Tels on 14/3/2002 at 16:55
Glorofin, I am truly sorry. Comes from reading to <A HREF="http://www.google.de/search?q=glorfindel">much</A> ;)
(Darn, I even managed to misspell the word! :/
Quote:
Not all choices have to matter, the player just has to be under the illusion that they matter.
But if you can see easily trough the fake, it is no fun ;)
Quote:
ps. Yeah, let's have the dog as a permanent pet who follows you through levels and barks when he wants food
Well, actually, I can't see what other purpose this "feature" has. Is the dog in front of the tavern a she-dog? Then you could use her to distract guard dogs ;)
Right now, the dog will follow you for a short limited time (too short me thinks), and if you give him more food he will follow some more. But after a short time the dog seems to like to return and then starts embed itself into a wall.
Was fun for 2 minutes, but I wondered why I wasted two good virtual fishes and one virtual chicken drum on the virtual dog ;)
Cheers,
Tels
Glorofin on 14/3/2002 at 17:17
You didnt have any other uses for them since the demo was virtually over?
vesuvius on 17/5/2002 at 19:46
Quote:
Originally posted by Tels
I think it makes actually sense to not have dialog choices (I always felt cheated when 3 different choices let to the same action path in the game, or when I had to try them all to not miss something).
Tels Tels- that is such a bullshit defense. have you even played Fallout, Fallout 2, or Planescape: Torment? they are the greatest examples of how wrong you are about the effects of decision making.
example 1: Fallout 2
- you are asked to investigate a theft, you find the theif-
a.) extort money in exchange for letting them go
b.) tell them to take you to where they hid the stolen item
c.) ask them where the item is ( and as a result, maybe not be able to find it or if found maybe set off traps)
d.)let them go
each of these requires different stats (intelligence, charisma, strength (to threaten), karma (to be trusted), perception, etc.) they all have different results and many lead to other branching options. they all define the type of person you are in the game, and they all lead to replayability, as you may have different choices with different characters.
example 2: fallout 2
asked to help find a murderer- based on how much you investigate, who else you work for, or how you feel, you can-
a.)blame someone who poisoned the victim, but did not decide to kill the victim (was told to by others)
b.)blame the person responsible for the murder, but not the one who did the poisoning
c.) blame both
d.) blame one of 3 other suspects/informants, and the decision may cause their death, or future problems for the victim
example 3: torment
a similar investigation... no need to re-describe the type of options.
example 4: from various fallout games, acceptance of a quest
you are asked to perform a quest action
a.) accept
b.) deny (an option you think is fine to leave out, but if there are multiple factions in a game is fairly neccessary)
c.) accept only for money ( you might get money where otherwise there would have been no reward, but you might also get something worse than the reward for a selfless act, or you may be rejected by the NPC- who now sees you as heartless and greedy)
d.)another option specific to prior investigations, prior NPC conversations, or prior suspicion of the NPC. (is NPC lying, using you? maybe you just feel no sympathy for NPC but don't want to flatly reject, maybe ACCEPTING could be bad at this time so you put quest on hold, etc..)
last example: from both fallout 1, 2, and torment
your intelligence will determine how many options you have, how NPCs see you, what quests you are offered, or if you can speak beyond grunting at all
---------------------------------------------------------
these are a very small example, but conversation options bring in morality, control for the player, and replayability. they also allow you to define your individual character as somehow different, and allow you to feel that the world is alive rather than that every interaction is pre-scripted and unchangable.
Tels on 17/5/2002 at 21:24
I can only talk about Planecape torment, which I played, never did Fallout.
And yes, I constantly wondered what "other" things I missed by doing the "wrong" dialog choice. E.g. put him/her off, and you never get that quest. Or in once part, I talked at length to a ghost, and afterwards a friennasked me: "Did you get something?" I said: "uh, no, should I?" Turned out, by doing the "right" dialog choice, you get some Raise Dead spells. I never got those, even though I redid this conversation a couple of times since I *though* I missed something. I was wrong, and managed to miss the proper response anyway and "redid" the conversation again to try this.
On whether Arx's way is better or not: Dunno. Time will tell.
Tels
Le Magot d'Oz on 19/5/2002 at 00:16
Not every games are named Fallout : 'options' in dialogue are often useless (the yes, no and the aggressive answer of course -if you do not want to make something, then you don't, and if you want to hit someone, you could still hit him without warning- but also each time any of the different 'choices' do not alter the story -one the most representative game of that kind is Vampire, where you definetly have no choice ; but even Baldur's Gate is similar : when you arrive at the inn where Khalid could be found for instance, whatever you say you still have to fight...)
very few games have different dialog option regarding to your stat
'choices' make you feel the world do exist, aren't they ?
'choices' increase the replayability ? yes too much ! if you're a bit curious, you would try every option in each dialog, thus interupt the game many time by loading, thus it do not increase the immersion : you feel like you're playing a game, not talking to someone and living an unique experience.
moreover in Arx the dialog aren't "unchangable" as they change regarding to (what may be) your main concern.
You still have the same choices, but it's less apparent than in other games... so it's closest to real life !
Paldarion on 19/5/2002 at 14:46
I like the conversation system. I hated Fallout's. Way too many "choices." This led to constant saving and trying different options. This system in Arx is far more immersive.
vesuvius on 19/5/2002 at 17:14
Quote:
Originally posted by Paldarion I like the conversation system. I hated Fallout's. Way too many "choices." This led to constant saving and trying different options. This system in Arx is far more immersive. why the "quotes" around "choices". they were real choices. the system in arx is less immersive (as if you know what that means) both because it switches out of the main perspective to third person, and because it has the character say things that may have nothing to do with the choices desired by the player, but the player has no say. additionally the constant saving to try every conversation option is not a problem with the game but with you being a simpleton. I mean honestly. you say that if a game gives you choices then you have no choice but to entirely stop progressing until you cheat through saves/reloads to view them all. that has nothing to do with flawed design, it has to do with you exploiting save/reload so as to always have the optimal result, at the expense of the game. and what you are saying is that you are too immature to handle choices without having to spoil the game for yourself. other people play and live with the consequences, and in doing so have a unique experience.
