invisible on 12/12/2007 at 18:04
Quote Posted by Papy
Also, I yet have to see a good example of a branching story increasing the depth of a game.
The best example of branching story in a game I have played is the Geneforge series by ((
http://www.spiderwebsoftware.com/) Spiderweb Software). The only propblem there is that everything revolves a little bit too much on yourself.
--------------------
I have another thought which struck me recently about how they should use skills:
Instead of having skill points, I would like it to be more use-based, a bit like in Oblivion, but not so much grinding. So if we take rifle-shooting as an example, my idea is that to get to the basic level, you merely need to shoot and it doesn't matter if you hit something or not. You progress more quick if you hit or hit more specific areas (head-shots etc.), then for the next level you need to at least hit enemies, and so on until the master level which you need head-shots to progress towards. This could of course have some drawbacks in form of lesser control on when and how the player gets skills and probably up for some cheating, but I think it would make for a better and more realistic skill system if done right.
Pyrian on 12/12/2007 at 19:18
We go through discussions of use-based skill advancement every so often, here. It's a touch of realism that tends to expose just how unrealistic the whole system is... The biggest problem, though, is the way it rewards grinding. I'm not convinced there's a way around that.
Of course, there seems to be a rather large population of people who enjoy grinding... Personally, I don't really comprehend that at all (yes, I do not play MMORPG's).
I'm considering trying a system where skill points are awarded a la DX but allocated in a use-based proportion. (The points would only be allocated once you had enough to actually advance. Thus, to use DX as an example, if you used a lot of pistol and swimming, your skill points would collect until you had enough to advance one of those two skills, then collect until you had enough to advance the other, and so on.) This should cut down on grinding, unless the player particularly wants to advance skills that they're not using to get through the game - which is, in turn, a balance problem, albeit a very sticky one (in DX, what if I really want to be a rifleman, but it's so useless at basic level that I can't really get by in game).
Papy on 13/12/2007 at 00:42
Quote Posted by Pyrian
The biggest problem, though, is the way it rewards grinding. I'm not convinced there's a way around that.
If we concentrate in doing one thing for a long period of time, we will forget and begin to lose previous abilities in other domains. A game could simply implement a system were increasing one stat would decrease the others, reflecting this learn/forget relation. Of course, to still have a feeling of progression, the game could based the amount of "forgetting" based on his total points in all his skills.
Another way could be to slowly decrease all skills at regular intervals, and let the player try to maintain them by training, with higher skills require more training. Depending on the formula used, it can be used as an incentive to train (i.e. play the game), while at the same time preventing most of level grinding.
I also like your idea.
Of course, I think the whole idea of linking skills with actions done by the player don't bring anything to the gameplay and has nothing to do with realism (no one becomes good at anything with only a few hours of practice).
The_Raven on 13/12/2007 at 00:52
Quote:
...no one becomes good at anything with only a few hours of practice.
That is actually incorrect, Tic Tac Toe fits that bill perfectly. As long as you're paying attention, and not clicking on squares randomly, then you're practically assured a tie.
Papy on 13/12/2007 at 05:25
Sure... Now can you give me an example of a game with a "Tic-tac-toe" skill for the character?
BTW, I can be a smartass too and say it takes a lot of time to learn to hold a pen in your hand and be able to write an "X" or an "O" inside a square. More than a few hours that's for sure!
catbarf on 13/12/2007 at 11:52
Quote Posted by Yakoob
Yeeeah, because branching story ALWAYS means you are the center of the world, doesn't it? Because being able to tackle scenarios in various ways not only in gameplay but also storyline decreases the depth? Because in original DX you totally didn't save the whole world and did make significant choices at the very end? Because no one has ever said they wished you could've stayed with UNATCO in DX ?
riiiight....
Extreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeme biting sarcasm.
But nonetheless, I just hope they don't overdo it.
ZylonBane on 13/12/2007 at 16:26
The first Deus Ex did the variable storyline thing in a very effective way, and also pretty much the only way that's practical from a production standpoint-- Have a single, linear, non-branching storyline, then allow the player to introduce minor but emotionally significant variations. Sure, Jock's fiery death doesn't affect the storyline one whit, but I cared, dammit.
DX:IW tried this too, but was hampered by not having any even remotely likable characters. Wait, I take that back-- the only two likable characters in all of DX:IW were the two AIs. I would have been sad if Ava (Helicopter) or Holo NG had gotten wiped.
Cobra on 13/12/2007 at 17:39
Seconded - I thought this might have been an ironic jibe in the meta-narrative by the game designers signifying a reversal of the usual cyber-punk trope that one cannot trust technology by having two of the most likeable, intruiging (and helpful) characters you know are in fact products of the new technological age...
Then I realised that would be far too clever for a bunch of people who ripped all their 'deep' philosophizing through quote-mining Mill, Russell, etc. The real reason I think the AIs were cool is because you got to have conversations with them, and they weren't simple one dimensional archetypes (Oh gee, an arrogant wanna-be alpha male, a preppy-cheerleader type, and an angsty rebellious street-kid, stop the originalities killing me!) They also weren't push overs - they wanted stuff from you, but they didn't beg, and sometimes they used you unwillingly (cf. conversation in Trier Bar.)
[Minor spoilers are peppered hereafter, so don't read if you haven't played both DX and IW.]
I can't be arsed to write an essay about why IW failed at characterization, but besides the fact some of the characters (heres looking at you, lab-rats) were 'LOOK AT ME, I HAVE A CHARACTER TRAIT' cut-outs, you never developed a relationship with them - setting even a TUTORIAL in Chicago would have done wonders in giving some relationships (why do you like Billie the most, for example?) And, hey, maybe letting your parents get a look in before they turn into nano-goo to ensure the main character can be suitably angsty (although, in another flaw of storytelling, the main character - and everyone else on the planet - seems remarkably unpeturbed by the deaths of 10 million people in a single atrocity.) Deus Ex managed to give little hints of all that you had done making its way to the news much better.
The main thing thought in DX is that you can see the motivations and reasons for the characters behaviour - you understand why Anna and Gunther are antagonistic as you realize that they might think you're the next rung up the technological ladder (and, naturally, you can choose to rub this into Anna and even Gunther later in the game.) The defection of Paul, Carter and Reyes is foreshadowed by how they react to UNATCO's (and your's, potentially) heavy-handed methods, and this is often shown step by step. Contrast this with Billie in IW. You and her are meant to be closest out of the all the trainees, but you hardly exist until she turns tail on you and lets you in on the secret - oh, and she's joined a non-denominal faith instantly and credulously, as cynical anti-authority types like her are want to do. Next she's getting radicalized into a terrorist (ooh, aren't the game-designers edgy, I can't possibly SEE the Islamism parallels here were it not the fact this gets foreshadowed when you are chatting in a Mosque.) Anyway, she ends up resolving to destroy JC, and generally help the token bad guys (who are also anti-biomodification, ffs, how DUMB is she?) There is no explanation for any of her behaviour, so you get shortchanged in understanding her character - oh, and ironically for a game that espouses choice so much, you don't get any with her character progression, nor any of the other trainees right up until then end.
The AI's were just so much cooler. Talking to NG and Ava was actually interesting, to probe their hidden motives, or just some verbal sparring. The bit at the end when you meet the real NG (and finding out she's a whiny brat and fall removed from the suave, clever AI apeing her) is one of the few high points in the game. Ava should have been blown up at the end like Jock too - I'd have been sad to see her go. Unlike Klara Sparks.
catbarf on 13/12/2007 at 20:33
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
The first Deus Ex did the variable storyline thing in a very effective way, and also pretty much the only way that's practical from a production standpoint-- Have a single, linear, non-branching storyline, then allow the player to introduce minor
but emotionally significant variations. Sure, Jock's fiery death doesn't affect the storyline one whit, but I cared, dammit.
DX:IW tried this too, but was hampered by not having any even remotely likable characters. Wait, I take that back-- the only two likable characters in all of DX:IW were the two AIs. I would have been sad if Ava (Helicopter) or Holo NG had gotten wiped.
Ding. What I'm hoping they don't do is make it so that your constant decisions through the game radically alter everything. In both predecessors, you only get that sort of power at the end, which was fine.
negativeliberty on 14/12/2007 at 01:25
Quote Posted by Bugs
That doesn't make you an android, a test tube baby is still a baby. An android is a completely synthetic construct, like Bishop from Aliens or something.
You are of course correct. However in this context (namely two half a billion credit, 'constructed' even before birth, nano-augmented cyborgs) I think the Dentons can be classified as more android than cyborg (which, ironically but true, doesn't in any way diminish their humanity). Asimov himself would probably scratch his head a few times before calling this one, if he could at all (remember, an organic computer is still a computer).
Besides, don't tell me you never considered Alex Denton's blank personality to be a clue to his origins ;)
