Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
#342600 10/01/07 08:57 PM
Joined: May 2004
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: May 2004
Quote
Quote
Something i would like to see too, is if someone gives you a quest and someone else gives you quite the opposite you can somehow complete both sides, get the full rewards out. Also lieing you did something could be sometimes possible. But there should be a bad thing about that too...


I agree with this. (sorry I always get my examples out of gothic 3, but thats the RPG I played the last)
Again about that slave I talked about, (I believe the second post of this thread)
It should be possible to have the option to say to him: "hey, I'm actually one of the rebels, but I could use the reward, so what if I bring you back to town, claim the reward and then I will free the city (and maybe give you a piece of the pie)"
So basicly you take that slave back to the city for the reward but you free him just moments later. Thats what I wanted to do.

There are however some thoughts that crossed my mind just now.
If the quests are too much the opposite it shouldn't be possible to finish them both. In gothic 3 (again, I know <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />) you could accept the quest to destroy the rebels hide-out and the one to free the town, you could however do both and that is kinda silly. Unless offcourse you hate all living things and want to be the only person in your gameworld in the end.

So I think you should be very carefull on wich quests you allow to be taken on at the same time.

However, taking on opposite quests isn't very good if you want the replay the game but do the opposite of what you did before.

And about the lieing... I don't know if that is a good idea, it would be like I used a cheatcode to finish it. (unless if it fits the story)






ya thats what i meant, i couldnt think of an example too fast.

About the lieing. More that you can atleast try to lie. Perhaps it works in some quests but not in most and if e knows your lieing he wont be glad <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I dont know if this is a good idea either but it could be cool to have the option in a few quests somehow


#342601 10/01/07 11:22 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
member
Offline
member
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
Quote
About the lieing. More that you can atleast try to lie. Perhaps it works in some quests but not in most and if e knows your lieing he wont be glad <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
I dont know if this is a good idea either but it could be cool to have the option in a few quests somehow


Well the only way I could see it work is if it's something like my example:

Someone wants you to kill someone, you say: "Ok, ill take care of him".
And because you like the person you should kill,
you would take him to your hide-out (or another safe place) instead.
So...the person that ordered you to kill someone, doesn't see that person in his town anymore and he's happy.
So you say: "Yeah, I took care of him, I buried his body in the woods".



There is no spoon !
#342602 11/01/07 02:52 AM
Joined: Jun 2003
Location: malaysia
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2003
Location: malaysia
hey i love the idea of moral dilemmas in the game & as what was done in <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/div.gif" alt="" /> it was good as it forces a player to choose & somehow choice doesn't become as easy as black & white, good & bad, as things suddenly become relative & one has to re-evaluate their values & principles.

well except for those who would simplify things & just bash the problems away. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

some ideas for moral quandaries;

1. monster versus village (thanks to Shyon's idea in earlier post in this thread). the head of the village may hire the player on behalf of the village to kill this particular monster who lives not far from the village, in a spot where the villagers need to access for their daily living & such.

if let's say in the new game we have skills to communicate with monsters or something like that, or even sneaking skills where we use to sneak to the monster's den, & inadvertently find out that the monster isn't a bad one after all. so what to do next?

a. reject the village head's offer to kill the monster (lawfully wrong, ethically right)
b. go ahead & kill the monster to collect reward & whatever loot the monster may have (lawfully right, morally wrong)

for option a, the village head's reaction is obvious - mad that u won't take action, therefore rallies the villagers to do something about it. of course after seeing how harmless the monster is (it can either be powerful but benign, or pregnant, or with very young offspring that cannot be moved yet), what can do u?

c. re-consider the village head's offer, which is now higher (lawfully right, ethically wrong)
d. try to stop the villagers somehow (this i'm not sure how yet, talk to them? find an alternative to their current daily living?)
e. go & attempt communication with the monster, persuade it to either leave (no right or wrong), or kill the village mob (lawfully & ethically wrong), or frighten the villagers to not disturb it anymore which maybe later on hire another 'hero' more powerful than your character (neutral), or try to have dialogue with the villagers to show how benign it is (all right, but this may have unexpected result, such as villagers refuse to listen, dice roll?)

for option b, it's obvious that the quest is over & done. .... except that u find the offspring of the monster too young therefore defenseless, so what do u do with it?

x. what the heck? kill it! (lawfully right, ethically wrong)
y. take it with u & raise it (neutral, can be evil depending on how it is raised)
z. leave it alone & let fate deal with it (neutral, will have repercussion such as monster later on takes revenge)

2. order versus people power. this one is very political so it will twist the moral ambiguity even further. the concerned mayor of a city or major town will ask u to help him or her in quelling the population unrest. however u also find out that the population also do have a point in their unrest. so which will it be?

a. order for the city so it can grow economically
b. people's revolution so they can freely choose

this feels a bit like Deus Ex but it can also be fun without being too deep. whatever it is, i feel that there should be a branched consequences so the actions of the players reverberate in the game world even more, whether their player affects the world directly or indirectly.

3. this one is a rip-off from the movie 16 Blocks. imagine after doing a number of quests for a town that has been very friendly to the player & the player's character has made friends with the local militia (police), then after that, one more quest to be done before moving on to the new town. it is to accompany a convict to another town for judgement. the order comes from an authority that is higher than the militia in both towns.

during the transport of the convict, the player may meet some of the NPCs of the old town he/she worked in earlier, all of them he or she is familiar & friends with. these friendly NPCs will offer to take over the duty to send the convict to the next town so the player can go on ahead to another quest ASAP. however the duty explicitly said that the player be the one to accompany the convict to the next town & nobody else.

conflict of interest between friends & compatriots of the law?



......a gift from LaFille......
#342603 11/01/07 10:11 AM
Joined: Aug 2004
U
veteran
Offline
veteran
U
Joined: Aug 2004
One of the reasons I stopped playing BG2 was that I came to this quest:

I was hired by the leader of the Shadow Thieves to see if this local leader was cheating on him. The thought was to get this guy's trust so I could get some evidence. I was to do this by doing some quests for him. The first quest was to assassinate this wizard (sure, I'm Neutral Good, I'll do it). So, my party sneaked into his house, and eventually we came up on him. He sais "who are you?!?". Here you have four alternatives:

1: Tell him that you're here to kill him and then attack him.
2: Wait for the game to crash (major waste of time, but you COULD do it).
3: Alt+tab and right click on the program and choose exit.
4: Ctrl+alt+delete and quit it from there.

What I WANTED to do was to tell him I was to clean out the shadow thieves, that they wanted him dead, and that I was to kill him in order to get their trust so I can backstab them later. And then ask him to leave town for a few weeks or so. That I couldn't even begin to clean out the Shadowthieves without committing an evil act was kind of... anoying.

BTW Thumbs up for moral dilemmas in games <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />.

‹bereil


Brain: an apparatus with which we think we think.

Ambrose Bierce
#342604 11/01/07 05:27 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Quote
We're planning on including quite a few moral dilemma's in our next game, forcing the player to make choices that have consequences on the inhabitants of the world as well as him/herself. In a lot of cases the consequences aren't immediately clear as it takes some time before the ramifications of a particular choice propagate. This can be an issue, and one way of solving that would be to give you a hint of what will happen if you make a particular choice. I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on that.

Lar


There are players who want hints and some who don't want hints and like to think very carefully over every dialog option... and even accept the consequences.

If there are no hints in the game, players who always want to make the 'right' decision will get their hints out of a walk through... or whatever (worst option is to reload). But they have to 'leave' the game. Why not supply them with the hints in the game if they want them.

How about an option to disable dilemma hints? If you don't like them, switch them off.

In any case I would go for hints. At least if it is not very obvious what will happen. If an action is clearly directed against someone (insult or attack him) then you don't necessarily need a hint that he will be angry with you. But if he is a friend of the king then a hint that the king will not like what you are doing would be helpful. (Can't think of something better <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />)

It would be nice to sometimes have a few chances to change your mind. You could tell a thief you will help him (to get out of this bad situation fast; you don't want to help him, but you also don't want to fight him now). Later you could decide to tell the police or stab him in the back or even help him.

If I tell him that I will help him and then am stuck to help him, then I would be pretty unhappy.

Oh! If I want to kill someone depending on my character it would be plain stupid to only have an option like "I hate you, eat steel! [attack him]". There should be other options like "We'll keep your back clear [tell a lie and stab him in the back when he turns around]".

The options don't always have to be hidden in the dialog. You may tell him "We'll keep your back clear." without a hint and then your actions will decide how things develop. Help him, stand still and watch how he manages or stab him in the back. (If it is important that he survives or dies there could be a general hint not related to the dialog option you pick.)

#342605 11/01/07 05:55 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
A
veteran
Offline
veteran
A
Joined: Mar 2003
Just as a sidenote : I can lie to an NPC for good reasons and for evil reasons.

I think this thread has already given enough examples for that, just wanted to make it a bit clearer.


When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it.
--Dilbert cartoon

"Interplay.some zombiefied unlife thing going on there" - skavenhorde at RPGWatch
#342606 11/01/07 06:49 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
Quote
We're planning on including quite a few moral dilemma's in our next game, forcing the player to make choices that have consequences on the inhabitants of the world as well as him/herself. In a lot of cases the consequences aren't immediately clear as it takes some time before the ramifications of a particular choice propagate. This can be an issue, and one way of solving that would be to give you a hint of what will happen if you make a particular choice. I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on that.

Lar


Does this also mean that the other inhabitants will only know of your choices when the witnesses of your deeds travel to other cities and villages and tell them the story?
And that if you kill all the witnesses, nobody will ever know?

That would sound great to me.

#342607 11/01/07 07:12 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
A
veteran
Offline
veteran
A
Joined: Mar 2003
Quote
And that if you kill all the witnesses, nobody will ever know?


What of whispers and rumors instead ? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/evilgrin1.gif" alt="" />


When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it.
--Dilbert cartoon

"Interplay.some zombiefied unlife thing going on there" - skavenhorde at RPGWatch
#342608 11/01/07 07:25 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Quote
Does this also mean that the other inhabitants will only know of your choices when the witnesses of your deeds travel to other cities and villages and tell them the story?
And that if you kill all the witnesses, nobody will ever know?

That would sound great to me.


It is probably difficult to let you as a player understand what goes on around you. You may not see the boy sitting in the bushes watching you. You may not see him run to the next village... but when you come there they accuse you of murder and you have no idea how they found out. That is frustrating for the player if he wonders if the game is cheating or if it was a bug or... You get the picture? The boy was there but you don't know.

It would have to be done like in a movie where the director switches cameras showing the boy to 'you as a spectator watching a movie' but on the other hand 'you as the character' doing something bad should not know that you were being watched. You did not see it. So you should not be able to interfere. (Unless it is a quest to stop the boy before he reaches the village.)

#342609 11/01/07 09:23 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Support
Offline
Support
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
[color:"orange"]You may not see the boy sitting in the bushes watching you.[/color]

Don't forget magic (scrying, summoning ghosts, truth reading, people or animals that can see auras and judge your character without needing access to witnesses).


CSI: Rivellon

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

#342610 11/01/07 10:56 PM
Joined: Aug 2003
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Aug 2003
Damm cats

you kill one of em and they are all over you <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/devil.gif" alt="" />


Not in the mood for cheese?
That excuse has more holes than a slice this fine Gorgombert!
#342611 11/01/07 11:14 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Lar_q Offline OP
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Dec 2006
It's too early for me to talk about the exact nature of what we're doing, so all that comes next is hypothetical & I make no promise it'll be in the final game, but this is what's keeping me busy for the moment:

Imagine that it's the ambition of our next RPG (don't you just hate that name ?) that it'll feature a lot more serious content (still brought with a touch of humor), touching upon topics not touched in RPG's before, forcing you to make choices which you might not necessary like.

The inspiration for this is that you are a hero who gets supernatural powers, and that that role gives you the opportunity to "solve" problems which otherwise can't be solved. The solution for these problems often calls for some kind of judgement where you'll need to figure out what's right and what's wrong, and sometimes choose between two wrongs. Typically, RPGs present this in a way where the path is clear, but imagine that that's not the case.

As an example - take Sophie's choice - copying this from www.friesian.com

"In the novel Sophie's Choice, by William Styron (Vintage Books, 1976 -- the 1982 movie starred Meryl Streep & Kevin Kline), a Polish woman, Sophie Zawistowska, is arrested by the Nazis and sent to the Auschwitz death camp. On arrival, she is "honored" for not being a Jew by being allowed a choice: One of her children will be spared the gas chamber if she chooses which one. In an agony of indecision, as both children are being taken away, she suddenly does choose. They can take her daughter, who is younger and smaller. Sophie hopes that her older and stronger son will be better able to survive, but she loses track of him and never does learn of his fate. Did she do the right thing? Years later, haunted by the guilt of having chosen between her children, Sophie commits suicide. Should she have felt guilty?"

Now imagine that you get to play a RPG where you need to make these kind of choices. The impact of the choice can't be made clear right away, and for sure, in the example Sophie has no way of knowing if she chose right. Nonetheless, I find that just reading the question can occupy me for an entire evening, thinking about it.

In the definition of gameplay Sid Meier once gave, where gameplay is defined as "a series of interesting choices, this would count as "gameplay", but telling you the consequences up front or at the moment you're making the decision would probably ruin half the "fun" (My example is probably a bit too horror like to be a good one)

Still, to me, having a RPG in which I need to deal with these kind of situations would immerse me far more than "We need to find the sacred shoes of queen Hellonia. But keep it a secret from king Arthur" after which the player has the option to go talk to King Arthur or not. Non linearity they call that <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />


Your thoughts, as always, much appreciated.

Lar

P.S.

Would you want Karma Points or something along those lines as Nemisis hinted ?



















<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/question.gif" alt="" />

#342612 11/01/07 11:38 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
Lar...

I'd have to say your example is a little dark for my tastes, but I do love the ideas you present in principle. Finding a 'least worst' option can be far more intriguing - and thus interesting - than 'do I kill the evil orcs to save the good elves'.

'Do you replace the evil king with the evil duke or help the evil king destroy the evil duke?' is something where you are really stuck with your choice, as the kingdom needs a king (Unless you can persuade someone else to be king, of course <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />). 'Do you help one bunch of evil marauders destroy another bunch of evil marauders' should allow us to wipe both.

A set of complex moral choices with many shades of grey and no hints sounds like a great game to me, I must admit <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I would certainly get something like that.

As for Karma... No. I think the best thing would be to go by a sort of trust system. Whether others trust you or not should depend on whether you keep your word or not. A known liar & backstabber should have a much harder time convincing people of his good intentions than someone who is known to keep his word. This also allows for a darker world as people will not look at you as 'good' or 'evil' but 'trustworthy' or 'untrustworthy'. And word is bound to spread... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Obviously this would have an effect on how much people would tell you without bribing or intimidation, and whether or not they will hire you...


Please click the banner...
#342613 11/01/07 11:48 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Quote
Now imagine that you get to play a RPG where you need to make these kind of choices. The impact of the choice can't be made clear right away, and for sure, in the example Sophie has no way of knowing if she chose right. Nonetheless, I find that just reading the question can occupy me for an entire evening, thinking about it.

I think this is rather an exception... it's a very personal case and extreme, too. Sure, in a game this would be very disturbing but how many such personal decisions can you bring up?
What I think is this: Most players - including myself in many cases - don't really get immersed as much as you would need to cause reactions like that to simpler decisions. That's because it's really hard to get immersed very well.
If you could manage to make this better in your next RPG (gosh, we hate that title <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />) so that players don't need necessarily "holocaustic" decisions to stop for a minute and REALLY think of what they do not only in game matters but rather generally, I would applaud you. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />

What is interesting for me: Let's assume there is indeed such a decision in the game... and you decide for the son. What effects will there be? Will you have constant nightmares? Will you have the desperate and pathologic desire for another daughter? Will you hate your son? Will you hate yourself? How does that change the gameplay? What if you decide to let your son die? What if you can't decide and both die? What if you decide to let your daughter die and in some way both survive?

I think the decision is quite obvious... but how to implement all the consequences into the game... that's the most interesting and also most difficult part I guess.


Nigel Powers: "There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch!"
#342614 12/01/07 01:05 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Support
Offline
Support
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
[color:"orange"]forcing you to make choices which you might not necessary like.[/color]

That sounds good, as long as the choices are not artificially limited. I know in practice you can not program in every possibility, but a few options would be nice.
In DD after having a copy of the elvish necklace made and returning to what my character professed to be his one true love, I would have preferred the option to say that I scoured the world to find the necklace, but the best I could do was to commission an exact replica. Actually, lieing under those circumstances bothered me more than killing the mind controlled soldiers, but experience points are experience points.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/evilgrin1.gif" alt="" />


[color:"orange"]Still, to me, having a RPG in which I need to deal with these kind of situations would immerse me far more than "We need to find the sacred shoes of queen Hellonia.[/color]

Me too. That should make for a much more compelling story line, and add to the replayability. Even if the majority of dilemmas only have a moderate effect (I assume most will not be quite on the same scale as choosing which child to save), that could still help create a vary dynamic world.


[color:"orange"]Would you want Karma Points or something along those lines as Nemisis hinted ?[/color]

Yes, that would be nice. It may not be necessary with a good reputation system, though.

If evil characters are going to be a viable option, there would need to be charms to mask their aura from most NPCs. There can be lawless towns and merchants who don't care who they sell to, but most NPCs would avoid a truly evil character. Conversely, good characters may be able to use charms to disguise themselves to infiltrate a thieves' guild to gather information, etc.

In Ultima the system of virtues was pretty much universal. If there are going to be various factions in the game, reputation could be independent of karma. If you slaughter an entire elvish village for kicks, that would certainly hurt your karma (and your reputation with elves), but may improve your reputation with dwarves, if the two were at war. A neutral faction (and perhaps some dwarves) would react with a drop in reputation.

#342615 12/01/07 01:09 AM
Joined: Jul 2006
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Jul 2006
How is that example too extreme? You choose between the life and death of NPC's all the time in video games.

Anyway, if Larian Studios made their next game in a similar fashion to what was described in that post, I will love them forever.

#342616 12/01/07 01:42 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Quote
How is that example too extreme? You choose between the life and death of NPC's all the time in video games.

And in which video game you have had to decide between your own daughter and son... in a Holocaust setting?


Nigel Powers: "There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch!"
#342617 12/01/07 02:05 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: London, England
Quote
Quote
How is that example too extreme? You choose between the life and death of NPC's all the time in video games.

And in which video game you have had to decide between your own daughter and son... in a Holocaust setting?


My reasoning too. Plus - isn't that example taken from real life? Just makes it worse...


Please click the banner...
#342618 12/01/07 08:24 AM
Joined: Dec 2006
Lar_q Offline OP
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Dec 2006
I knew I chose a bad example there <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> Let's try another one to not confuse the subject because of the holocaust setting. This one is from somebody called Judith Jarvis Thomson & is a variation of what's called the trolley problem:

"A trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed? "

Nevermind that the example is contrived & you don't get the option to ask the very fat man just to move out of the way.

Lar

#342619 12/01/07 10:26 AM
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
member
Offline
member
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Belgium
Well those choices would be good to make as long as you don't overdo them.
I like your second example better as the first btw, eventhough games usually don't have a big enough impact on me to really care if an npc is dead or not.
But if you could make me care, that would be incredible.

I think the second example is still too much about strangers, and 5>1 (not to forget the fact that fat people usually die sooner)

Maybe a good moral dilemma would be to choose between something that is usefull to you. For example a master blacksmith that will make the best weapon ever for you
or 5 children from your hometown. (These kids might grow up to be usefull in your town or might even become blacksmiths)

But the way I see it, it would be really hard to have dilemmas that really make you think about moral and ethics. I think I would be thinking about the advantages that I would get out of it.

So good luck making us care <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

And I'd like karma points


There is no spoon !
Page 2 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Moderated by  Bvs, ForkTong, Larian_QA, Lar_q, Lynn, Macbeth, Raze 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5