I've got a few questions about the routing of dialogue trees and quick time events in content (ostensibly with regards to using them in user generated content created by us players, when that function gets off the ground).
A dialogue tree is a map/network of clickable dialogue and action options presented in an RPG, appearing like a spider chart or other model when you're behind the scene writing it - it works same as the numbered paragraphs in an adventure gamebook if you map them out as a series of routes. These routes could apply both to dialogue with NPCs and to actions, such as gathering clues, collecting certain items, pretty much any required action you could imagine from hacking a computer to disposing of bodies to other aspects of undercover or detective work.
My first question is: will there be sufficient room to write very complex routes of these with dozens of clickable speech and action options throughout, to allow for widely divergent branches of routing depending on what choices the player clicks on?
So for example, you could have branches of the tree which take into account previous choices, while having multiple choices of routes for important decisions which result in multiple endings?
This could allow for tremendous attention to detail and immersion, and even in effect allow the player to roleplay their way through the content by choosing only actions and dialogue consistent with their character concept.
As an example of what this could allow for, you could have most dialogue NPC enounters provide a list of possible options for each of your character's dialogue replies and statements, which are based on a series of character archetypes which your PC could fit into, such as the Paladin (a big boy/girl scout, like Superman), or the Honourbound (extremely honourable but sometimes ruthless and unforgiving as a result, like Wonder Woman, Aquaman, or your average Klingon or even Predator) or the Outsider (typically logical but fundamentally objective to human beings and their behaviour and sometimes cold as a result, like Martian Manhunter, Mr Spock, Dr Manhattan, and similar), and so on, several more (I'm making a list, and bear in mind these are only the hero archetypes, not villains).
Each dialogue might have choice/s for some or all of these archetypes, some of which could have very differing results depending on when they are chosen and who your toon is speaking to at the time.
QTE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quick_time_event) could also come in great use here if you could apply the function to the clickable dialogue, meaning basically that each dialogue box and its options have a small timer, so you must choose an option and respond quickly, otherwise the NPC would become less friendly (as routing alters to make their dialogue less patient or more hostile).
If you could do this, then clicking through dialogue encounters could be made very complex and immersive, and could even allow for a player and their toon to talk or negotiate their way through content if they choose or if it is more appropriate, eg performing a hostage negotiation or some other kind of tense situation without risking more violence (that's for heroes, while villains could use the option in a more sinister way, as per my previous suggestion way back: http://cityoftitans.com/forum/psychological-combat-power-aka-hannibal-lecturer )
Another example of the wide routing potential would be to start the UGC mish by asking a few Tick the Right Box questions about the PC, based on appearance, physical nature and knowledge and training, and which choices are made here could affect routing within the mission ahead, granting path/s and challenges appropriate to the character, as well as altering some dialogue and NPC interactions as well.
For instance, appearance question could ask: Is your character visibly Human, Extraterrestrial, Robotic/Mechanical, or Non-Human Other? Choosing Human could then ask you to specify Ethnicity, Unless completely concealed by costume/attire.
This could alter the routing for forthcoming encounters, since some characters would react differently, possibly suspiciously or adversely to non-humans, while if you are interacting with organized criminals (those main groups largely associated on lines of ethnic and cultural background like the Sicilian Cosa Nostra, the Colombians, Jamaicans, Chinese Triads etc) then many will act differently depending on your race and appearance.
This would both build immersion and allow for better realized and more detailed characterization, and really do justice to the RPG aspect of the gameplay as well as the straight action and farming.
The question on physical nature could ask: is your character Biological/Organic in nature, or Metallic/other mineral, Undead, or simply Other (extradimensional or miscellaneous)? The routing which follows from this question could mean whether you char is subsequently affected by something like poison gas, killer bacteria, or whatever that only hurts certain types of individual.
The last question on Knowledge and Training might ask something like: does your character have comprehensive knowledge of: chemistry? Or Human Medicine and Surgery? Or Engineering? And this would apply routing which gives your char a later solution or option based on chemistry or engineering or whatever, such as the option to synthesize a chemical or antidote to something, patch someone up or diagnose illness, or build/dismantle an object or bomb, an option that otherwise wouldn't be available.
Anyway, ideally I'd like to be able to use dialogue tree routing for all of that in UGC content. Would it be do-able?
"TRUST ME."
As far as the navigating of dialogue trees:
I have done a relatively thorough examination of the system from the writer's perspective over the last couple weeks. I can say that, for the content that we write, we can have the system route the dialogue in many ways...nearly endless, if we put the right thought into how it would progress. We anticipate it tracking certain past and active encounters with NPCs and Factions. We plan on it tracking certain choices or actions over multiple missions. We anticipate the system to do most of what we want it to, from the writer's perspective.
As for the rest of it, our gameplay team is hard at work on many of the variables that are connected with this, and the quest system in general. It has not yet been integrated into some of the critical systems, such as combat. However, the system will integrate smoothly (we hope), once we get to that point (it has been stated elsewhere that we are creating many systems simultaneously that will be integrated later). As far as I am aware, the extent of the interface for player-generated content has not been determined. There has been discussion, of that I am sure. I am not involved in those discussions, so I am unaware of anything that has been discussed, much less the decisions that have been reached. Someone else will have to give you the information here, if it is able to be given.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Conundrum of Furballs
[color=#ff0000]Composition Team, Staff Writer[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
I don't know if the game is even going to include branching dialogue in official content. I remember reading that actions players take could result in branching storylines but nothing about branching dialogue. The entire discussion might be purely academic.
I honestly don't know if the game is going to include branching dialogue at all let alone in player content. But I am personally of the opinion that its not worth it overall. I have strong doubts that the majority of players will utilize this feature in a way that cannot be done with a simple dialogue box. It could also create a barrier for players involvement due to less intuitive design.
Now branching story paths is something I do think is worth the effort...especially if the amount of branches were limited to allow for an easier learning curve.
The problem is its tough to actually discuss this in too much detail as we are pretty much in the dark about the entire 'UGC' system. We don't have any information on aspects like how large we can make content, how much control we have over NPC actions, how much control we have over foe AI ect ect ect. Which leaves discussing in in the abstract.
I personally HATE QTE. I always found it to be a kind of 'Simple Simon' with visibly represented succeed or fail results. It is a punishing mechanic that is offset by the fact you can usually instantly redo a fail result. The system you describe does not have this offset which would make it an unforgiving mechanic in an area where it is just not needed....dialogue. A timer for dialogue would only unfairly affect players who read slower, are distracted at inopportune times or one who simply accidently clicks an option they did not mean to. Sorry man but this is not something I would want included in dialogue....or any part of the game beyond separate mini-games.
I personally would not find any UGC interesting if it began with a quiz of this sort. Any gain in personalizing the story elements would be ruined for me by the price of admission the quiz puts on it.
Even if this type of dialogue routing could be done in the game... I highly doubt the game is going to give you enough memory to explore this to the extent you describe here.
In the end I am not against any of this (except QTE) but I just don't think it will be used that much or be able to be used in the way you desire.
Incidentally, couple things I would like to point out without starting an argument or derailing your thread.
Its a tree....you have a start point that branches out to separate results. A spider chart is usually reserved for directing inward.
I would be extremely careful in using ethnicity ( or religion for that matter) in UGC. The ease at which this could cause offence even when not intended should give anyone mindful of others a reason to pause.
Apparently there are plans to have branching dialogue.
Thanks Furballs.
Branching and Converging....we do it both ways!
_______________________________________________________________________________
Conundrum of Furballs
[color=#ff0000]Composition Team, Staff Writer[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
Using tbis system in relation to race, ethnicity, or even general appearance most likely will not occur toward player characters. For one, there would be too many variables into which they would habe to be compiled into the most generic labels - thus reducing the actual distinctiveness of the player's intent. The orher reason is the same why we do not plan to attempt to enforce any specific origin of a character onto players. This leaves a lot open to player interpretation.
It could also inadvertantly lead players with certain designs to be shoe-horned into specific types of content, or miss other types of content due to the resulting paths of branches available based on character design.
It is the same reason we aren't using knowledge or skill base requirements for dialogue or other gameplay systems. We had, a couple of years back, started a "skills" system which is not going to be used. It could have resulted in the same thing: mission branches requiring certain skill sets and other issues. It would also be impossible to account for the open-ended player-side interpretation of characters by using specifc lists of possible skills or knowledge. If the result requires a specific set of knowledges for completion, and the player concept isn't accurately represented, the player will either find out they missed out on an experience, were forced into an experience they didn't want but had to take for success, or had their concept watered down in order to fit within the narative contraints of the system. Hence, it is highly doubtful UGC will provide or rely on these specific examples of branching events.
We have had discussions on what players will have access to for UGC - and while specifics are a bit away from this point in development - idea is that the tool set might be more simplified. UGC can be a very daunting system for the common player and we understand that we have to make it noth accessible for a novice, but extensive enough for an experienced player to use.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
Tannim...he's the guy to say most of the stuff that I couldn't!
(and he did, because he's awesome like that)
_______________________________________________________________________________
Conundrum of Furballs
[color=#ff0000]Composition Team, Staff Writer[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
Yeah but he says it in code...heh.
... damned tiny keyboards! *grin*
Be Well!
Fireheart
Fixed it.
Did I mention that I should stop posting with my phone while I'm out and about - and worse yet I should know better and proof read before saving? I'm terrible like that.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
There wasn't really a need for a fix....it wasn't hard to understand. I was just teasing.....just like I'm teasing now when I say I find it hilarious that you fixed those two mistakes and still left all the rest.
Excellent, thanks for the info.
"TRUST ME."
No quick time events. 90% is either luck-random-button press or memorization, either way it's always artificial difficulty. Devs that do that generally want to force the player to watch their cutscene, personally if a QTE has to be used I suspect the cutscene was kind of lame to begin with. And speed runners love skipping cut scenes, so lets give them a breather eh?
Besides, QTE's are like laugh tracks in a bad comedy, which are like that bad joke in which the idiot who said it had to explain it :).
I am however all for branching dialogue, as for ability based dialogue, one only needs to look at new vegas or the older fallout games for how powers can effect a quests outcome beyond just combat. Super strong? Who needs to be charming if you can just rip the door off the hinges of the back entrance, or maybe stack a heavy and large object to jump into a roof. Super jumper? Jump right in. Flier? Eh, easy. Speedster? Dialogue could include "speed past guy".
Telepath? Could talk to him, mind control him and walk on in, likewise :). More RPG feeling that way when people think of such solutions for some quests.
Hell, powers and objects effecting the map could be a thing to. I'll never forget that quest in fallout new vegas where I got to use explosives to close a tunnel full of sulpher and was also given the option to destroy the whole vault it was on top of. Or even the mods that let the player use explosives to unlock the doors. Or deus ex and the game letting you blow a door up entirely.
I realized something today(5/8/2014) that many MMORPG players, are not like us who enjoyed CoX. They enjoy repetitiveness and predictability, rather then unpredictability. We on the other hand enjoy unpredictability and variety.
I understand it would be a hell of lot to expect so wasn't really asking for official content like this, but my thoughts on attempting it with UGC... This would be a no-brainer for me, it would be solving one of the biggest immersion breakers/suspensions of disbelief/story logic-gaps in gameplay, namely that NPCs all react as per normal to the PC regardless of what they look like AND the character and personality of the NPC. It seems like an essential thing to try and address in-game (with UGC, on our own time, if we can do it). Certainly we could never make routing for every and all eventualities, but I was thinking something along the lines of a set of 2-3 Positive/Negative/Neutral reactions reflected in dialogue which accord broadly with the PC, like one for an outwardly human appearance, one for a monstrous/demonic/mutated/alien appearance, and maybe one more for robotic or cybernetic. The human one would also branch for ethnicity (more on this in a second). To me, it's better than nothing at all in this regard.
The above could be a general routing option, while certain story-relevant NPCs could have more specific options available depending on your previously stated appearance.
The ethnicity issue I know would have to handled very carefully, and as with other aspects would not be used to restrict progression but simply to allow for more involved dialogue and reactions. If my toon was Italian and I was dealing with certain Italian-American mafia characters then in story-terms I'd expect some differences in how they speak and react to dialogue - to me, that would just be good immersion/attention to detail, provided it didn't restrict any progress or content beyond my control.
Wouldn't it simply be a case of careful use of the function to avoid PC shoe-horning like that? In what I intended, the emphasis would be on allowing additional very specific courses of action to solve problems depending on what the PC clicked to the questions at the start, but not to point of denying rewards or progression for not doing so, just giving them alternate means to achieve whatever specific to their answers. For example, they could still just tank or fight their way through a mob or boss to get to the loot if they choose, but confirming they have some special skill at the beginning lets them find a different solution with a different challenge if they wish to take it. It would all be purely optional to them.
To me, this was the best way I could see of providing skill-based challenges and content which would make perfect sense for some types of character while being completely wrong for others - not being mandatory, but being available. The whole default of 'one means of achieving objective fits all' is what I was trying to get around with this idea, since it often runs contrary to having a specific character concept in the first place... If it's do-able with routing, that is.
That's unfortunate... I hope some options for this do turn out to exist, because it opens a lot of potential.
"TRUST ME."
QTE is certainly open to over-use and overly simplified use, such as in the Arkham games, but in some instances can be effective, if only because for some of the tasks it is used for such as opening a safe or hacking a system there is no other way to replicate that within the rest of the gameplay. I would suggest some very specific use of it, such as entering a password or completing one section of a task like making a chemical or potion or whatever.
For dialogue, there would in such a case be another way to route around to the option again and ‘take control’ of the conversation once more. It needn’t be used for every dialogue exchange but for some crucial ones it seems like a good way to incorporate a challenge and to invest importance in the dialogue - like in a hostage negotiation, some kind of trial, or similar, as in an in-story minigame. Saying the wrong thing or losing control of the debate would then cost you minor xp and mean you have to fight your way through whatever (or try to race to save the person instead etc). To me, this seems like an idea worth exploring, if it’s possible.
We’d be talking 1 to 3 basic questions on 1 to 3 aspects of their PC, at most.
I agree that some would not like, but hey ho, you can never please everyone. It seemed to me like only a minor task, so for players who like RP, immersion, or in general, it was a small enough thing to be worth if it meant for greater immersion. Most gamers I know who go in for RP love talking about their characters and concepts anyway, so clicking a few boxes doesn’t seem like a chore, IMO.
It would also be the one way I could see of allowing for certain variables to take effect which suit your PC, their appearance and nature, which would be worth the minor task at the beginning if it really achieves what I hope it would.
Maybe not, but I hope that it will.
Nope, not in my experience and understanding. If you have a source for that, then go ahead.
Yep, this is addressed in my previous reply above.
"TRUST ME."
Agreed, that is what I was hoping could be achieved. Not to restrict or funnel progression, but to allow for more paths towards it, and not in place of straigth combat/action gameplay, but in addition to and optionally on top of it.
"TRUST ME."
One thing we are certainly seeking to avoid is creating systems that players use that developers aren't themselves using. Every tool we plan to put into players' hands will be copies or simplified versions of the very same tools we use. If we made an system that wasn't for use in general gameplay, but only for the specific use in another aspect of the game that players dealt with, and something went wrong (because video games can be fickle beasts sometimes), a dev team could end up with a serious problem of resolving the players' end of the issue with the developers' internal understanding.
If the devs aren't using it in an official capacity, devs won't be designing it for players.
As I said, this would either require a humongous list in order to possibly (and most likely fail at) accounting for the wide range of possible player concepts of their characters. Or it requires a generic labeling system lumping possible concepts into broad labels, essentially stripping away the uniqueness of the character. Your examples does nothing for my lab-created, mutant human / alien hybrid enhanced with soul-crystal powered cybernetics.
The above could be a general routing option, while certain story-relevant NPCs could have more specific options available depending on your previously stated appearance.
Again, this goes back to the fact we won't design a system that the devs themselves are not using.
What sound like a simple case of careful function is not so simple to design. We are back to either creating a list of possible categories of specific knowledge and skill sets in an attempt to cover every possible character concept, or we lump a bunch together into broad-generic categories, and also most likely not be able to provide an outlet for every possible character choice.
And each of these categories would require assets to be created such as animations, particle effects, objects. Then each of these possible selections would require coding so that there is a sane way to apply each possible category of knowledge and skill as a scenario that can be plugged into the mission content.
Quite simply, it won't always work out. My character's plumbing skills may not have an appropriate application to every possible mission design - so either it doesn't exist as a category - in which case I never get to experience these alternate paths to success like other players - or it only happens rarely. Meanwhile the player who chose another skill gets to experience its usage in every other mission because it is more widely applicable / easy to insert into various types of content.
There also could be issues with making sure each possible selection provides parity of difficulty towards accomplishment. Otherwise you could end up with certain selections being more difficult to pull off over others - even inadvertently because of the incredibly breadth of possible combinations of maps, NPCs, power effects, and so on.
Then we have situations with teams of players each with different skills and knowledges, either only 1 or a couple getting to use their selections more often over others, or having to prioritize certain ones over others (again limiting what other players get to experience in play). Or having to ensure that each possible selection fits adequately in content in combination with every other skill set and knowledge base.
There are games that have done these type of things, mostly as simple player, some with co-op, and there are a few multiplayer as well. Typically each has a specific scope - that is a limited range of selections possible either because of the genre of game lends itself to a narrower theme of skills and knowledges, or the range is limited because it is the only sane way of providing the experience.
When a game like CoT intends to be - placed in our modern era - the scope of possible skills and basis of knowledge can be quite extensive. Then when you place agency on the player to be able to fulfill the concept of their character (even this will have limitations) in design, background, and so on, trying to design content that can accommodate for this more open-ended conceptualization either strips the open-ended concepts away in an attempt to generically categorize concepts, or it becomes impossible to cover every possible concept and combination of concepts into a equitable experience of the game.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
I agree completely....I just don't think QTE in a combat oriented game to be one of those instances when it would be effective.
There are an amazing diversity of other options to replicate these actions. Everything from sliding puzzles to actual codebreaking. Here take a peek at this....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlqDjkER5Ws
Lots of different challenges based on player skill (not character) for a single task. Any one of which could be isolated and used instead of QTE ...especially if you remove the second player aspect.
As I said, I personally hate QTE. I would not like it used in any aspect of CoT beyond optional mini-games.
You didn't actually address any of my concerns with the system. In fact you further emphasize how it can be unfair when you say
In cases beyond a players control, accidents or just being distracted you can get a negative result without a way to correct it. What you intend to be immersive can have far greater opportunity to remove immersion IMO.
This is not what you said or what was implied.
In the case of a 1-3 question quiz, I agree its a minor task and it would unlikely affect my enjoyment of the content. But I don't see 1-3 questions of the type in your example providing a level of immersion to offset the additional cost in dev time/effort or the added difficulty in designing UGC controls to be intuitive. 1-3 questions would require such a broad scope as to be almost useless towards immersion in most cases. Please note I said most and not all...anyone can come up with an specific exception.
Most RP fans don't like the idea of pigeonholing their character. I know I don't. 1-3 questions would do that.
There is just no way to account for the vast diversity of players imaginations. Not with 1-3 questions...not with 100 questions and not with a million. In the end all this system you propose would do is allow you to create a simply 'yes/no' quiz with the answers possibly affecting NPC reaction in a very limited scope.
I thought this would be obvious by the fact its called a 'dialogue tree' but here are a couple visual representations of the difference between the two.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Ojl0t7s.jpg[/img]
and
[img]http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/marvelcinematicuniverse/images/1/1c/Daredevil_Red_thread_investigation_board.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/640?cb=20150820193352[/img]
It was a friendly word of caution that was not specifically addressed to you but players in general. If you think you can handle the subject maturely then go ahead.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I wasn’t suggesting using different development tools. I meant that we might be able to use dialogue/choice routing to achieve things not deemed practical for official content: namely NPCs reacting differently to your PC’s appearance. Clicking one option at the start would provide routing that accounted for your appearance one way, while clicking a different option at the start would account for a different route through the NPC encounters. Do you see what I am getting at?
I was referring with the NPC reactions to a character’s APPEARANCE only, their nature or skills would be a separate matter. So for your example there, the NPCs would be routed to act one way if your lab-created hybrid with crystal cybernetics LOOKED visually human, or they’d be routed another way if your toon looked like an alien lifeform, or like a crystal-construct of some kind. The appearance question at the start of the mish would determine this one way or the other by asking 1) how your toon appears, and 2) what is their nature in more detail.
Just as, for another example, a vampire toon who looks like an ordinary guy in appearance would get a normal reaction from most human NPCs, but if I clicked Corporeal Undead for his Physical Nature, his dead cellular make-up might make him invisible to robotic NPCs.
I’d like to be clear: to apply routing like this, am I wrong in thinking it just takes a lot of memory?
I’m not suggesting having a list of areas of expertise as a skill characteristic.
Let me clarify what I meant: at the start of said mish, you get 1 to 3 Tick the Box questions on knowledge and training, such as:
Does your character have comprehensive knowledge of:
Plumbing?
Ancient Egyptian History and Culture?
Current MI6 Protocol?
Each of these is not a Skill or Ability characteristic, it is an area of study/training very specific to a certain way of beating a challenge/encounter/progression point within this particular mission, and clicking Yes to each area will mean that solution/s to the challenge opens up. So if you clicked Yes to Egyptology, then later when you examine the boss’s Temple, a dialogue box/pop-up clue/whatever would appear and tell you something relevant that only one who knows their ancient Egypt would know, eg that that sarcophagous doesn’t belong there and is too wide, indicating THE HIDDEN DOORWAY that it’s concealing. Or if you’d clicked Yes to Current MI6 Protocol, a dialogue box later on would tell you the most likely location is for a spy’s safehouse relative to where you are, so that you could go straight there.
Plumbing knowledge, meanwhile, might come in handy navigating a sewer or looking for a way out of one, or in sabotaging/reparing some kind of machine or generator that uses fluids, like a nuclear reactor (I’m guessing just off my head here, but you get the idea).
Those are basic examples of what the ‘skills’ are used for.
Again, this system isn’t and can never be 100% comprehensive, but that’s gameplay for you. There’s also nothing to prevent people just clicking Yes to all the questions for the hell of it, that can’t be helped. I still think it could go some way - potentially a long way - to increasing immersion and providing opportunities to use skills and abilities that might play a big part in their character’s story and background etc but would otherwise be impossible or completely impractical to use in an MMO... as long as it is do-able within the routing.
I was thinking of solo content for this idea, not team play. Duo/team content might be possible with a few elements I’ve described, but would have to be simpler and quicker in order to coordinate.
What I wanted/hoped I could achieve with this idea was to:
1) allow NPC actions and reactions and dialogue to depend on the outward appearance of the PC, as much as the routing allows. Limited routing would mean this isn’t worth the effort, while very complex routing would mean it could be done well.
2) allow certain aspects of gameplay to depend on the stated nature, eg biological, cybernetic, etc of the PC. This would have to be done broadly, but again depending on the routing, should be possible. This is bearing in mind that aspects of the gameplay as it stands would ALREADY be broad, ie not able to account for the full breadth of human imagination when it comes to exactly how NPCs, environment, energy bolts and bullets interact with a PC. What I hope to do was make it some way more precise and involved in this regard... again, as long as there is enough routing to allow for it.
3) do the same as above but on an intellectual level, ie so that the knowledge and skill and expertise of a PC could have bearing on the mission. I recongnize some things will be harder to pull off than others, and some things practically impossible, but it’s no reason not to try for some of them.
4) use the above things along with story aspects to allow a player to stay consistent with their character concept throughout the mission: routing takes into account the appearance and a few other broad but key aspects of the character, and that routing applies certain dialogue, text and other stuff that drives the plot of the mission.
"TRUST ME."
Interesting ideas in the video, certainly. I hope we'll have capability to apply them in UGC, that would in some ways preferable to QTEs, and would remove the need for QTE in what I had in mind.
That's true, but I see little difference between that most other kinds of gameplay. If you're running any other kind of MMO mission or instance and you have to answer the phone or whatever, then you probably get your guy killed for doing so. I don't see why this is a gamebreaker with QTEs but not any other mechanics?
Here we go again... Someone isn't listening, yet again, so I'll just finish here, bye bye.
"TRUST ME."
I understood what you meant the first time. I apparently, haven't gotten a certain point across properly.
The particular, let's call it an add-on system, is something that the devs themselves don't plan on using, it would be something that then ends up only in hands of players. If / when something goes wrong with these add-ons created by devs - but only for player use, the devs who are no longer familiar with these add-ons may not understand the depth of the issues, have to rely on player communication which isn't always concise - or have the ability to properly schedule a method for more concise communication. This only results both dev and player frustration due to the inability to adequately resolve an issue.
Simply stating: if the devs are not directly using it, it won't be made. If the devs aren't using a system of tagging appearance, race, ethnicity, skills, knowledge, etc..., it isn't being designed.
In the examples you cited, the result is as I described, lumping characters into generalizations in order to fit within the limits of the design. It quickly moves away from the intent of the player's design, background, etc...of their character being open to interpretation by the player and restricting the concepts into generalizations.
It would be like saying all the anthropomorphic possible combinations of character design would have to either be categorized as a "monster" which is a very open term, "animal", or humanoid. All of which completely lose the distinctive differences of character appearances that can range to pirate-rat/scorpion hybrid, to minotaur, and anything in between.
These are all examples of what was found to be wrong about any attempt at a skills system. Again, if the Eqyptologist area of expertise only ends up being useful in a minority of content, while Computer Programmer shows up regularly, those who chose Eqyptologist could end up regretting the decision.
More than likely, players would clue in and no longer pick the Egyptologist solutions.
These are examples of providing additional content that others who didn't choose those options would end up missing out on. They are also examples of requiring specific assets in order to fully implement the design. Such as the reference to Egyptologist in an Egyptian Temple.
Instead, what we hope to provide is a series of powers that players can end up utilizing throughout play which are basic in application, open to player interpretation, and if any animations or such are required, just as customizable as combat powers.
I'll give you a brief example: A locked door. Instead of having to choose from a potential list of "can your character do...", players who encounter the locked door have several options - bust it down (combat), go find the guy with the key and get it from him (this can be stealth or straight out combat), or attempt to pick the lock. The animation may be customizable, it could be casting a magic rune, waving a want, using lock pick tools, telekinetic manipulation, tossing a blob of acid on the lock, etc... No one is left out from either of these experiences, no one had to choose before hand what they can and cannot do. The play style is therefor up to the player and more open ended to interpretation by the player for what their character can and cannot do.
This is another strike against the system again. Even though we intend to allow for solo play for the majority of content - all content a person can solo should also scale up to the team size. It would be folly to design elements only useful for a single player in what is at its core, meant to be a multiplayer game.
Look, it is not as if these are bad ideas or anything. Many of these suggestions were brought up years ago and thoroughly hashed out. Much of what you are looking for doesn't fit within the intent of design and experience of play for this type of game.
It certainly would be more suitable for a solo / co-op game most likely within a particular genre that could provide a theme to limit the scope to something sanely workable. If it were something for a multiplayer game, the game itself would have to be different than the one we are making.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
I dunno. I think I remember reading in another thread about the mission creator that all the tools available to the devs will be available to the players.
I do think if this kind of thing was included it would probably be directly tied to the task. What I mean is if the game offers a specific sort of mini-game type challenge to unlock a door then the locked door would be designed to include that specific mini-game and you wouldn't get to design the mini-game yourself.
I was speaking in relation to dialogue choices made under a timer that can net a negative result with no way to facilitate a 'do-over'. Being defeated in combat offers a way to start again. I also did not say it was 'gamebreaking' I said it was 'unfair'.
Your examples would net a greater than the '1 to 3 basic questions on 1 to 3 aspects of their PC, at most' question quiz and the implication of your examples was the quiz could be much more detailed.
My response was not an attack on you it was an explanation for why I presented my particular opinion. I thought this would be clear with my agreement and acceptance of the premise as you established by the 1-3 comment in the rest of my comments. If it helps...I am sorry my response was worded in a way that caused you to get upset.
I believe I get what you're saying, but... it strikes me that to most NPCs a player's toon is not a unique creation of the player's imagination, it [i]is just a mutant/robot/walking furry in a cape [/i]or whatever. NPCs lump player characters into generalizations when they speak to them. The distinction would be (for the most part) blueside NPCs are polite, respectful and act like normal, while redside NPCs might draw attention to it and act out over meeting a non-human (because = crime is shallow). So, a mechanism that follows suit and replicates the way NPCs are supposed to act in the gameplay would not be failing to recognize/support the uniqueness of the PC, it would be doing exactly what it's intended to: making NPCs act in character towards the PC, for good or evil.
But, if you say it's not possible, then I can't argue with that.
"TRUST ME."
Have you considered there are already plans for a mechanic to affect how NPCs react to individual characters in the 'Alignment and Reputation' system?
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/missingworldsmedia/the-phoenix-project-city-of-titans/posts/629385
This system is not what you are suggesting here but it should offer more unique interactions with NPCs. It will not allow you to control reactions based on a specific factor you deem important for an specific encounter but it does seem to promise a fairly unique experience based on individual characters. In some ways its more immersive than your suggestion in some ways less so...overall it might be a fair compromise for you.
I actually like the idea that my fellow Titan City citizens are race/creed/color/gender/species/origin agnostic. I would hate to have a contact decide they didn't like the shape of my costume and treat me differently because of it.
Be Well!
Fireheart
I agree with you Fireheart. In a world where people can fly, Robots have human or beyond human AI, walking stone heroes/villains work, and GODS can show up shopping at the supermarket. The idea that people would be judgemental because someone another race, sex, or religion seems silly.
-------------------------------------------
Personal rules of good roleplay
1.) Nothing goes as planned.
2.) If it goes as planned it's not good RP
It's already silly (as in, in RL). My intent with seeing if we could do this was to create better/more realistic characterization which would make for more interesting NPC encounters and thus more varied story-arcs and immersion than MMOs normally provide. If it was do-able, it would require careful writing and wouldn't restrict content arbitrarily, but would do the above. It would've also mainly applied to villains and anti-heroic or neutral characters, because again, really good guys wouldn't be as judgemental.
To me, it was an immersion breaker that whomever a PC talks to while looking like a steampunk demon etc would never react differently, no matter who they are. They are ALL used to it, or they're all faking like the world class actors? Plus NONE of the villains are bigoted in any way, even for the sake of trash-talking? Anything that found a way around that would be a welcome change, to me.
"TRUST ME."
In a way yes and no Gluke. People get used to extremes. For example, Lady GAGA is well known for extream outfits. So much so few people really raise a brow when she dresses in something odd. I saw more news about her dressing normally. If a high school girl dresses like Gaga she be bullied.
When people can see extream looks and features every day like in Titan City there will be less bigotry than a location where it's not well known. Same reason you see less Racal bigotry in New York then you see in say a small city in South Carolina. If anything, there would be the opposite effect. Bigots would want to leave Titan City.
For someone not living there a Fire Demon from the pit of hell is a life changing thing. For a Titan City civilian, it's a Tuesday.
-------------------------------------------
Personal rules of good roleplay
1.) Nothing goes as planned.
2.) If it goes as planned it's not good RP
That's all true. One might assume it's also because NPC's are scared of the superPC/think all superPCs are crazy/both. But it does pose problems in gameplay logic and continuity given both the nature of a superhero-verse and the sandbox character creation options: if there is content about anti-mutant/robot/whatever prejudice or morality and supes or the law and vigiliantism or many of the other tropes to be found in superhero fiction, then the fact that the PC is exactly what the subject matter is about becomes an elephant in the room that its impossible to draw attention to, eg you're working for/against anti-mutant attacks and talking to paranoid anti-mutant bigots all the time and no-one thinks to point out you're part-housefly?
If only there was a way to route around that or some other mechanism to account for it.
"TRUST ME."
This is the kind of idea that works great on a table top, but is either so complicated it isn't worth coding, or outright fails in a video game. And given the fact that between the alignment axis, faction ratings, and mission history we will have cues for contacts to react differently to us it isn't really worth it at all.
-----------------------------------------
I never set anything on fire accidentally!
The Titan Legacy - Defender of the Inner Flame
The thing is that such a system would actually have to have two sets of such parameters, what you actually are and what you appear to be. The appearance set would be able to change and adapt to your power usage, costume options (outside of "physical traits") and other "events" in game (like an undercover mission). Add in a needed granularity of the system, how much/close do you look like how much does the NPC care about it how vocal the NPC is and how easy it is to make them see past it, and you have a system that I seriously doubt would be worth implementing since I just can't see the benefit of it outweighing the cost of getting it right.
I think people are misunderstanding what Gluke was suggesting by focusing on the examples.
I think he wants a way for UGC to provide a direct connection from the story being told and the character doing the content...connection that is controlled by the creator of that content. (go ahead and correct me if I am wrong). He wants to use branching dialogue trees to facilitate setting certain important elements of a particular story...a kind of flagging system.
Not just appearance but a way to flag specific character based aspects that are undefined by the game or generally do not have a direct impact on gameplay. Things like skill, character backgrounds, general archetypes (not game specific ATs), motivations, goals and so forth... including appearance.
Flags of this nature could allow stories to include a more personalized focus. If a UGC creator wanted to tell a story of infiltrating an army base he might include the flag for 'previous military experience' in dialogue trees and have the conversations reflect that. If the story will include NPCs from another country who don't speak English the creator might include 'speaks the NPCs language' as a flag.
Furthermore, if these flags could have an impact on the missions themselves they could provide alternate success parameters, additional goals and specific foe reactions to name a few possibilities. If the mission involved getting the code and the creator offered the flags 'telepath' or 'not telepath' as a choice for the players then an alternate way to complete the mission could be to mind read the guy who knows that code instead of the old 'beat em up' standby. If the mission includes a group of scared human refuges from an alternate dimension who have never seen anything remotely non-human and the mission had a way to know if your character did not look human with the flags then the inhuman character would have a different experience with that mission than the human one would.
What he is asking for is a way to make UGC more immersive which is not a bad thing to want.
Then again I could be completely mistaken about what Gluke was proposing.
That is exactly what I was proposing, thanks.
I realize now the idea of Tick the Box questions at the beginning of a mish may not be such a good idea, it would be a chore, and there is too many flaws with applying to appearance and knowledge and training... but maybe a way to get a PC to confirm or deny things organically via dialogue in the mission, which would not effect the gameplay/routing wholesale (like revealing hidden doors etc) but would re-route NPC behaviour and reactions depending on what you said/replied to them with.
For example, having an NPC say something casually like "Mutants - they f***ing creep me out." To this your reply choices include "I AM a mutant..." or "Same to you, human." or similar. Choosing either of those statements as reply would route dialogue to trigger a later consequence in the behaviour and dialogue of certain NPCs, but would not alter the actual paths or physical content you can see and interact with.
So, enabling the PC to [i]say[/i] certain things about themselves (which may be accurate or not) could therefor affect behaviour of some NPCs for the sake of immersion/RP but would not otherwise alter gameplay.
That would achieve the effect I was looking for, and while a step back from my earlier proposal, if routing allows, could be possible... We'll see, I guess.
"TRUST ME."
This is what I have been replying to from your first post....with the exception that your original wording specifically said you wanted long elaborate dialogue trees.
Dialogue trees which would be mostly hidden, since the PC would only see dialogue which arises in response to their particular dialogue and action, they would not see all possible replies which are also part of the tree.
If you're implying some kind of inconsistency on my part, there was none. Or if it seemed there was to you, you were mistaken.
I could be wrong, but it seems you're trying to goad another petty argument, with the condescension of "upset" and now more nitpicking. I'm being civil since I don't want to see another thread locked due to this.
"TRUST ME."
Nope....was just hoping that you might realize you had over reacted earlier and that these kind of accusatory responses would stop.
So it was a bit broader than I first thought but my point about granularity still stands.
To use some of the other examples, just because you have military experience does not mean that you have the kind of experience that is necessary for that particular job. It all depends on what branch you were in, your actual position, how long you were in the military and how high rank you achieved.
Or just because you're non-human you will be better received by other non-humans than humans would be. A race that is known for beating up anyone/anything they perceive as weak on site will most likely be feared more than an unknown race by refugees of a third race.
To doing it right you would need to add in all those "granularity flags", and as you yourself said Gluke it would become a chore. To me not having this granularity would most likely be more "immersion breaking" than not having such a flagging system in the first place.
From what I understand, outside of reacting to ones physical traits/appearance, what you want can effectively be driven through the current dialog/action system with the exception of having to present every possible dialog-response at all times instead of hiding certain ones if the PC doesn't have enough skill/knowledge/whatever for those.
Very true. There is no way to account for the almost infinite possibilities that human imagination can come up with and falling short of that will seldom have a measurable positive impact for the majority of players.
That said, he is talking about UGC which tends to be a more focused endeavor with the mission descriptor indicating if the content applies to individual players. Clever people will find a way to present the types of stories Gluke is talking about with or without this system. The fact its user created and not official means players are more free to avoid stories they are not interested in or a specific creator if they do not like the content that creator offers.
I do agree with the basic idea. Being my main character is an undead zombie like fellow he should be noticed. More so around folks who are anti-supernaturals/Magic. Having people react to him would be a blast for me.
On the other hand, there work vs reward. Not in terms of game play but game development. MMOs have a major immersion braking element to them. That is the foe respawns. We see so many foes reappear over and over that we have to ignore them. MWM working on an instance system where this problem isn't seen as much.
So adding all the click flags to say the character creation system would the Benefits be enough for the extra work? Will clicking (Undead Zombie) restrict me from playing some story arcs? And the big one would putting in such a system take away from development of more important systems?
-------------------------------------------
Personal rules of good roleplay
1.) Nothing goes as planned.
2.) If it goes as planned it's not good RP
Am I reading this thread correctly? You are advocating creating ways to impose bigotry in interactions between NPCs and PCs?
If so, I am adamantly opposed. Too much of that out here in real world. This would be one aspect of realism I would not appreciate.
If not, please disregard my little post completely!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My author page at Amazon: https://amzn.to/2MPvkRX
My novelty shirts: https://amzn.to/31Sld32
Yes, that would be a part of what this could be used for, if there was a way to implement it. Within acceptable bounds for PG13 age group, obviously, so we're not talking about throwing racist expletives around, but yes. Dude, casual prejudice and bigoted attitudes are a fact of life in most societys, just like crime is, and typically held by the same caliber of people because criminals are cynical, shallow and uneducated, in most ways, most of the time. Part of the whole point of the X-Men in fictional narrative terms is that many people are cynical, hypocritical, intellectually lazy, emotionally immature, paranoid and whatever else you need to be in order to be bigoted. There would be required suspension of disbelief when it comes shooting lasers from you eyes and leaping tall buildings in single bounds, but in terms of social and societal realism and plausibility for the sake of immersion, then for me having some of the NPCs portrayed as complete assholes - ESPECIALLY the evil ones - is a must.
Do you really want to see cold-blooded career criminal NPCs who are politically correct and considerate, respectful and polite all the time?
"TRUST ME."
Maybe your use of the word "bigoted" to describe this idea is a little loaded but I still think I understand what you're trying to say here. It would make sense if street-tough gang banger type NPCs would use rougher, aggressive "trash-talk" in their responses to anyone regardless if the PCs are technically heroes or fellow villains.
We don't need the game to get "real world racial" or even use hard profanity but it would be appropriate (again within the bounds of the Teen rating) if some NPCs were more "non politically correct" in their responses than others.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
WWII Axis powers are a ubiquitous superhero trope when it comes to background, we have former Nazi collaborators in both the Big Two superverses and we had it in City of Heroes with Lord Arachnos. I don't recall if the devs here have made statements aobut this, i would imagine they're cautious of this subject matter owing to the teen rating, but nonetheless, would you ever want to face a character like Red Skull, any of the anti-mutant characters or similar in a game like this? Would it bother you?
It seems like many of the responders to this thread have very different attitudes to such things as I do, and are looking for something quite different.
"TRUST ME."
Many games over the years (including CoH) have included some variation of WWII Axis styled villains without too much difficulty. I probably wouldn't be surprised to see something like that again in CoT.
The main point of contention at least as far as depicting "Nazis" goes usually involves whether or not the game tries to display overt Nazi symbols or not. From my gaming experience as long as they avoid swastikas then pretty much anything goes. I've seen some games avoid the SS "lightning bolts" symbol as well but the big one is the obviously the swastika.
I think if the guys at MWM are clever enough they could come up with some kind of villain group inspired by the "look and feel" of the WWII axis powers without having to make them literally be fascists along the lines of the historical Nazis or Imperial Japanese. Perhaps for CoT the "target" of such a group's hatred could be directed at anyone with super powers. By considering themselves to be "pure humans" and hating anyone with powers their focus isn't just on one group of people but anyone (regardless of race or ethnicity) with "evil" powers. The twist of course is that just like Hitler was not really the "Aryan ideal" himself maybe the leader of this anti-supers groups actually has superpowers which he/she is hiding from the rest of the group for some insane/hypocritical reason. I figure something like this should be acceptable from a "politically correct" point of view.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
I've used this concept in PnP games before and it works quite well. I usually have the group utilizing technology (lots of power armor and fancy weapons) to make them a challenge for the heroes in a fight, but their true threat is often social/political.
As a variation, I've done a version where a specific subset of powers was considered acceptable and was utilized by the group, while all other power types were reviled and their possessors were hunted.
Yep there are lots of ways you could make a fictional group in a game like CoT that borrows all of the militaristic/totalitarian trappings of a "WWII Axis" type army without having to rely on a 100% cloning of real world historical Nazis.
All you need to do is have a group that's highly organized/regimented and characterized by a strong central ideology to stand for or against something. Having that group be technologically oriented with black/grey uniforms and authoritarian British or German accents usually helps... just ask George Lucas about that. ;)
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Basically, fascists make for good villains. :)
And skulls. Skulls help.
Consider pace of play. A good story is important. Keeping the player engaged is also important. I think a broad branching tree dialog can take away from that engagement. I would rather see the story play out live rather than reading two paragraphs and then going off to a mission. From what I've read that is the direction MWM is going. The story plays out in the mission and actions taken in the mission, rather than the dialog. IE if you sneak in the back door and free the hostage without tripping alarms or alerting the guards that changes the story more than selecting option B in a dialog tree.
CoH got this right closer to the end than it did at the beginning. At the end you'd get little cut scenes and pop-up dialog that would update you on the story as you played. Early on, you read the text and fought the bad guys. Or if you were on a team that was wanting to get down to business, you skimmed the dialog or just clicked the next button without reading anything to get to the next mission. If you were not the team lead (or it wasn't your mission) you were just along for the ride, you had no input and no knowledge of events beyond the mission title/objective.
If it were up to me, a story line would be opened with a bit of a description. A paragraph, but only because there isn't always a good way to do that another way. The mission would be introduced in 2-3 sentences of dialog, then pop-ups of short dialog along the way to add more details as needed, with actions carrying the most weight. I'm all for a good story and sitting down to read (or more often now, listen to) a good book (audiobook) but when I'm gaming I am there to do something else.
Dialog trees are fine but a big tree is a lot of wasted work. Each branch gets progressively more unused. If a tree has 2 branches for every bit of dialog by the time you get to the end of 4 bits of dialog 90% of that dialog is unused per character run through. And for what purpose? If you change the resulting mission then you run into issues where rewards may be gained or lost depending on which choices were made. If you do that then there becomes a "right way" to progress through the tree to get the most valuable rewards. Which results in the other options getting used even less often and potentially forces a character to make choices counter to their personal RP.
It's fine to include some branching but if you add too much the system gets cumbersome and slows the pace of play. Everything in moderation.
Second Chance: https://store.missingworldsmedia.com/CityOfTitans/SecondChance/
Dev Tracker: http://cityoftitans.com/forum/fixing-dev-digest
Dev Comments: https://cityoftitans.com/forum/dev-comments