New Infinity Engine style game in the works...

[Koumei]

Yeah, though I'm not sure why a few extra lines of dialogue is really hard, especially if its just the multiple-choice menu dialogue, BG-style.

It depends on how dialogue trees are handled in the engine. A good one would be:
TREE[
[I like you, Juiblex], event4
[I dislike you, Juiblex], event5
[jam it in], event93
[(if int<6); THOG HIT], event5]

Where it's all included in one tree. But when I made an eroge with Ren'Py, there was a case where I wanted there to be three options normally, but a fourth option if you had found the urn. This required two separate trees:
If (urn==1):
TREE[
[Use the urn], event6
[Wave arms], event7
[Chant uselessly], event8
[Implore for aid], event9]
Else:
TREE[
[Wave arms], event7
[Chant uselessly], event8
[Implore for aid], event9]

See how annoying that will get for every single conversation?

Edit: the "Dhurrr" option in Arcanum is fucking stupid: you can't actually get the Hero ending. Because the conversation options needed in order to get that are actually locked out. So the moral of the story is that stupid people can only be villains.

[Starmaker]

Conversation is a nightmare to playtest in general. I'm currently playtesting an adventure game whth an established main character, so there aren't many alternative conversation options such as "be a dick" vs "be nice", you either choose to say something in-character or you don't. I spent two days checking every damn option in the first 1/4 of the game and thought I found everything there was to find. Then another tester on a first casual playthrough triggers an option that causes her to skip that part altogether. O.o

Edit: the "Dhurrr" option in Arcanum is fucking stupid: you can't actually get the Hero ending. Because the conversation options needed in order to get that are actually locked out. So the moral of the story is that stupid people can only be villains.

Which hero ending - "Upon returning to Arcanum, you are revered as a hero, and many legends were told about your adventures and your final battle with Kerghan the Terrible"? It's still possible to kill him, and it's possible to play a stupid but good character. It's fine with me that people who can't fucking speak can't drum up good publicity for themselves, not to mention settle disputes, stop wars and the like. A dumbass can still be well-intentioned.

So the moral of the story is that stupid people can only be villains.

They can be villains, or they can try to be heroes and suck at it. Because stupidity is a disadvantage.

[Koumei]

I didn't think you could actually get to fight the big bad at all - pretty much the whole thing is blocked off because of one conversation you can't actually do. Now granted, I didn't play the game much, but my sister played the hell out of it and was pretty certain that it can't be done.

[Lago PARANOIA]

So the moral of the story is that stupid people can only be villains.

The sad fact is that stories with unintelligent protagonists in them tend to be made worse by this storytelling decision. It won't sink the story by any means, but the only time I recall a serious story in which having the hero be stupid that made the story better in a non-ironic way was Flowers for Algernon.

This means that your story is better off by having the protagonist be things like a mass murderer or even a practicing pedophile than stupid.

[FatR]

I heard people saying that low-Int dialogue options in Fallout 2 were fairly hilarious. Regardless, I agree, that with a relatively strict time and monetary limit, they have better things to do than provide a second version of every dialogue for a small subset of players (I never played with low Int in Fallout 2, despite beating the game several times and don't see what is so appealing in that).

[Avoraciopoctules]

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/project-e ... ive-stream

Streaming a game of Forgotten Realms 3.5 D&D right now. Announced in kickstarter.

EDIT:
Dramatic posing when someone critically fails/succeeds a reflex save.
EDIT2:
not sure what "I told you this wasn't going to be that bad" is directed at. Maybe that some people are inexperienced with 3.5
Someone mocked for having low-tech phone
Someone thinks their druid turning into a brown bear is really cool.
EDIT3:
comments stream immediately fills with wall of bear puns
EDIT4: Josh Sawyer as DM.

[Aryxbez]

Interesting, watching it Live as of this writing, I heard Josh Sawyer made the PC's, 7th level? So I do question if they're made good at all however, how have they been fairing in the game itself?

[Avoraciopoctules]

http://media.obsidian.net/eternity/medi ... ck-620.jpg

[mikayel]

I didn't think you could actually get to fight the big bad at all - pretty much the whole thing is blocked off because of one conversation you can't actually do. Now granted, I didn't play the game much, but my sister played the hell out of it and was pretty certain that it can't be done.

Your sister is wrong, mein freund. You can very easily get the good ending by combat with the low-int dialog. You will miss out on a ton of content and potential followers, but eh, choices and consequences.

[Avoraciopoctules]

New post on armor design:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obs ... sts/339083

[Avoraciopoctules]

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obs ... sts/346041
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obs ... sts/350054

[mikayel]

in vaguely related news: the guy behind the Realms of Arkania games and Planescape: Torment (Guido Henkel) is pitching a new game called Thorvalla that is supposed to be reminiscent of The Dark Eye (german pnp system).

So far, no real info other than it being set in a norse like setting + turn based combat + combat system is "based on card games" or something of that effect.

pitch was kind of weak and there's little actual info but who knows what'll happen: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/g3s ... ido-henkel

[Lago PARANOIA]

I haven't played any of the MEs, but someone floated a theory that was in effect that the wish fulfillment of the first two games was accidental; and the third game was 'steering' it back on track for better or worse. Thoughts?

Come to think, you know what's relatively rare in games these days? Naked wish fulfillment. Like, the game goes out of its way to make your protagonist feel like an unstoppable one-person badass who singlehandedly solves every problem in the setting without having to compromise their principles or make painful sacrifices even though the grimdarkness and unfightable fate is heavily foreshadowed and made credible.

I agree that it's sort of embarrassing to write about your toon having a huge bisexual harem who kicks everyone's ass up and down and is a one-person Enlightment, Green Revolution, and Human Potential Movement filtered through scientific empiricism. But I still think that it's nowhere near as embarrassing as actually going through with the faux-existential and edgy and DEEP grimderp. Or, as Chrono Cross and apparently Mass Effect have done setting up said wish fulfillment only to sadistically throw it under the bus in a haphazard attempt of looking DEEP.

Hell, the only game franchise I can think of that even attempts to do naked wish fulfillment is Kingdom Hearts. And that franchise is a fucking mess.

[Darth Rabbitt]

Hell, the only game franchise I can think of that even attempts to do naked wish fulfillment is Kingdom Hearts. And that franchise is a fucking mess.

The first Kotor also did that (the second didn't.)

As did Morrowind (although you are a destined hero of an ancient prophecy and thus not really "fighting fate," and in Arena, Daggerfall, and Oblivion you're a gofer who probably feels small in the pants; in Skyrim, there's a lot of shit you can't do that you should that's disempowering, mostly regarding not being able to call out the Thalmor and Maven Black-Briar on their bullshit; also you're a destined hero of prophecy in that one too.)

So neither of those are really series.

The Fallout series might count, if you're not counting New Vegas and certain sidequests and add-ons in 3 (in which case Tenpenny Tower and the Pitt are both fucking with your character if you're trying to be good in any way, and you're a gofer in New Vegas unless you play Independent.)

[Starmaker]

Come to think, you know what's relatively rare in games these days? Naked wish fulfillment.

This. I'm fine with fuck-you plots in adventures, where it's that particular character with specific skills, goals and character traits who's getting fucked. That's a single story, and it might as well have an ending that's not exactly happy. In an RPG, which is supposed to let you roleplay a character, choose wildly varying traits and courses of action, etc, such a plot means "not a single person in the universe could have ever succeeded even after a gajillion attempts". And then the question is, WHY EVEN MAKE A GAME LIKE THAT, YOU SHITSTAINS.

[OgreBattle]

Come to think, you know what's relatively rare in games these days? Naked wish fulfillment. Like, the game goes out of its way to make your protagonist feel like an unstoppable one-person badass who singlehandedly solves every problem in the setting without having to compromise their principles or make painful sacrifices even though the grimdarkness and unfightable fate is heavily foreshadowed and made credible.

Super Mario

[MfA]

I haven't played any of the MEs, but someone floated a theory that was in effect that the wish fulfillment of the first two games was accidental; and the third game was 'steering' it back on track for better or worse. Thoughts?

So they have a lead writer on the first two games who somehow is overruled by the rest of the team most of the time ... and then he leaves and his original artistic vision is finally implemented? Doesn't survive Ockham's razor.

[Aryxbez]

The Fallout series might count, if you're not counting New Vegas and certain sidequests and add-ons in 3 (in which case Tenpenny Tower and the Pitt are both fucking with your character if you're trying to be good in any way, and you're a gofer in New Vegas unless you play Independent.)

Well, I recall there being "painful sacrifices", so Fallout almost might not qualify, otherwise I'd agree. Although New Vegas was still pretty good in the roleplaying/choice department, just later on had to stick to a faction more or less. Which, makes me wonder, what qualifies as not being a "gofer" in your vernacular, and/or the opposite as well?

I enjoy tragedy in storytelling, though I suppose I can find it understandable if they make it more pretentious like Skyrim did with gods threatening you and such.

As for Mass Effect, even the first games intro, advertised it how ye would be making grim choices for greater good or like. Also for "Naked wish fulfillment" doesn't action games count, like SNES/Arcade King of Dragons? You do just go around taking out the setting's most powerful monsters, generals, armies of orcs to the great Red Dragon Gildiss.

[Darth Rabbitt]

Well, I recall there being "painful sacrifices", so Fallout almost might not qualify, otherwise I'd agree.

Yeah, your father dies (although honestly he's kind of a shitty father, he could've dropped you off at Rivet City since that place is much less fucked up than Vault 101) but you can either take care of that or not.

Unless you're talking about vanilla Fallout 3's ending where you can't get a radiation immune super mutant to enter a radiation filled chamber at the end of the game despite the fact that you could do the same when you fucking met him (but that plot hole was fixed, thankfully.)

Although New Vegas was still pretty good in the roleplaying/choice department, just later on had to stick to a faction more or less. Which, makes me wonder, what qualifies as not being a "gofer" in your vernacular, and/or the opposite as well?

A "gofer" in my vernacular is someone who just does errands for the important people in the setting, and is only important by association.

In some games this isn't a problem, but in an RPG where you're told that your choices are the most important thing in the game being a gofer results in a major loss of player agency.

So New Vegas counts because you are literally just carrying out the wishes of one faction leader; (with the exception of Independent, where you are stealing Benny's plan) in a game of political intrigue I want to be calling the shots, damn it!

I enjoy tragedy in storytelling, though I suppose I can find it understandable if they make it more pretentious like Skyrim did with gods threatening you and such.

I enjoy tragedy if the plot is good and it does not result in lack of agency on my part.

In gaming it tends to generate plot holes, lack of agency, or both (especially in RPGs, many of which hand out the ability to bring back the dead.)

Somewhat Relevant Comic.

[Aryxbez]

So New Vegas counts because you are literally just carrying out the wishes of one faction leader; (with the exception of Independent, where you are stealing Benny's plan) in a game of political intrigue I want to be calling the shots, damn it!

Well, if you're picking the side of a faction, I'd imagine not a bad thing doing tasks for said people (least it's the main leaders later on,not just some corporal). Though I would agree within these "gofer"-esque tasks, the player should ideally have multiple options which to pursue the quests end, rather than only one solution.

I enjoy tragedy if the plot is good and it does not result in lack of agency on my part.

In gaming it tends to generate plot holes, lack of agency, or both (especially in RPGs, many of which hand out the ability to bring back the dead.)

Somewhat Relevant Comic.

Actually, I was referring to original two in general methinks, where bad things happened as result of players actions (very least, there are bad endings). Even in Mass Effect 2, I've heard vaguely of how have choice to make things end badly, if don't do things right. So long as it was through your decision, and like the example in that comic, where ye can't revive someone, or escape a Crushing Wall Trap when the doors are clearly made of wood (DS one sucked in general,least less obvious in prior ones).

[Wrathzog]

So New Vegas counts because you are literally just carrying out the wishes of one faction leader; (with the exception of Independent, where you are stealing Benny's plan) in a game of political intrigue I want to be calling the shots, damn it!

The problem is that if you want a game like that, you're going to have to play something like Crusader Kings or Mount and Blade, neither of which have explicit story-lines.

I don't know if it's even possible to have a videogame with a Strong Story but that also allows for Meaningful player interaction with the story/setting. I guess it's possible... but the sheer amount of extra content you'd have to create for the game would be staggering.

[Darth Rabbitt]

Actually, I was referring to original two in general methinks, where bad things happened as result of players actions (very least, there are bad endings).

Some of the endings are bugged, but there are 'good' endings for just about every scenario in the first two Fallouts, and 'bad' endings for just about everything as well, both depending on your actions.

I see that as an advantage, not a disadvantage.

The problem is that if you want a game like that, you're going to have to play something like Crusader Kings or Mount and Blade, neither of which have explicit story-lines.

I know it's not easy to implement, but I was still disappointed by New Vegas' story, even if it's understandable and reasonable why it came out the way it did.

[Whipstitch]

So they have a lead writer on the first two games who somehow is overruled by the rest of the team most of the time ... and then he leaves and his original artistic vision is finally implemented? Doesn't survive Ockham's razor.

Actually, from what little Karpyshyn has commented on about the whole thing it sounds like his original plans weren't any less grim derp even if his original ending had the advantage of not involving the stupidest conservation program ever devised. Anyway, Lago inadvertently misrepresented my li'l theory in one small but crucial detail: I don't think they were trying to correct anything with the third game, I just think that some good ol' fashioned writer-audience dissonance reared its ugly head--they thought they had gamers all on the same page, but they weren't and so hissy fits soon followed. I say this because they had a plot outline what was always very dark in theory but in the name of player agency they routinely allowed you to avoid the worst consequences and encouraged you to think of ol' Shep as being "yours." So while the ending wasn't great structurally--the logic behind the whole thing is a bit loopy--what really took things to a fever pitch is that people took it way personal that Shepard was put in an impossible situation and many people took it as a betrayal of sorts since they feel waaaay entitled to player agency. Personally, I think player agency in video games can be a bit overrated, but overall I have a hard time drumming up sympathy for bioware given that they wrote a check they couldn't cash.

Full disclosure: I didn't actually mind the ME3 ending all that much. I didn't think it was particularly great or anything, but I wasn't actually blindsided in any way by it, and I think that's largely because I am a smug pessimist with little interest in outright power fantasy. To me, Shepard was largely just a guy whose story I happened to be watching, much like with say, Nathan Drake from Uncharted. If Bioware had actively coached players to approach things that way they likely would have had considerably less backlash.

[Voss]

You mean if they had told players that their video game wasn't a game, but Bioware's Story that they were just lucky enough to witness? I can't see that going over well either.

Given how much time BW spent hyping the 'decisions matter' thing, it doesn't even make sense. That is where the writer-audience dissonance came in. The devs said one thing, and the audience expected that to be true. When it wasn't, they were understandably offended. It isn't even that all the endings were bad, but they were all bad in the same way: billions die and a colored light shines on a petty bit of trivial philosophical sophistry.

[John Magnum]

I didn't have too much of a problem with ME3 either. The body of the game featured a bunch of my big decisions having big effects, particularly the quarian/geth stuff. So while the literal last five minutes of the game were pretty dumb, I didn't feel like they were retroactively-trilogy-ruiningly dumb.