, sure. But a professional game designer? You sure that quitting your job was the right thing to do?

And one more time: obviously, one can design an interesting, deep, and far-reaching quest based on this encounter, but this isn't what we're discussing here.

 

[St. Toxic]

The fear of square-dancing?

Claustrophobia.

And one more time: obviously, one can design an interesting, deep, and far-reaching quest based on this encounter, but this isn't what we're discussing here.

Fair enough. I guess we're just not connecting today. Catch you and Todd later bro.

 

[Infinitron]

This conversation has told me a lot about the way you look at games, VD. I understand why AoD is a game of dialogue boxes now.

"We've all played enough games to know what to expect, right? JUST GIVE ME MY OPTIONS."

 

[Brother None]

"The story now is 900 pages long," said Fargo. How does that compare to the original Wasteland? "It's much bigger," Fargo noted. "I'm doing one of the smaller maps, and I'm at 40 pages so far, and I'm not verbose. It's a lot of content. What if I rescue the kid? What if I don't rescue the kid? That's what everybody wants."

Again, bringing up as an example of density, a lot of content, a lot of small choices. Yes, it's unfortunate he brings up the same example twice since we're waiting for examples of deep, intricate quests, but in both cases he appears to bring it up to point out even small choices have effects, and that there is a lot of density to the game. If that's what it's meant to illustrate, it's not a bad example. It's not an example of deep, complex choices, but nothing in his phrasing tells me that's what it's meant to be, rather it's mean to be an example of a game designed to offer a wide variety of situations and choices, including smaller ones.

It also seems from that paragraph that it is from one of Fargo's own maps, which would explain why he would go back to it twice. He is the public face of the company, yes, but he does not design the majority of content, and this does not necessarily reflect on maps writing by MCA, McComb, St Andre or Pavlish, or even left-over notes from Anderson (etc etc etc, this game has a lot of writers). Again, that's very speculative, but I think it's worth highlighting this entire discussion is extremely speculative.

 

[General Maxson]

So, bros, here's something worthwhile to discuss: UI mockup and character system.

 

[Crooked Bee]

That isn't an official UI mockup, though. Not much to discuss about it.

 

[ironyuri]

A lawyer and a politician are drowning in a lake, but there is only enough time to save one of them.

Do you take a nap, or take in a show at the local cinema?

Now that's some real choice and dilemma.

Idiot. You row out there in a boat and knock them out with your paddle to be certain.

 

[l3loodAngel]

Now, anybody want to throw my strip over to Fargo? I'd like to see his reaction.

https://twitter.com/BrianFargo DO EET

Done