![]() It's partly because I don't focus on "right" or anything like that. I think what you're saying is absolutely justified, I just don't mind the big twists like that. Originally posted by Batbro:Surprising the player is good! Plot twists that were foreshadowed are good! Foreshadowing everything and spoiling the outcome to the player is what I would consider bad and lazy game design. and then accepting those things and rolling with them is what gives me most pleasure in such games. Decissions have consequences and bad things come out of good itnetions, then that is the flavour that adds to it and the character living through the events.Īlways winning is boring, brings no conflict or true character growth.īut of course I am a RPer first and the game comes second so the uncertinity, having to think what good or bad might come out of things. I could not have forseen what would happen when I left the machine in Heritage Hill and did not destroy it or what the outcome would be in any other of the game-ending influencing decissions. Be it ifnormation given within the quest of later stumbled (or not stumbled) upon in some other part of the game. the character in the game (and with this the player) has to do with the limited information provided. The uncertinity and surprise is part of the very core of what such games are for me and. If I could see an indication of the outcome of every decission I am making in a RPG then the whole concept of it would be. I would very much disagree with Josh Sawyer on this point. It's good stuff, I recommend watching the whole thing, but he makes the point I'm referencing shortly after the 23 minute mark. This didn't happen to me, but it easily could have, and I think these players feeling cheated is pretty justified.ĮDIT: I remembered where I heard Josh Sawyer talking about this. I've seen many a forum complaint from players who tried to do everyting right by Gilded Vale only to find out the entire town got massacred by the undead tyrant they put so much effort into deposing, all because they didn't bother talking to a single random unnamed NPC waaaaaaaaaay later in the game. Surprising the player by undermining their actions, or plot twists that are not foreshadowed, are bad. I kind of like that in a game as well.Surprising the player is good! Plot twists that were foreshadowed are good! When I make a decision in real life, I don't always know how it's going to turn out, I just work with what I've got. ![]() Originally posted by ColeTrain1034:Just personally, I find it entertaining that there's no indicators of outcome. It may be the completionist in me but I just want to know what everyone has to say. ![]() I kind of like that in a game as well.Īs far as the Twin Elms NPC, I guess I'm just used to speaking with anyone and everyone. Just personally, I find it entertaining that there's no indicators of outcome. There is VERY LITTLE information during this quest that implies that Raedric can or will return from the dead and go on a rampage, and the lead they give you later in Twin Elms is VERY easy to miss, as it's a single random unnamed NPC in an inn you enter a full 2 acts later, long after you've moved on from the concerns of Gilded Vale. Foreshadowing or warning the player of the impact of their decisions is critical to good quest design, I've even heard as much from game director Josh Sawyer himself. ![]() Originally posted by Batbro:The major problem with going blind and trusting in your decisions, ESPECIALLY for this particular sidequest, is that the consequences of your decision are not always properly forecasted.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |