I saw on kickstarter that D:OS2 has passed 1.5 mio $. This means we get the hall of echoes. I know many examples for bad strongholds. Do you have any suggestions to make a good one?

- The hall of echoes is the land of the dead. I guess normal people cannot enter or leave it at will. How about this: At some point you meet a powerful enemy. He does not only try to kill you but to destroy your very existence. You have no chance against him and end up in the hall of echoes. Somebody there tells you that you are special and you are able to leave because you still have something to do in this world. He gives you an item that allows you to get back to the hall of echoes, but it can only be used at places related to death (like graveyards).
This tells nothing about how the hall of echoes looks like and what can be done there.

some thoughts:
- An evil force does not only want to end all life, it wants to end the existence of everything. You have to protect the world of the living and the world of the dead from its minions (and finally itself).
- The stronghold of Pillars of eternity was the worst part of the game. You spend money for an upgrade and than you wait until it is finished or a random event happens. This was boring and uninteresting.
- NWN2 had one of the better strongholds and I liked the battle where you have to defend it. Somebody else said that the stronghold of Divinity2 was good (I did not play it.) However those are places in the normal world (like PoE). I do not know how much of this can be transferred to the land of the dead.

shape shifting well sounds promising !!
I am not sure my hall of echoes will be a really friendly place then h馼

It sounds like they're putting a lot of thought into it, moreso than the D:OS1 homestead (which was still decent, but not amazing). To me, a good stronghold evolves over the game, has a few cool events like enemy assaults and some kind of destructive event maybe, and a few quests. Maybe minigame or challenge sort of things, too, like how in Transistor, there were lots of challenges to complete in your little stronghold. They also had a music player, which would be cool in D:OS 2 (maybe as part of the shapeshifting room?) and a great tribute to Kirill. Maybe you could even meet him there, if that can be done tastefully.

I'm interested in this!

The stronghold in nwn2 worked because you weren't the only one there. It was also a very active part of the game if you wanted it to be. You went all over the map trying to gather supporters, builders, merchants, lieutenants etc. You also had choices on what you want built. It also had very active events (wandering adventuring group) which gave you unique items. Most of the things you did gave you unique items. The more you upgraded your troops and buildings the easier the fight to defend it was (duh). I don't think this level of interactivity can be achieved if it's only a stretch goal and is not planned from the start. If it can be then great. There is also a very interesting story regarding the stronghold in Pillars of Eternity. Josh Sawyer has said that their experience from the nwn2 stronghold cited that the majority (or at least a very noticeable subset) of players don't actually like strongholds and they made the one in PoE as unobtrusive and pointless as possible on purpose. I can't seem the find the exact quote, but that's pretty much what he said. That was quite an eye opener. Strongholds do tend to grind the game's pace to a halt and I can see where they are coming from. The best and hardest thing to do is to make it so it fits the context of the game. Having it randomly just to have a stronghold doesn't work.

EDIT: I found the quote -
"There are a non-trivial number of players that absolutely loathe strongholds as a concept and never want to interact with stronghold mechanics. It's difficult to make something feel robust and rewarding but also completely optional."

"And if we gated a bunch of quests through the stronghold, there would be complaints about that. It's not really an "everyone wins" decision since some people hate stronghold-gated content. That said, if we had spare area and narrative design resources during development, sure we'd make some stronghold specific content. That was never the case and it still wasn't the case on the expansion. Whatever work is done on gated content is work not being done on content available to everyone."


Someone else:
You "gated" a lot of good content, including a character quest, behind the Endless Paths, though, and that was optional as well.

Stronghold content is available to everyone, though, it's just that, much like the endless paths, it's optional.

Josh:
"You're downplaying the aversion that people have to strongholds, specifically. If there's a "I hate big dungeons" bloc of significant size, I'm unaware of them. Stronghold aversion seems more comparable to romance aversion."


Someone else:
I would expect something with parity with the games this was inspired by. So, when I think of what my expectations are for a stronghold in PoE were, I thought maybe a total number of quests (with similar depth) to the multitude of Strongholds in BG2.

Josh:
"Do you want us to cut six quests and ~20 characters/dialogues from the expansion areas for the stronghold?"

Wait a sec.
Josh said that he wanted to make a part of the game as pointless as possible because many people do not like strongholds (what, no facepalm smily?)

Then why did he create this stretch goal?

Well, I am not against stongholds in general, but I do not need them either. Many good games I know do not have them (like Planescape Torment or Gothic) or it was simply the place where my companions are waiting while I do something else (like Chrono Trigger or KotoR). I do not know a game (except NWN2 maybe) where the stronghold was so good that I would really miss it (including D:OS1).

In NWN2 it made sense because you earned it with lots of sweat and blood and you need it to fight the forces of darkness. You are a knight of Neverwinter when you get it.

In D:OS1 it made little sense because you were source hunters who travel the world to solve a murder and to investigate and stop the cult who is behind this (the immaculates). Why would you stay in one place when your job is to find somebody?

In D:OS2 it makes even less sense because you are an escaped prisoner. Why do you want to stay in one place for long until you have escaped the people who want to purge you?

Edit: @Lacrymas, I have written the things above before I saw your edit

That's what everyone else is asking too. I don't think PoE turned out good at all, so the stronghold is small potatoes compared to that. The stronghold just needs context, logic and content, it's pointless otherwise.

Ok, lets try to approach the thing from the other side.

Who are the people who want a stronghold and why do they want it?

Why do they want it is actually a pretty good question that I'd like an answer to as well. The point that Sawyer brings up is quite relevant as well: Is it worth gating content behind the stronghold? For me it's only worth it if it makes sense and isn't thrown in there just to have a stronghold. D:OS' Homestead wasn't worth it and neither was PoE (though they didn't create any meaningful content for it on purpose). The only stronghold that ever worked well is, like I said, in NWN2. It wasn't just handed to you, you worked for it throughout the story. Peasant -> City Guard/Thief -> Squire (to one of 2 knights) -> Captain of Crossroad Keep -> Knight of the Nine. It worked great and it had logical, constant progression. In PoE it was Nobody -> Lord of Caed Nua, in DoS 1 it was Source Investigators -> Magical Overlords at the End of Time. You can see where it all falls down. Really, I could spend hours trying to describe what made the SH in NWN2 work, but I think you all know why by this point. It was packed with content and it was logical.

You can't please everyone, so there's no sense in half-assing a stronghold to make sure there's no content in it, since that will please nobody. I don't particularly care for strongholds in general either, but I really don't see what's inherently wrong with them that people completely loathe them. The only thing that really makes a stronghold is the sense that you at least partly own or are in charge of a location. I mean, not sure if there's really a big difference between a player home and a stronghold, though the latter usually implies other people than the player live there too, and somewhat that it's a 'defensive location.'

The player home thing logically leads to the question: Why do we need a home? Aren't we on a grand adventure with lots of traveling and interesting locales? What are we using the home for? Going back there for cake once in a while? "Player homes" are even more nonsensical than a stronghold.

Law of XXX: All big kickstarter RPGs need a stronghold as stretch goal.

Even Torment - Tides of Numenera had a stronghold as stretch goal. I am almost happy that they failed this goal, though I really want to play that game.

We need to find out who is XXX and hang him

Well, even adventurers have to rest every once in a while. A prerequisite of adventuring isn't necessarily that you're hobo. And anyway, it's the hall of Echoes, which will be interesting in its own right, not some cottage. Somehow, as Sourcerers, you can access it before death. It's probably not a safe place to permanently hunker down with a crazed source hunter after you, but it's okay for a night here and there. I'm sure they'll provide plenty of reasons why you need to keep on adventuring on despite having a home. If you do nothing to stop Alexander the Innocent, he's going to take over the world.. Whether you want to stop that for your own safety, or to protect innocents, that's your roleplaying choice.

Sure, but how does that translate to gameplay? They can easily say "ah, btw we have a home that we rest in once in a while" and be done with it. Having this elaborate dwelling with dramatic proclamations and kickstarter stretch goals is taking it a bit too far for what we get.

The Elder Scrolls games tend to have quite a few different player homes. Roleplaying in the Elder Scrolls games comes pretty naturally to me, I make one character and put them into a fixed role, they only do a couple faction quests (unlike some other players who try to do all factions with one character).

But yet, I've never really been into building a home and making it all fancy, even though there are lots of people who love doing that in those games.

Player homes and strongholds for me, tend to just be a place to dump stuff off that I don't want to be carrying at that moment. If there are shops there I might buy things. But I never bother going overboard and trying to decorate things just so (so that whenever you enter the cell, all your carefully placed things go flying all over and you cry).

My point is that it (player home) literally adds nothing of value or interest. TES has a tortured history and not in the good way. There are very few things we can learn from them past Morrowind and all the things we can are mistakes that we shouldn't repeat. If you want to build and decorate a home go play the Sims. I'm not riffing on the Sims, I actually love it and think it's a very unique experience. Strongholds at least can provide a way to simulate a large scale war from the point of view of a single character (yours).

It's completely dependant on the story and narration, honestly. You may need or it may make sense to own a hideout, a house, a fort, a cave, a boat, or anything that could be considered a "home".
"home" or "headquarters" have been in game since.. forever, really. The new thing is being able to free-walk in it, look around, and to some extent interact with it.

In the Assassin's creed saga, the homestead is a rallying point, a resting place, and the headquarters from where you send people do tasks, manage trade routes, etc.
In Skyrim, it's a warehouse, holds a great RP meaning, and a resting place ( though you can rest anywhere really ).
In PoE, it is quite useless, true.
In DOS1, it was more of a thing tied to the story although it's true it wasn't that great.
In Divinity 2, it fit very well in the story and gave you lots of advantages for progressing through the game.

A home is the new incarnation of the "main hub". It's you default "go-to" location when you aren't sure what to do next or when you're thinking of ending your session. Arguably, it's the open-world / open-story equivalent of the headquarters from a thousand of other games, like Xcom or Darkest Dungeon. Arguably still, you will want to build your own house for obvious purposes in Minecraft, Terraria, Starbound, Don't Starve, etc. And while some MMOs feature housing, it's quite useless except to chill when you're a little bored, like in Wildstar, or a feature you can't ignore because it regroups a lot of services like your ship in The Old Republic. WoW recently put the Garnison system in the game, and while it's a bit too important ( most people spend most of their time in the garnison rather than with other people doing things ), they put a lot of very useful and interesting features in it.

So, do we need a home? Not necessarily. Is it stupid to put a home? The game story will answer that. Does it add nothing of value ? No, it actually does, as long as people behind it thought it well.
There are no clear yes or no, one thing is sure : if it is well done, as well as making sense in the context, it is a very nice and interesting feature to have in a game.

Fair enough.



The commonality between these examples (except Div 2 and arguably D:OS) is that they are spreadsheet simulators, especially in AssCreed and PoE. In Skyrim it's *literally* useless (except storage I suppose), going to it to rest just wastes time, but that can be said about many things in Skyrim. Only in Div 2 does it function somewhat well and is logical. None of these examples add interesting gameplay though, and that's the main issue. It's menu navigation in a pretty dress. (even in Div 2)



If it is a focal point in the story, a thing that is a repeated motif and a recurring element that binds the narrative elements together, sure. It defaulting to the main hub because the game gives you no hints how to continue is simply bad design. Just chilling there wastes time that I could spend doing something with my life :p



Fair enough.

I'd argue that having a home for the sole sake of RP is a nice thing to have too, as it contributes to the overall mood of the game. In Skyrim, sure there isn't a lot of things going on with the vanilla houses ( I'd like to point that I don't own the homestead or-what-its-name dlc ), but it's a place to call home, and I feel like this is an important thing in a very exploration / RP oriented game like the ES games. Some mods also bridge the gap between pure RP and utility, and enables the player to rule over a whole fort complete with NPCs and stuff. Also it's more pleasant to have a [functionnal] homestead in the AC gamesthan a litteral spreadsheet

But I get your point, actually.

I guess we'll have to hear more of it. The uber stretch goals, starting with the HoE, really divide the community. Best thing to avoid headaches is probably to just trust them to do the right thing. Swen probably heard the complaints, and got that people would like the HoE to come later in game and be at least as useful as the tower in Div2. Fortunately, that's what he will ask his crew to do

I actually don't have a preference. My only criteria is that it be done well, no matter what they choose to do. They've already chosen the SH option and that's fine. If it's pointless I'll lament the time they spent doing that when they could've been doing some other content that wouldn't be pointless etc. More NWN2, less everything else basically :p

Here is the link what Josh said about the stronghold in PoE:

Link

Thanks to the people in the Obsidian Forum who found and confirmed this:

Link

I posted this exact quote, check the edit. :p Though I found it as a quote, not a direct link to the somethingawful forums. I like your enthusiasm about confirming information :p (not sarcasm)

Well, I AM a scientist after all. I judge all information regarding significance and reliability and it seems strange that somebody says such thing about his own game.

The world (and especially the internet) is full of useless information. If you look long enough you will find evidence that Elvis is the president of the USA, earth is cube shaped, there is an alien invasion on friday and we are all being mind controlled by the illuminati.

Donï½´t get me wrong. I have no reason to assume that you say something wrong. Its just my habit as scientist to try to confirm everything I see.

You don't need to explain yourself, I understand perfectly well :p And the thing I said does sound quite absurd, doesn't it? Making a stretch goal to have a stronghold, while knowing the information he knew, then making it as boring and useless as possible because of the previous knowledge is quite labyrinthine logic and still doesn't make sense :p

WHAT? We aren't ??

ok guys, I really don't have time to review each and every argument in this topic (however I have read the whole conv).

My point is, as it has been said, in some games such as WoW, Fable, AC D:OS and D2, housing is a big feature. In some games it is even part of the story (I really liked what they did on D2 even if you get the tower a bit late in the game IMO). It is a place that belong to you, it is a place that you can, usually, customize.
Furthermore it is often a rest time in your exhausting adventure, like right after defeating a boss, you take some times at your home talking to NPC, emptying your bags, hanging trophies, cleaning the floor... oops well you get the idea.

I am not saying that EVERY RPG MUST have housing, it will really depend on how it is made, what you can do in it and its importance in the story. And I assume that if Larian set housing as a stretch goal it means that they ill have to somehow change the script to include it in the game especially considering that your home is nothing less than the Hall of Echoes...

YOU are!

I am the leader of the illuminati and I spread fake information to make people feel safe.

Do you feel safer now?

I am one of those that normally do not care about a player home, but there were a few things about the Homestead in D:OS that made me want to come back every now and then. The fact that it was there where the backstory got unveiled was one of them. That you could travel there by portal without losing time in the game was another. Content-wise, there wasn't much of interest, though. And what was there was spread out too much over the different areas and took a lot of running around to get to. So I only ever talked once to each vendor. Would be much better to have them all appear on a central square, like a market place, to make access to them more convenient.

The thing is that I would enjoy a small-scale home much more than something grand that is not really fitting to the character I play. A smaller place is easier to fill with life too, has interesting bits in easy reach from each other and just feels more cozy. I have no idea in which form the Hall of Echoes will manifest itself, but I do hope that it is more condensed than the Homestead was, and on a single map instead of different areas connected by portals.

I am one of those (apparently few) people who actually enjoy strongholds and player homes in most games and I think I can provide a useful explanation as to why. In response to the many PoE stronghold comparisons I'll first take some time to provide my defense for its existence.

In contrast to many of the opinions already voiced in this thread I simply adored the PoE stronghold. While I see a distinct case of a missed opportunity in its implementation when it comes to quests, rewards, interactivity, etc. , it appealed to me for one reason - roleplaying. The way PoE was designed it was near inevitable that the player character quickly became absurdly rich. As a dedicated roleplayer I found this intriguing instead of troubling. In light of his new found riches my player character immediately thought it fitting to have every imaginable luxury he could possibly acquire and the stronghold provided just the right amount of self indulgent material fluff to satisfy his whims. The eventual visiting of filthy rich nobles, dedicated servants and the like only further satisfied his taste for wealth and power. Conversely, a more humble player character may have seen the excess this castle personified as something to be avoided and eventually destroyed (endless paths quest), only investing in necessary rooms and avoiding raising his prestige. With opportunities like these in mind I found great joy in making decisions in reference to my stronghold throughout my entire playthrough. Furthermore, despite its shortcomings (that have already been thoroughly discussed) I still felt it a worthy addition to the game.

That said, I find it important to point out that I am lucky to have been among the type of roleplayers who seek to build what I would call a citizen in a roleplaying game and I'll explain what I think would constitute the type of roleplayers who were rightfully disappointed. When building a character in a roleplaying game, especially the rich and complex crpgs that those interested in the divinity series love, there are a few different types of roleplaying that I have come to recognize. Those being:

The God character - more often referred to as the power gamer, he or she seeks to uncover the limits of the world and use them to their full advantage and create a personality with immense power, sparing no sympathy when it comes to bugs and exploits
The Hero\Antihero - seeks to make full use of every advantage offered in story, exploration, and game mechanics without resorting to bugs or exploits in order to create a character of great power and influence in the game world
The Player Character - seeks to model their character on the merits of their real life personality giving less attention to underlying mechanics and more to player preference creating an authentic relationship with the game world, narrative, and characters
The Adventurer - seeks a specific playstyle from the outset of their journey with the intent to complement that character with all of the advantages of complimentary class\levelling decisions, story decisions, companions, and equipment in order to create a hero with distinct personality
The Citizen - seeks to create a character with specific values, morals, tendencies, fears, and other intricacies either preconceived or developed along with the dynamic events of their playthrough. Often specifically including or excluding certain decisions, narrative pieces, and mechanics in order to create a character as immersed and grounded in the lore, story, and world of the game as possible

With accommodation of all of these types of roleplayers (as well as variations and blendings of each) in mind, it's my belief that in order to create a better stronghold in a roleplaying game it must be inclusive by player choice in every way. From a design philosophy perspective this can be very simple (I lack the expertise to comment on technical implementation). Any feauture within or as an extension of the stronghold should be accessible by choice rather than arbitrary thresholds. To illustrate this I'll use the example of an additional room to be added to the stronghold. Upon deciding they want a specific additional room the player should be given various options on how to acquire it. For illustration purposes lets say the room is inaccessible because it is inhabited by a lingering spirit. The options for removing it being; a fight, having learned the spirits reason for haunting the room and providing it with information that will release it, hiring stronghold staff to kill it for you, learning an incantation for banishment, stealing an incantation for banishment. Having completed the task all players would receive the room with it's initial purpose alongside a seperate smaller reward or hindrance indicative of their playstyle. Primary and secondary task rewards\hindrances could come in the form of quests, characters, decorations, narrative, items, unique dialogue, etc.

If this philosophy were used it would be possible to include whatever rewards (or hindrances i shouldnt forget) developers felt comfortable including without alienating certain types of players, without necessitating a direct inclusion in the main narrative, and without creating a wasted space. At the same time it would be possible to include a way for players to personalize their experience through choice in their investments. This is, without a doubt, a larger undertaking than those usually present in player bases but one I feel is possible and maybe necessary to create a truly enjoyable stronghold.

For all the failed player bases in gaming I think it's been a high barrier of entry in one specific gameply style (usually game currency investments rewarded with stat boosts or equipment access) that has ultimately been their dowfall. There are obviously many limitations and difficult design decisions to be made within any framework but the core principle of inclusivity once a feature has been chosen would be highly desirable when creating an accommodating and desirable stronghold.

I hope this considerably lengthy post does some good in the development of dos2 or at least provides this sector of the gaming community with some valuable thought pieces when it comes to improving one of the obviously lacking areas of game development.

You are missing the entire point. The stronghold shouldn't be narcissistic masturbation for the player/player character. RPGs operate on different assumptions. It should be a logical part of the narrative and the main argument against strongholds is gating content behind it, not the content itself. They made the SH in PoE boring and pointless on *purpose*. Someone enjoying it either has very low standards or is satisfied very easily (not trying to insult you in any way, just trying to understand the situation). PoE is a monument to not-doing-it-right (all of it, not just the SH) and biting more than you can chew. Taking ideas from there would be a mistake.

I'm aware that PoE's stronghold was extremely lacking in almost all of the things that players generally expect or wish to see. The point of the first section of my post was only to provide the counter perspective that it was not devoid of all value. However I'm confused as to why you think I've missed the point. The rest of my post was aimed at explaining what would create a meaningful and interesting player experience with a stronghold wholly unrelated to PoE's. I must admit that I feel you've missed the point of my post in favor of your intolerance for my enjoyment of a stronghold you dislike. I'd encourage you to reread and possibly offer counter arguments or ask me to clarify on specific points further on in my post.

To reply to some of the ideas you've stated in reply to me; In my explanation of a better framework for player bases in general, I suggested filling them with content that was just as accessible to all players as any other content within the game. In that way no content would be unneccesarily gated by basebuilding mechanics. The basebuilding would instead be an additive reward for first completing quality content in the form of quests/narrative/npc interaction that also carried its own rewards for completion - concurrent with the rest of the games standards. In my eyes this would be almost identical to a dungeon or town in which it was required to complete quests or combat in order to progress.

I also don't agree that any stronghold should necessarily be integral to the overall narrative of the game. This is a viable strategy that could very well improve both the narrative and the stronghold but in no way necessary for either to work and be desirable, quality content. Providing a stronghold with its own narrative that ties into the lore or possibly parts of the main narrative of the game could very well add depth and content to a game if the developers wished to use it for that purpose.

On a side note, I'm interested to hear what assumptions you believe rpg's work on

I don't care if you like it or not, so shouting "muh subjectiveness" ad nauseam doesn't fly with me (you aren't, but I've heard it enough times). This isn't about personal preference. It's about how well the game/narrative is structured. I was just musing on what type of person would like it, considering the creators themselves have admitted to making it meaningless. "The death of the auteur" also doesn't fly with me :p



That is exactly what people mean by "content gating", base-building IS content gating as well. If you mean that you complete totally unrelated quests and getting rewards for the stronghold, then what's the point? It's neither logical nor needed. Making content for the stronghold means not making other, more meaningful and related to the context of the game, content



Having disconnected elements is jarring and destroys any suspension of disbelief.



Way off-topic and it can't be explained in a single thread post.

With the direction this thread has gone I think it's lost its usefulness unless we get some fresh perspectives. Otherwise, I've finished giving my take on things.

@ Palledorous, your first post:
- You say that the PoE Stronghold was good because it was a money sink?
I have the feeling that money sink was the only purpose of the PoE stronghold, but that did not make it good in any way. In all big RPGs I ended up with tons of money at the end, if they had a dedicated money sink or not. Creating an obvious money sink just for the sake of having a money sink is junk. I still believe that the stronghold was the worst part of PoE. But I think that PoE is a good game in general and it had much improvements to the IE games. The biggest problem of PoE is bugsidian.

- Acording to your list, I am a hero/antihero. I build my chars to be effective in the game world and I exploit dump enemy AI or some game mechanics. But I do not use bugs, cheats, mods or console commands.

- I agree with what you say about making strongholds interesting. But it requires lots of time and money. There are only limited resources and the game must be finished at some point.

- About your second post:
I think that stronghold must be implemented well into the game world and your story.
Either you make an interesting and very interactive stronghold that is important to the main story and fits to your char (NWN2 is the best example I have) or you do not make a stronghold and put your resources into a bigger and more interesting world. Creating something that is hardly related to the main story, does not give a good reward and is only a money sink (like PoE) is exactly the reason why many people hate strongholds.

summary: Make it interesting and important or let it be.

PS: Palledorous you are better in creating walls of text than I am. I need to practice more.

What is wrong with the current perspectives, I wonder? The main premises and arguments are these:

-WE LIKE AND WANT WELL-MADE AND THOUGHT-OUT RPGS. This is the number 1 most important premise.

-In Josh Sawyer's own words - A non-trivial amount of players hate having to deal with the stronghold and gating content behind it is annoying. THIS is actually the only subjective take on the whole thing. THIS is where the divide comes from.
-Stronghold should be optional because of that, the reason being is that it's somewhat different gameplay and veers towards other genres.
-Making meaningful and coherent *optional* (this is almost an oxymoron) content gated behind a stronghold mechanic is hard and almost impossible. The issue is exacerbated by the fact that *any* gated content is awful for detractors.

Now comes the real meat of the issue

-Detractors of the whole stronghold idea have nothing further to add than the aforementioned points.
-People who are neutral one way or the other do see a problem if the stronghold is made meaningless and exists in a vacuum. Well-made RPGs avoid having disconnected elements, it's woven into the initial premise of the genre.
-Making the stronghold badly and filling it with content wastes time the developers could've spent doing something more meaningful and contextual.
-Thus we point out the objective *artistically technical* ways to make the stronghold fit.
-Artistically technical means narrative structuring and pacing, reactivity of the game world, logical progression of events and interconnected systems. There is nothing subjective in this context.

Note: this isn't laid out like a professional scientific or philosophical premises-arguments-conclusion dynamic.

If you see something that is not right then point it out and we'll go from there.

@madscientist I was really just trying to highlight that there is still some value in aesthetic upgrades to a pure roleplaying object in a game world. It's a controversial topic, especially with crowdfunded games, for precisely the reason you mentioned. Everyone wants the game to be filled with content they believe is most fun and adds the most to the experience because quality content costs time and money. While not rpg's, games like cs:go and tf2 quite obviously show that many gamers are not only happy with developers spending money on pure aesthetic objects that add absolutely nothing to the gameplay or world, they are even willing to pay upwards of $100 to acquire these items themselves. I don't think it's at all absurd to say that there are not people who place value on these types of in game objects or that the roleplaying community is far from completely devoid of these type of people. However, I must agree that I would much rather money be spent on quality narratives, characters and environments, and gameplay mechanics.

Taking your point of time and money into account, I think it's safe to say that connecting a stronghold to the main narrative and character development is a much more efficient way to create an interesting and important stronghold. I merely meant to point out that I don't personally think it's completely necessary, were time and money unlimited. It's particularly interesting to me when developers release full games and create strongholds as dlc items. Much more experimental work is done this way that can provide useful creative knowledge for future projects. Bethesda game studious is particularly fond of this practice. Though their implementations were certainly far from ideal. It's interesting to note however that each of their successive games featured a slightly greater focus on player homes/fortresses.

My personal hope for dos2 is to see the hall of echoes being used as much as a shared space for various npc's as possible. Gaining favor or creating rivalries with divines, previously slain enemies, powerful post mortem characters and possibly having that affect the outcome of the narrative back on the mortal planes looks like a solid direction from larians updates so far. I do wonder how they will address the issue of too much open space in the end of time fortress. The hall of echoes is another large abstract area after all.

I do try to minimize my walls of text to some degree. Thanks for the compliment anyway! :hahaha:

What you are talking about in the context of TF and CS are fluff items. Also completely different genres. A stronghold that matters isn't a fluff item no matter how you look at it. Making it logical and full of aesthetic content but irrelevant is taking into question the priorities of the devs. Like the wizard's pocket dimension from BG2. We (I) simply don't see it as a worthwhile addition to the game when we could get something else instead. Also read my previous post if you haven't.

P.S. Bethesda's games aren't RPGs.

@ Palledorous:
- What are cs:go and tf2? I play only RPGs and adventures.

- I hate the whole DLC concept.
I like Larian because in D:OS1 they gave everyone 2 new chars for free and now you get the EE for free if you have the original.
With all the DLC nonsense, I wait several years and buy the game when a game of the year editon (or however they call it) comes out. I mean the game and all expansions as one set. Thats how I did it with Dragon Age: Origins. There are enough others games to play in the meantime. Regarding the witcher3, I have to buy a new computer to play it anyway.

@madscientist They're both very popular shooters on steam that get a lot of media coverage based on the money they make and the communities they've built around in game items that can be purchase with real world money. Often for rather large amounts of money on rare and collectible items. These items are purely cosmetic but have created millions in revenue and are considered to be a large part of the reason these games became so popular. PC gamer recently did some really interesting articles about the topic if you'd like to look into it. I've gone a bit off topic with that though. Now that my comparison has already been made

You're kind of right about dlc imo. As of late its become very unfriendly to consumers. Generally speaking that is. Larian definitely deserves praise for their nonconformity. I believe wasteland 2 is also getting a free enhanced edition type upgrade on a new engine with lots of fixes and improvements. It's great to see that recent crpgs have stayed consumer friendly even after attaining success and recreating a user base.

@Palledorous

You ignoring me for some arbitrary reason won't make the problem go away, you know. It's obvious that some people aren't clear on what grounds the discussion is based on, so randomly listing ideas isn't helping anyone. It's better to clarify those things, otherwise we aren't going to get anywhere and are stuck in a loop with no actual solution. We are already chained to the stronghold for D:OS2.

@Lacrymas, you sound like you owe the absolute Truth... It seems... well let's say not so modest

From a personnal point of view, my first interest in a game is the scenario and the universe (which explains why I dislike LoL and TES...). People play vide games for different and personnal reasons and we cannot judge them.



I have not played PoE that much (mechanics were great but the writting... and that's my opinion) so I cannot say about the stronghold but come on man can't you accept that people are not always making games "according to the standards". Luckily standards change, and some "uncommon" games became a must have. Point is I agree with you on some arguments but please don't write like everyone HAVE TO agree with you

-.- You seem to think that this is my "subjective opinion" and that "everyone has their own opinion", but sadly it doesn't work that way. I didn't invent well-made games or good literature. There is nothing subjective in what I have said. There are objectively good examples of good narrative structure, logical progression, coherent plot etc. There is no subjectivity in logic. You can have subjective opinions about a lot of stuff, but this isn't one of them.

EDIT:



What are these standards that I can't accept people not adhering to?

sorry, it is not because "most of the people" think that way that everyone have to think that way. Wanna speak about literature? I have few friends who actually read all of Harry Potter books and did not like it at all.
Wanna speak about video games standards? I did not like Baldrur's gate nor I liked the Elder Scrolls.
About cinema? My ex did not like the Lord of the Rings.

I agree, there are codes and techniques about "how to make a blockbuster" but they change. so if you wanna speak about what is the best option to make money yeah you're right buddy... thing is I like less and less AAA games because they are just clones, big companies not wanting to take any risks and maximize the profits.
The funny thing is that those "general rules" are slowly killing them. People want new things, this is the reason why crowfunding is working so well. As does Steam

I am not going to lecture you but what killed the US cinema in the 60's was that it remained stuck in its rules and codes.

uuuum, like I said a lot of times already this isn't about personal preference which you seem to confuse with the objective qualities of art (which a coherent plot is part of). It also isn't about cynically produced shovelware by AAA developers. New things aren't generally made by having moronic, nonsensical plots that are more like a string of random events than an opus. There are exceptions of course - Finnegan's Wake or The Naked Lunch, but those are the exception not the rule. Their whole idea is to experiment with plot structures and language. They aren't made randomly with no thought whatsoever like mass produced clones for the lowest common denominator.

I think you misunderstand my intentions and where I'm coming from. Games aren't advanced or easily made enough to turn storytelling on its head yet. Since the medium is still very young we have a lot of way to go. There is some qualities that good RPGs have shown throughout the years that are actually thought-out and there is a reason they are given as examples and their method to be regarded as a staple. BG2 is an example of densely packed content, well designed encounters and well-balanced systems that complement each other, PS:T is an example of good writing, narrative pacing and interesting setting, KotOR 2 is an example of fantastic character development, very well thought-out narrative and the deconstruction of the manichean universe of Star Wars, I really could go on. They have been shown to work not only in practice, but the technical skills and philosophy behind them has been deemed to be in the right direction.

My point is that there are some things that you have to adhere to to be taken seriously. Nobody takes Bethesda's writing seriously because it can't even get the most basic elements of storytelling right. BiowEAre is in the same boat, though their problem is the illogical progression of the narrative. It's very hard trying to explain artistic theory and concepts like this, but suffice it to say I'm not trying to be a douche-bag, trust me. I might sound snobbish, but it isn't my intention, I just stem from my somewhat extensive knowledge of literature, art in general and, of course, video games. My intention is to have a debate, but it's very frustrating when people don't understand the basic premises of the discussion, but start accusing me of all kinds of stuff when I try to explain. Yes, my writing style is a bit blunt, but I don't mean to offend or insult anyone.

@Lacrymas:
- You have your opinion about what kind of games you like. Many things you say make sense. But your opinion is not the gold standard for game developers all over the world.

- What is a good game/movie/book and what not can only be seen after it is published. There were big hypes but the final product was bad. I found many games/movies by chance (means I saw it on TV or in a shop and I have never heard of it before) and they were very good. And there were others which were ignored when released but they became famous later.

- regarding some of your examples:
+ Baldurs Gate 2: I like this game but it has definitely not a well balanced system, as you call it. Take a Kensai->Mage or cleric/mage with improved alancrity, robe of vecna and some contingencies/spell triggers vs another class like a fighter. Almost every class has dump stats (does anybody need charisma?). The ultimate example is the sorcerer whose casting power is based on nothing but his level. D:OS was more balanced than any DnD game ever was.

+ I play KotoR2 at the moment and Kreia is my favourite character of all times.
But the game was released unfinished and you have to use a mod to see all content. I mean content made by the developers, not by fans.

+ PST is regarded by many RPG fans (including myself) as one of the best games ever. But combat was often terrible (and unbalanced because its DnD). There are many people who will never play it bacause they do not like reading tons of text.

No game ever made was perfect and no one ever will be. I am sure that D:OS2 will be a good game. But I am also sure that you will find some things that could have been made better. And even if the game was perfect for you, there will be lots of people who will complain about all kinds of things.

You misunderstand.

First - I said they are well regarded for *specific* things, not the whole package. By well-balanced systems I mean combat, exploration and itemization complement each other. NOT combat/build balance. I just gave examples from the video game medium, but everything I say is also taken from art in general.

Second - we already have good examples of movies/games/books to examine and analyze, and making mistakes because we don't learn from other, better examples, or pieces which AREN'T done right is backwards. What you or I think of them has no bearing whatsoever on their intrinsic value. A Beethoven sonata is not diminished by you not liking it.

Third - *I* don't regard them as anything. What constitutes good art is determined by consensus of informed in all aspects of it people and is backed by arguments based on philosophy, technical skill, context and previous art. It isn't by personal preference or narcissistic leanings. Just like science is taken into consideration and circulation only after peer reviews, which you, being a scientist, should know. Subjectivity has *nothing* to do with either.

Well you can't really say you're trying to have an objective discussion and claim an obviously subjective opinion as fact, but maybe I missed something, and I'm curious as why you'd say Bethesda's games aren't RPGs?

I consider the Elder Scrolls to be the ultimate, real Role Playing Games around. One of the very few games that let you be what you want to be in a virtual world - I'd agree that they lack choices and consequences, although Skyrim ( and FO3 before that ) has been working to counter this.
This is also why I consider housing a critical element of the Elder Scroll games - you can use them, you can ignore them, it boils down to how you want to RolePlay you character. RPGs, even cRPGs, aren't all about fighting and adventuring, and it's nice to chill once in a while, get your stuff together, repair it, improve it, populate your shelves, cloth your dummies, well, take a break. And it really makes more sense for a rich Daedra-armor-wearing adventurer, savior of city X, to have a large house in said city rather than having to resort to sleeping under bridges.
This is however down to how I perceive cRPGs, and RPGs. Let's be a bit blunt and say there are two ways of playing a RPG :
- Spreadsheet and dices with little place to imagination, where things are ruled by the Natural 20 ( have a look at http://tabletitans.com/ , stories from tabletop RPG players, are almost always dear remembrance of natural 20 and dice-determined victories ( or failures )).1
- Roleplaying and discussion, where outcomes are determined by talking, decisions, argumentation, and as little dice-casting as possible.

Now, before you say I'm off-topic, my point is that there are at least two types of players who do not share the same expectations and therefore the same views on thing. I love the ES games, I love what they did with housing, even if doesn't have any meaningful impact on the gameplay and content of the game. I make it meaningful because of the way I play. This is, I believe, called Emergent Gameplay - taking elements of the game and making use of them in a way that is meaningful and relevant as well as problem-solving.
Now, I perfectly understand that someone playing a cRPG ( or RPG ) mostly for monster slaying would find such a housing system perfectly useless and irrelevant. Not the way they play. They'd rather have it provide at least combat bonus, wield some strategic importance, something that would make the rest of the game experience better at the very least.
And, yes, PoE stronghold clearly succeeded in being neither and being completely, utterly useless, pointless and boring

HOWEVER

DOS2 would clearly NOT benefit from a housing system ala Skyrim. I know, I didn't play DOS2, but DOS1 would already not have benefited from this, and I don't expect a game telling the stories of a few hunted people to be able to add a meaningful The Sims kind of housing. In a very story-driven kind of game, housing would have to integrate fully, at least. It would even be best if it offered options and, given the nature of the Hall of Echoes, conflicts. After all, you're probably going to meet a few people you may have slightly murdered !

Larian had a good thing going on in Divinity 2 and we can only hope they'll iterate from there, that's for sure.

Just a last, slightly off topic thing : sadly, today's art isn't backed anymore by most of what you say. More and more the charisma of the artist and their ability to self promote are the keys to a piece of art being recognized as masterpiece / good art. Same goes with videogames, but it's actually worse : a "good" game doesn't need to be good if you have enough money to push it forward and get yourself some good critics. Of course, if the game is actually very bad, the backlash will be violent. Or will it ? Blizzard latest games ( starcraft 2, hearthstone, Diablo3 ... ) are quite bad, but they are a huge success.
[/offtopic]

We need clear distinction between RPGs and hiking simulators aka TES. For that we need to define what an RPG is, hopefully I don't need to go into much detail because TES (especially Oblivion and Skyrim) don't even fit the basics. They have the superfluous elements, like character creation and items, but they don't have the core. RPGs have three distinct features -

1. Reactive world - this is often shortened to C&C, I kinda dislike that, but whatever. This basically means that the world reacts naturally to your actions and you exist in it. Fallout 1 and 2 did a great job with this. Telling random strangers where your vault is hidden in the mountains which has valuable pre-war tech is obviously a stupid idea and bandits start raiding it soon after. This is good. Make me paranoid that my choices will have real, logical consequences. The game world will possess mechanics that recognise and respond to your character's intrinsic qualities, such as an ability or inability to use certain items, or dialogue options based around your character's intelligence (for example). Multiple solutions to problems are expected. This also means that a coherent, consistent world is preferable, because it allows your character to be a part of it and interact with it, without 4th wall breaking. *Roleplaying* basically, but done right.

It isn't the Mass Effect kind of reactivity where a choice affects something COMPLETELY unrelated to that choice. Like the loyalty missions in 2 affecting whether someone will die in the suicide mission. This isn't about making a reactive and immersive world and it's about sticking it in the back-of-the-box blurb. Basically marketing and faux-replayability.

2. Menu-driven combat - auto-attack, selecting abilities from the interface, your character's stats and skills are way more important than your personal motor skills. This is what people mean by "character progression" basically. It also means that you aren't playing a mere avatar of yourself, but a completely separate entity. This comes directly from pen and paper gaming and translated well into video games because of the quick calculation of computers. Anything that isn't menu-driven and isn't character-centric is the action genre. That's why Diablo 2 is an ARPG and not a straight up RPG.

3. Mostly party-based. This is a tough one to sell, I know, but bear with me. I can't think of a single RPG which has the above-mentioned points but isn't party-based. Even NWN had at least 1 slot for a party member. Those that aren't are MMOs (even though they, too, are party-based to some extent) and they have wildly different logic and systems than single-player RPGs. It, too, is a borrowed concept from pen and paper gaming. Party members not only serve the plot, but also contrast or complement your character with their personalities and abilities. This is the most wobbly point, I admit, but 3 sounds like a well rounded number :p

Those 3 points are historically what is considered a single-player RPG. VTMB is an ARPG, leaning heavily on the RPG btw. You might have noticed that the TES games, especially post-Morrowind (but it too) have none of these qualities. Skyrim is also a game of excess and shallowness. It promises a vast open world, but in the end it turns out it has the breadth of the ocean, but the depth of a puddle. It doesn't react to anything (killing the last boss, but the Companions NPCs are asking who you are, come on!) , it doesn't have C&C , level scaling basically negates any kind of character progression etc. Bethesda also aren't aware what purpose RPG mechanics are supposed to have. Like I mentioned in the second point, in an RPG you aren't playing as an avatar of yourself, you are playing as a completely separate entity. That means that interactions with the game world are governed by HIS/HER/THEIR skills, HIS/HER/THEIR qualities, HIS/HER/THEIR abilities, not the player's. Thus, any RPG system will possess mechanics that separate your character's abilities from yours, such as the STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA of Dungeons & Dragons, or Fallout's S.P.E.C.I.A.L. system.

Don't get me started on doing whatever you want, no matter the logic behind it. A game in which you can do anything, focuses on nothing. This pretty much covers it, but I can go way deeper than that if need be, but I think you get the point.



The natural 20 is just a representation of your attempt at something, it was never perfect, but it was service-able. It also prevented the game from being too stale and rigid, and promoted more creative solutions after a failure.



Emergent Gameplay is mostly for sandboxes and sandbox mmos (mainly EVE online). In a single-player RPG hand-crafted content is preferable, mostly because of that consistency and reactivity point. You also can't design for Emergent Gameplay, you can only give your players deep mechanics and let them go wild.



Yeap.

I agree with everything after that.



That only happens if you mistake popularity and commercial success with quality. 20th century art that is relevant is still backed by the things I said. Don't get me started on Blizzard's recent abortions.

/phew

- We can discuss for eternities what a RPG is and what not. Here is a link to gamasutra. Summary: An RPG is a game where the result of an action is more dependent on character stats than on player skills. By player skills I mean things like fast reaction and good aiming. The player must know game rules and something about tactics/strategy.

- The fact that Lacrymas like Beethoven and I like techno and heavy metal more tells us nothing about Beethoven. This is just our personal taste.

- Game companies are companies. Their goal is to make money. Lets assume that all Blizzard games are bad (just an example). Why should they care as long as they sell millions of copies?

- Lacrymas, your reference to peer review is useless. Science is about facts. Games are about fun. Games do not need to be true or realistic, they only need enough consistency so they do not break immersion. For example, if you have housing in a game, would you want to lock or unlock the door every time you leave or enter your house, maybe find the key first in your inventory?
There are games that do not care at all about realism or consistency but they are fun to play (Sam and Max hit the road for example. Nothing makes sense there but it was lots of fun.). But I think that D:OS2 should have a good amount of internal consistency.

- Of course one should look at the games/movies/books that already exist, analyze what was good and bad and how some of these things can be integrated (or taken out) of the games/movies/books that are developed now. That is what we are doing here all the time in case nobody noticed.

back to topic:
- good examples for stronghold:
+ NWN2: It has an important role in the game, it is well integrated in the main story, you can have lots of interactions with it, it gives you significant rewards (items, quests, easier battle to defend it)
+ Some people mentioned Divinity2, but I have not played it

- medium examples:
+ D:OS1: The main story is revealed here. But you unlock one room after the other more or less automatically and each new room is filled with one person (usually a shop). This make the place feel very empty. It would be nice if there are more people in one room and you can have interesting interactions with those chars. In the hall of echoes you could meet important people of the past or people that have killed in this game before (some of them by you). Some of them may give you a quest because they have some unfinished buisiness before they can be reborn. Or they seek vangeance because you killed them. Or it is a famous crafter who can make special items that you cannot get in any shop.

- bad examples
+ PoE: It is an obvious money sink and a boring mini game that produces random events.

No, we actually can't, because it's already discussed and pinpointed. The same way a waltz is not a sonata and the same way an RTS is not an FPS, an action sandbox is not an RPG. Simple.



I'm so tired of repeating myself. I'm just using Beethoven as an example to get my point across that personal taste doesn't diminish or enrich Beethoven (or ANY GOOD art). This has nothing to do with what I like or don't like.



They don't care, that's the problem. I can discuss the economic and philosophical ramifications of companies that only exist to make money all day, but without wanting to spark a flame war between rival schools of capitalism I'll just say that there is a difference between companies who make money to make games (Larian) and companies who make games to make money (AAA industry). Gamers who like quality games can tell the difference between painstakingly-crafted masterpieces and cynically produced shovelware thrown into the trough to be gobbled up, trust me.



Art is about facts as well, don't delude yourself. Art is also peer reviewed and that is how it's deemed important or average. Games aren't ABOUT fun, they are ABOUT a lot of different things. Horror games can in no way be called "fun" in that sense of the word. And before you misunderstand me again, that doesn't mean the horror genre is bad, I actually love it. It's about other stuff that isn't "fun". Horror is, again, just an example, there are a lot more. There is also a difference between WELL-MADE games where consistency is one of the main reasons for it. This has nothing to do with realism. It needs to be consistent in its world, whatever that world may be. Its internal logic shouldn't be cracked and abused because it's easier this way. Warhammer 40k is in no way realistic but it REVELS in its ultra-violence and grimdark-ness, it doesn't start throwing clowns and comedic elements. A world has to have CONSISTENCY IN ITS OWN INTERNAL LOGIC.



I mentioned that because someone here said that we'll "discuss it after it's released" which is absurd. NOT making the same mistakes is mostly what progress is about.



NWN 2 is actually the only semi-decently made stronghold. And that's where the debate about the stronghold came from initially. Because a lot of people hated that such important content is gated behind it. We are stuck with a stronghold now, so that doesn't really matter. We simply don't have a better-made stronghold to compare he one in NWN2 to. It wasn't amazing and there's heaps that can be improved. The most glaring flaws came from the engine though, it was just clunky to control. Scouring the map for ore was a bit cheap and they can be made into quests, though that's kinda hard.

Nobody said game development is easy, though. I liked how you recruited lieutenants and they had their own personal recruitment quests (Light of Heavens). Companions were a bit neutral about the stronghold though and their involvement with it could be more. I see (well made) companions as exceptionally skilled and/or intelligent individuals who are far above the average person, so their input and help is always appreciated. I also liked the choices between what structure you wanted to build.

The way you sent patrols around was a bit hands-off and pointless, it also wasn't very clear if they were actually doing anything. That could be improved significantly, though at least it gave you a sense that you have armies at your command.

The most important aspect and far above anything else is that it made sense in the context and story of the game, it wasn't handed to you because you were such a special little snowflake, but you had to work for it. The content itself can individually be made poorly or great, but if it doesn't make sense everything falls apart, no matter the content.



It was simply menu navigation in a pretty dress. It KINDA made sense in the story however, so I'll let it slide. It ISN'T an example of a well-made stronghold mechanic though.


It was also forced into the story. It was evident it was put in there because it was a stretch goal so they had to make up something that can tie it to the story. It wasn't very elegant at the best of times, it was empty, it had a somewhat poorly designed layout, it also felt a little pointless.



It wasn't even a money sink because you were swimming in cash anyway. There is ONE thing that is even worse, though. You couldn't ignore it. No matter your refusal to build anything, bandits and undead still attacked and if you auto-resolved it you lost gold. It wasn't that much gold, but it continued to pester you constantly throughout the game about invasions. It was a debacle and I hope it is buried and forgotten about.

Other examples include BG2 - kinda pointless and it only served to bloat the already huge amount of content in that game. It was disconnected from anything else and felt tacked on. Bad example. I think that's about it really. Well, there is the one from Might and Magic, but I don't knwo anything about it because I haven't played it. Housing from MMOs aren't good examples because the logic there is different.

well well don't really sound like this, as for me, I am more into cinema and video games than literature (I only read fantasy and sci-fi). Please, please, be my guest state clearly your so-called basics



come on, art can hardly be "rationalised". Neuroscience has started to work only few years ago about brain perception. Of course there are "rules" as I stated before but, and you said it yourself, rules evolved based on some games that pushed the limits and based on the technological evolution. One cannot define a general rule set in the stone !
so art IS subjective, we all have our own opinion about art.



so you're saying Fable is NOT a RPG... well well
and calling TES "hiking simulator" seriously dude, this is a personnal opinion, most of today's RPGs are open worlds... it is "almost" a standard for today's RPGs. Even for Larian's games, I mean have a look at the forum, people asked if they are open worlds, if there will be some area where we cannot go back later in the game and so on so on...

Last but not least, indeed if you really want to go back to the core definition of an RPG, we have to consider the paper old fashion RPGs which can be splited in many "kind" but the two main kind will be the RP oriented ones (Call of Cthulhu) based on scenarios where the narration is really important and the Game oriented ones (D&D) where the mecanics are somehow more important than the scenario.

The first computer RPGs where text based RPGs but this was only du to the limitation of the computers. some kind of "you are the hero" books but then it evolved. The first graphical RPG's were based on the RPG system and definitely not on the scenario, they were what we call "door, monster, loot" (which will become the Rogue-like system). Ever since the media has evolved and so has the RPG. We cannot today make a clear and unique definition of the RPG, every publisher/gamer/website has its own. Of course we will find recurrent elements but definitions will be different.

Already did a few posts ago.



Why do you think Beethoven, Michelangelo, Sartre, Nietzsche, Voltaire, Kafka etc etc are considered influential and geniuses? It wasn't a single person's subjective opinion, let me tell you.



Even the wikipedia article for Fable states that it's an Arpg, though I consider that an oxymoron. So, yeah it isn't an RPG. Open world =\= Sandbox with no structure. And no, I don't get my "opinions" from wikipedia, I'm just saying that *even* wikipedia states that it isn't.



We are talking about the specific video game genre Role-playing Game, which has a clear distinction and definition. It's a stupid and confusing name, but that's how it is.

Lacrymas, discussing with you can be very frustrating.
Lets just say we agree to disagree.

My final words for today:
I made an importent mistake. In science you have to define things before you discuss about them. The following definitions are my personal point of view and I do not care if some so called experts agree to them. (Most likely they do not. )

-computer role playing game: A cRPG is a computer program that is about stat based world interaction. Usually it does have some kind of combat. There are one or more player characters. All of them have a certain set of stats. The player gives orders to his char. If the action is successful and what is the exact result is defined by the char stats, not by the player. (Of course, the player usually creates his char and gives him equipment).

-art: Art is a consensus between the artist and the audience. This means if somebody does something and says it is art and many people who perceive it do also think that this is art, THEN IT IS ART. I do not care how some so called experts decide that some paint on a piece of paper is worth some millions while another piece of paint on another piece of paper is junk.

- I do not have an own definition of stronghold. If I enter it at wikipedia, it redirects to fortification.

A bit of oversimplification, but yes essentially this. TES doesn't fit this bill.



Oh, getting into a discussion about what art is is meaningless. I'm not trying to define art, I'm trying to explain how and why some art is considered important and good, while other art isn't. It isn't because some random dude proclaimed it to be important.



It's only an arbitrary designation for what the story deems as "your place". Like Dr. Koln said it can be pretty much anything, from a rundown shack in the middle of nowhere to a sprawling mansion to a fortified keep.

Back after a hard and way too long day work !

Okay, I get your point about [c]RPGs.
Obviously, I'm annoyed by the definition pointed by Madscientist, as I see resolving everything with dices a strong obstacle to actually playing a role, which is why I much prefer a story-driven game of Vampire / Cthulu, where you actually have to play a role rather than let dices do the job. Or well, you can try attacking a werewolf with a Malkav bookworm, but you don't need the dice to know this is gonna end badly for you
Let's just say there are "role-playing" games and cRPG. Yes, I know RPG means just that. As Lacrymas said, it's a stupid and confusing name in the first place.

As for art, it's somehow like History. There is the saying that goes, "History is written by the victor".
Art is kinda the same, except art is written by rich and powerful sponsors. Art is deeply subjective : it depends on exposure, the era, relationships, and (fortunately), talent. It's not a coincidence art form like Impressionism was shuned upon for a long time before finally rising to fame. Were you the favorite of a king or a prot馮 of an influent noble family, chances are your name will stay.
In the long run, what will stay for the centuries to come is what people decided was worth it, either by taste or by money. The subjectivity of today can be the objectivity of tomorrow. What was universally seen as horrible yesterday may have become the masterpiece of today. Art evolves, tastes too, but there are, ultimately, no defined rule to what will stick, what will go.

It's a good thing people are voicing what they expect from the Hall of Echoes, now that we will have it. I hope we will know more about it and what the plans are sometimes during the dev process, and I actually asked a question on this at the reddit AMA ( waiting for a potential answer :p ).

His definition is a bit oversimplified, like I said. I covered it in somewhat more detail. The stats are simply a representation of your character. You can build a lot of different characters with a stat system, but you can only ever build one (you) in an action sandbox like TES. The difference being that in TES you play an avatar of yourself that can do everything if you so wish, while in Fallout you can only do the things your character is able to do given his stats/skills/perks/abilities. That doesn't mean that every dialogue is chosen by the dice :p

We play a "role" in every game imaginable and that's why "RPG" is a confusing and utterly bizarre name, but it has stuck over the years and we conceptualize "RPG" as the things I described.

The whole art debate was my attempt to explain that there is some objective qualities that art exhibits that aren't bound to subjective opinions. Then trying to explain what objectivity in art is. It's a confusing mess and I know that many people can't understand me when I try to explain such things, so It's ok.

Share the answers that you get about your Hall of Echoes question, they should prove interesting :p

Still no answer, I think I'm going to ragequit and drop my pledge to 0 !

... Wait no.

Someone should ask about the Talents! Since I don't have a reddit "profile" and most of the questions are somewhat random someone should ask them about the talents! It's also quite hard to navigate reddit in general and the constant questions aren't helping.

EDIT: Nvm, I did it myself.

@Dr. Koln did you get an answer? ;d

Not really ; Jeff-norD told me they were still discussing it too.



I guess my "trap" of asking what they thought was good or bad examples of housing/stronghold systems in other videogame was detected, hehe.

I'll leave the question open regardless ; Raze and Jeff read the forums so they should feel free to say more of what they'd expect to find in a good stronghold.

edit : the question as I wrote it

Ha, love the way you asked it. I asked about talents and perks, and random loot. They are still discussing talents and perks. On the random loot they said they are going to try to have a mix of random and hand-placed loot (as far as I understood).

So, stronghold. It's good that they are discussing it and they've already showed that they listen to the players and are willing to fix issues, so I'm hopeful.

That was one of the hard question we got. I say hard because we are so "early" in the design of the game for some mechanics that it's hard to answer without giving spoilers or false hope.

I was in some kind of rush earlier to answer the question because it passed under the radar and we had a lot of other questions to answer so I gave it a go. Now that I have more time, I'll answer it as Jeff the gamer. That means that everything that I say after this is what I would want to have not what we will put in the game

Also, I haven't read all the topic in detail. That's a LOT of stuff to read. I'll still need to read all of it at some point though.
Anyway.

If I take Path of Exile Hideout for example. This is the kind of stuff that I like. Does it fit for DOS? I don't think but....
- You can bring two NPC to your hideout.
-- They give you daily quest
--- This encourage you to come back every day to do a random generated quest related to the NPC
-- They give you a crafting bench that is really helpful
--- The crafting bench is better the more you level your NPC
- You can customize your Hideout with A LOT of assets
-- Path of Exile staff are doing "Hideout of the Week" community highlight so it encourage people to tweak their hideout.

The thing I like here is that a lot of the stuff is linked to some mechanics in the game.
The NPC that you bring are NPC that you help in the game. The daily quests they give you help leveling them, give you loot and experience also. The higher the level the more crafting stuff you can do. The crafting is related to their economic system. The asset that you can put in your hideout are bought by reputation that you get from the NPC themselves by leveling them.
Their hideout is simple enough but linked to some of their mechanics.

For me, I would like to have a hideout linked to mechanics of DOS. Something that encourage you to go back there and help you in the game.
Daily quest? Probably not, "grinding" is not a mechanic we want in DOS.
Customization? Probably, it could be great for some people I guess. It should be linked to something though, or create a money sink maybe. But since the loot are a finite thing is DOS, maybe that's not the greatest idea. (I'm brainstorming like here) If we add random event in the game it could work, I don't know.
NPC in the stronghold? For sure, lots of quest potential.
Maybe we could have an Arena, that you can customize to your liking. You could put traps even maybe and then invite your friend to juke out in it. But it's not THAT great for single player. And so on...

All in all, like I said, what I would really like as a player would be to have mechanics that encourage me to go back that are also link to other core mechanics of the game.
Everything needs to be linked in my opinion.

(That's a longer answer)

Yes, I figured it would maybe be a bit specific
I should have specified I was curious about how you all indeed perceive the hideouts as players, which in turn could give hints on what to expect.
The consensus here is that DOS1 homestead felt a bit forced into the game, Pillars of Eternity stronghold is lame, Divinity 2 tower was pretty nicely tied to the story but maybe felt like a generic hub after that, Skyrim housing is useless mechanic-wise ( but I feel strong RP-wise ), and NWN2 may have the best stronghold. I personnaly didn't play NWN2 at all so I'm not sure why sadly.

Overall I guess people want a meaningful stronhgold, something that would bring contents and interactivity to the game while being properly tied to the story. All at the same time, some people may feel like they are forced to care for the stronghold in order to unlock that gated content. This would distract them from the main game.
In short, it's a hard case of having to balance the optional and the mandatory, and flowlessly integrating the HoE into the game.

Sounds a bit herculean.

Thanks boss :p

I've explained it somewhere around here, but the meat of the matter is that it was integrated into the story (the story being generic to a painful degree not withstanding), it wasn't given to you simply because you were the PC. It was very consistent and coherent. Peasant -> City Guard/Thief -> Squire (to 1 of 2 knights) -> Captain of Crossroad Keep (the SH) -> Knight of the Nine. It was half the game in act 3, the other part being collecting the ritual pieces from various locations. The world reacted to the stronghold and you being its Captain. If you were with the thieves of Amn, they were using the stronghold for smuggling operations etc. The lieutenants were useful and had interesting recruitment quests (especially Light of Heavens) and one of them was actually an ex-companion (very good connection here). You had choice on what you wanted built. It had events (adventuring party for example) that made sense. It was easier to defend if you upgraded it when push came to shove with the Big Bad. etc. etc. I could go on, but suffice to say it is the best SH I can think of.



It is, that's why they made the one in PoE pointless. I have an entire spreadsheet explaining the sides of the debate somewhere around here, but it's basically a catch-22 and you can't win if you include a stronghold :p

I remembered the one in DA:Awakening. You can imagine how trivial it was, if only now I was able to recall it. One of the pillars of the story was that you were the commander of this keep. It was very bare-bones compared to the NWN2 one though and you didn't have any choice regarding what to build. You only arbitrarily collected resources and told a dwarf to upgrade your troops and fortifications and that's it.

Yes, I thought I saw the description of the NWN2 SH somewhere around here - this thread is now in a bit of a mess, and anyway I prefer not to speak out of my ar*e as if I had actually played the game and all ;p

Thanks for the recap !
I'm painfully trying to remember where I saw a decent SH too... Damn memory. I'm too old.

Funny, I rather disliked the NWN2 stronghold and preferred the DOS one. I think it's one of those issues for me where gameplay trumps believability or perfect harmonization with the story. I prefer strongholds that are more like utilities rather than something I'm saddled with, and requiring mechanics of its own that are inherently tied to game progression.

It's better to tie it with the story though, otherwise you get ludonarrative dissonances and in an RPG that's a death sentence. Let me quote myself to explain the whole debacle, that quote is already buried deep inside this thread.



Fun.

How about Dragon Age: Inquisition? I think the place itself worked pretty well there.

We do not speak of that-which-should-not-be-named.

Lacrymas, what do you meant by ludonarrative dissonances when you talk about strongholds in RPGs?

If I understand the (very short ) wikipedia article correct, it means that the game story wants you to do something and the game mechanics force you to do something else.

At the moment I do not remember a good example for that. The Article refers to Bioshock. I have played the game but I quit after some time because it was boring. Maybe it is not a bad game, but I played System Shock2 before and Atlas is pathetic compared to Shodan.

It's basically when the story and the gameplay *contradict* each other. For example you are running from something (source hunters), but you somehow find (unlimited) time and shelter in this stronghold you now have. :p GTA IV - you leave your country (Romania, I think) to escape a life of crime and violence and go to America, where you start living a life of crime and violence. A recent example is Watch_Dogs where the lead character is a vigilante, but actively mows down crowds of innocent people with a car. DA:I - you are the head of an important organization, but are forced to do menial MMOish type tasks :p etc. etc.

What he proposes won't necessarily lead to ludonarrative dissonance, but it's very easy to do exactly that. If you haven't noticed, RPG fans are like a rabid pack of hungry wolves and will latch onto whatever disconnected or badly written piece of RPG you give them. They do have their reasons though :p

EDIT: Actually, the most gratuitous recent examples are Tomb Raider and the Uncharted games. Lara is portrayed as a scared civilian who went into a mini-nervous breakdown when she killed a man in a cutscene, but was savagely murdering everyone else. That's why I call her Lara "Genocide" Croft. Drake was portrayed as a somewhat charismatic every-man, but he was proficient in a number of highly specialized fire arms (in gameplay) and his first instinct when he grabbed an enemy was to kill, instead of incapacitate.

I wonder what they think was wrong in this regard with Bioshock... I'd say they play that side quite well actually.
"Would you kindly ?"

http://clicknothing.typepad.com/click_nothing/2007/10/ludonarrative-d.html

It is a philosophical examination. The same way one might examine Civilization 5 and find out that it encourages and actively rewards (the win states) modern capitalistic thoughts, ideals and goals. In a total and complete sense, you literally don't have any other choice in the matter.

The example from Bioshock is on a more fundamental, philosophically subtle level than the examples I gave. It is way more than just a contradiction between the explicit narrative and the gameplay. Those are just lazy writing which come nowhere near Bioshock.

So a collection of 4 escape prisoners, with goals and motivations to work together despite any conflicts that may occur along the way, are all suppose to just accept exile in a realm where they are literally the only living creatures, abandon everything in Rivellon, and settle down together? Even if the HoE was entirely safe and the time there unlimited, that is hardly a compelling long term option.



Lots of countries have chosen other options in real life, despite the fact that the real world also encourages and actively rewards capitalism.

No? It's not a plot hole, but a ludonarrative dissonance.



Good thing I'm not talking about real life then, but Civ 5 :p

How does it conflict with the story to gain access to a certain location (which may or may not be safe), where you can at least temporarily get away from source hunters?

I was just pointing out that you are criticizing Civ 5 for being realistic, claiming that removes all choice.

OK, lets bring together ludonarrative dissonance, RPG and stronghold in an example.

This is how it is done in PoE:
- Somebody tells you that the owner of a castle could help you.
- You meet him, he tells you where to go next but you have to kill him.
- The ghost in the throne tells you that she wants a new master and you should rebuild the ruin.
- You agree and become the owner of a castle that costs you lots of money even if you ignore it and that does not give you a significant reward.

That makes sense:
- You tell the ghost: "Sorry, I need to find someone and I know where to go next. I need to do it fast or I go insane. Keep your f*** ruin and find another master."

This is how it should be done:
- When she asks you, you have the option to take the stronghold or to refuse it with the words written above. If you refuse you will not pay a single coin for the whole thing but you can return and explore the dungeon if you like.

Note that this refers only to how you get the stronghold. I does not talk about how you can interact with it (which is also bad in PoE.)

Regarding D:OS2
As I have said before, it seem strange how the concept of 4 escaped prisoners and the concept of having a stronghold fit together. I am also sure that the stronghold will not be optional like in the example above. However the hall of echoes is not a normal place (like a castle) and it can be very interesting if done right. I will not judge this before I have played it.


PS:
Hallo Raze . I am surprized somebody is actually reading these walls of text.

It doesn't conflict with the *story* (plot hole), but it can conflict with the *gameplay* (ludonarrative dissonance). I'm not saying that it WILL lead to plot holes and LNDs, it depends on what the context is. I'm saying that it's very easy to fall into these sorts of things if you don't connect everything logically.



I'm not criticizing it, I'm just saying it only rewards achieving capitalistic goals. Look at the win states and see what they value - technological progress, military conquest, cultural domination, economic superiority. These are very, for a lack of better word, American goals. You don't win by eliminating world hunger, or poverty, or by nuclear deproliferation, or having a particularly high standard of living.

Madscientist;
Hello.


Lacrymas;
It sounded like you were saying the HoE would inherently be a case of ludonarrative dissonances. While there are ways it could be implemented poorly, it should be fairly easy (with 7 or more writers and not on a very tight deadline) to add it in a way that is consistent with the plot.

Quoting myself from literally 3 posts ago:



:p

Here's an idea:

The Hall of Echoes will shift to your desire, right? How about it also shifts according to what you did in Rivellon so there will be consequences you can't completely escape from:

Like some of the people you encountered or related to those you encountered and hurt, pissed off or even killed, etc., will try to make their way into the Hall of Echoes. After all, if you can enter that place, why can't another human/dwarf/elf/etc.?

They may not confront you, depending on their personality, but they could also sabotage your place. Or they may do nothing and instead, sell the information about your place of dwelling to someone who really wants to take it over or to hurt you.

Or perhaps this is a bad idea 'cos people generally want a stronghold to be peaceful? After all, I've not played many RPGs.

Edit: A bit more:

In Hall of Echoes, in your dwellings, there could show up books, scrolls, mysterious crystals, etc. that lead to quests that're sometimes provided, based on your reputation or stuff you've done. These quests could be provided directly or indirectly(that's: you find their sources by talking to people, poking around an area, etc.). If directly, well, it's just a message then.

Just going to put a thumbs-up for this. Sadly, they never fixed the bug with the DKS Stronghold music player (you could only play tracks once, forever, unless you let them run completely I think).

Regarding the PoE stronghold discussion;
I backed PoE, I *really* like PoE, but I'm not that phsyched by strongholds. So that pledge goal hold little value to me. But then again there were far more like that (like crafting, ugh, what a horrible utterly game-downgrading thing that even became. A pledge goal that actively made the game worse). But that's pretty much the risk of stretch goals, or gamemaking in general. Some you like, some you don't. I think I've said in enough other threads how most of D:OS2's stretch goals leave me utterly cold too.

I personally think the Ebon Hawk in the KOTOR games (yay, KOTOR2 talk!) is a good idea of a 'stronghold'. It's small, it's got all the functionality it needs in it, it fits the setting, in both games it serves the plot on many occassions, and to boot it all off it's a perfect way to make certain need-to-triggers run properly. More it really doesn't need to be for me.

And now to read norD's post

@hassat hunter
This works fine for star wars, but I do not think that 4 prisoners will have their own ship (space or otherwise). And the stronghold will be the hall of echoes, even if they had a ship in this game.