Narrative Mechanic

[nathanknaack]

Yes, I'm going to talk a little about Mass Effect 2. No, this isn't fanboy praise. Yes, it has to do with the game mechanics of Wasteland 2. Here we go!

If you haven't played through ME2, do so now. I'll wait.

Okay, now that you've played through the game, did you notice how the narrative was structured? You spend the first half of the game zipping around the galaxy collecting your rogue's gallery of NPC companions. No big deal, lots of games have done that before.

The important part here is what you spend the second half of the game doing: Earning each NPC's "loyalty" by pursuing their unique, character specific missions. These aren't your typical side quests, either; they're long, in-depth explorations of that NPC's personality, history, and motivations. There are new maps involved, new relationship options, and even some cool new gear to be had. This is very much the "meat" of the game in ME2.

By the time you reach the final mission of the game, you've really gotten to know these NPCs. They're not just faceless extras you drag along for more inventory space or firepower - they're family.

I would love to see Wasteland 2 explore something like this for its important storyline NPCs. It's not enough to just find some dude willing to join your party, toss him an AK-97, and run off to save the world. Sure, there should be some NPCs that are just hired guns (for more on that, check out this thread), but for the plot-related NPCs, I'd love to spend some time getting to know them by following them on their personal missions.

[Game_Exile]

I hate this idea for Wasteland 2. If your party members are burdensome instead of useful, then why shouldn't you just feed them to the land sharks? The way they are planning right now, the center of your party/faction is going to be several personality-less cardboard cut outs whose stats you choose at the beginning of the game. That is OK, it just means the actual Player Character is the party/faction and not Major Shepherd or whoever. The game "story" and "scenarios" should be shaped around this and other core game mechanics.

And if you're going to spend time doing dangerous stuff for other NPCs (preferably NOT party members for the most part), it better be to increase your party's personal power. Meaning: the risks you take and rewards you get better be tied to, no, integral parts of, the core game mechanics, i.e., strategy to win the game or get the best result. Screw "moral" choices.

P.S. No, I haven't played ME2. I'll make sure to check it out, though.

[wulf3n]

Having to spend an entire game focusing on the characters to the detriment of the plot, just so we can feel some "attachment" to them is poor design.

Unless you're making a purely character-centric game (ME2 was not, though it probably should have been) then wasting most of your time away from the actual plot is bad.

We should be able to get to know the characters through the plot and their opinions on it, and how they react to events that have occurred, not by baby sitting them, and running errands for them.

[nathanknaack]

I hate this idea for Wasteland 2.

I love this statement, especially when combined with the last thing you say in this post.

If your party members are burdensome instead of useful, then why shouldn't you just feed them to the land sharks?

I don't know how you got any of that out of the original post. Why are we choosing between burdensome and useful for NPCs?

The way they are planning right now, the center of your party/faction is going to be several personality-less cardboard cut outs whose stats you choose at the beginning of the game. That is OK, it just means the actual Player Character is the party/faction and not Major Shepherd or whoever. The game "story" and "scenarios" should be shaped around this and other core game mechanics.

To be clear: You're okay with the story being shaped around "personality-less cardboard cut outs." I don't think I can bring myself to agree with or see the wisdom in that. But hey, that's your opinion and you rock it all night, baby.

And if you're going to spend time doing dangerous stuff for other NPCs (preferably NOT party members for the most part), it better be to increase your party's personal power.

Totally agree, even beyond the obvious stuff like how doing a side mission on behalf of an NPC would yield all the loot and experience you'd get for spending that amount of time doing anything else in the game. Beyond that, ME2 had a great system where, after you completed each NPC's side mission, it unlocked new skills for them that vastly improved your team's capabilities.

P.S. No, I haven't played ME2. I'll make sure to check it out, though.

It's a good game and all, but very little of it has anything to do with Wasteland 2. However, I really thought their NPC-based mission story structure (as the main focus of the game, not just cute, optional side missions) was a fantastic idea.

[paultakeda]

Given enough resources providing fuller NPC quests would be a nice touch. As there are going to be far more recruitable NPCs in WL2 than any modern RPG, it can be a challenge to accomplish this.

I would not want to follow the ME2 structure of all but requiring this if you wanted 100% scripted survival and so I would not integrate it with the main quest line. I would certainly enjoy being able to go through a lengthy "B" story relevant to that NPC but would also have to be prepared to have it cut short if the NPC should die. Since WL2 is party-based, there is that to consider: can you finish the NPC quest line even if the NPC dies midway through. What if you disband the NPC? Does that suspend the quest line or can you continue?

[nathanknaack]

Given enough resources providing fuller NPC quests would be a nice touch. As there are going to be far more recruitable NPCs in WL2 than any modern RPG, it can be a challenge to accomplish this.

That's the easy part: Not all NPCs need to have huge side quests. Some might have tiny little ones ("Kill the slave trader who owns me and I'll join your group!") and some might not have any at all ("You guys look like you're going places, mind if I tag along?")

I would not want to follow the ME2 structure of all but requiring this if you wanted 100% scripted survival and so I would not integrate it with the main quest line. I would certainly enjoy being able to go through a lengthy "B" story relevant to that NPC but would also have to be prepared to have it cut short if the NPC should die. Since WL2 is party-based, there is that to consider: can you finish the NPC quest line even if the NPC dies midway through. What if you disband the NPC? Does that suspend the quest line or can you continue?

Great questions! Yeah, doing it exactly like ME2 did would suck, but you could still have the NPC side missions open up new stuff. Maybe one NPC has a side mission to rescue his brother, who will also join your group (and is a bad-ass toaster repairman or helicopter pilot). Maybe an NPC wants you to help him retrieve his proton axe from the guy who killed his wife and stole it (which he's awesome with or so grateful for your help that he gives it to you).

And if the NPC dies? Well, maybe some of these side missions just fail. On the other hand, what if you could still complete them, but only in a "revenge" capacity? Aww man, that guy died during the final battle just before we rescued his brother. Well, we still get to recruit his brother, but his attitude sucks now.

Basically, everything you pointed out as a potential flaw in this system, I see as a great opportunity to diversity these NPC missions and make them really unique!

[paultakeda]

Basically, everything you pointed out as a potential flaw in this system, I see as a great opportunity to diversity these NPC missions and make them really unique!

Oh, I don't see them as flaws. I see them as quest branching. My concern is that in order for it to be solid you would have to dedicate resources to it. That's something only inXile can answer.

[ShadowScythe]

Mass Effect 2's companion focused narrative was to its detriment. It became a game about solving your crew's daddy issues (and it was always daddy issues) and then every so often, oh yeah, those collectors might be doing something I dunno.

It lead to an incredibly unfocused narrative that honestly didn't work very well.

I like the idea of companions having quests and solving those quests in different ways changing their future but if that is done I'd rather it was a more minor element, there was more player choice in dealing with the companion, and loyalty was built up over time through the player's actions than something as simplistic and overly dominant as Mass Effect 2's.

[Utxyle]

To be clear: You're okay with the story being shaped around "personality-less cardboard cut outs." I don't think I can bring myself to agree with or see the wisdom in that. But hey, that's your opinion and you rock it all night, baby.

That seems to be a pretty divisive opinion around here, mostly argued in the single player vs. party threads. The real point is, like a painting starts off as a blank canvas, the characters only start out as "personality-less cardboard cut outs." You name them, give them stats and skills, equip them, and play them as if they were pen and paper characters. In other games you are limited because the main character is "The Bhaalspawn" or "The Vault Dweller" or "The Warden" or "Shepard". You can customize those characters, but the story ends up about them being that specific character. In Wasteland these characters could be anyone or anything, and the game was about what they did and not who the game says they should be, if that makes any sense.

As for NPCs, I'm all for them being colorful and well developed, but don't make them the focus of the game.

[nathanknaack]

It lead to an incredibly unfocused narrative that honestly didn't work very well.

Dude's got some high standards here. ME2 snagged a metacritic score of 96. Not bad for a game that "didn't work very well."

[nathanknaack]

To be clear: You're okay with the story being shaped around "personality-less cardboard cut outs." I don't think I can bring myself to agree with or see the wisdom in that. But hey, that's your opinion and you rock it all night, baby.

That seems to be a pretty divisive opinion around here, mostly argued in the single player vs. party threads. The real point is, like a painting starts off as a blank canvas, the characters only start out as "personality-less cardboard cut outs." You name them, give them stats and skills, equip them, and play them as if they were pen and paper characters. In other games you are limited because the main character is "The Bhaalspawn" or "The Vault Dweller" or "The Warden" or "Shepard". You can customize those characters, but the story ends up about them being that specific character. In Wasteland these characters could be anyone or anything, and the game was about what they did and not who the game says they should be, if that makes any sense.

As for NPCs, I'm all for them being colorful and well developed, but don't make them the focus of the game.

NPC side-missions don't have to be the entire focus of the game (they were only half of ME2), but it's nice when NPCs have their own motivations and objectives. They're not just cannon fodder you hire to carry your spare clips.

[paultakeda]

it's nice when NPCs have their own motivations and objectives. They're not just cannon fodder you hire to carry your spare clips.

They should be both. That versatility to treat PCs and NPCs as deeply as I want is ideal for a party-based CRPG.

[wulf3n]

It lead to an incredibly unfocused narrative that honestly didn't work very well.

Dude's got some high standards here. ME2 snagged a metacritic score of 96. Not bad for a game that "didn't work very well."

Technically they said the narrative didn't work that well, not the game.

[Woolfe]

It lead to an incredibly unfocused narrative that honestly didn't work very well.

Dude's got some high standards here. ME2 snagged a metacritic score of 96. Not bad for a game that "didn't work very well."

From what I have gathered, you are a fan of ME2. I am currently playing it, having just finished ME1. I was actually thinking about this the other day. I actually don't like the "character" sidequests in ME2. As someone else mentioned it feels like that it is all about these sidequests and the core collector story is just addon fluff. Whereas in ME1, it was fun to discover more about my characters, I actively spoke to them in between any action, just to see if they said anything new.

And a high Metacritic score is inconsequential. You are only comparing the quests narrative and specifically the dialogue between your characters and the NPC. This was not rated by Metacritic, the whole game was.

I don't want every NPC to have a quest, I don't want to be collecting NPC's just for the sake of doing a quest.
I would rather that some NPC's join you so that you will help them, some join for other reasons and it turns out you can help them, Some join for the money, some join because they have a backstory but they don't want you involved in at all, some join because you just completed the backstory before you got to them.

There is no reason to lock into a specific "guy on team, must have issue to be resolved" mechanic. There is no reason not to have quests from NPC's but it shouldn't be a core mechanic.

[nathanknaack]

I actually don't like the "character" sidequests in ME2.

I've got bad news for you regarding the rest of your experience in ME2, then.

As someone else mentioned it feels like that it is all about these sidequests and the core collector story is just addon fluff.

This was not rated by Metacritic, the whole game was.

Interesting juxtaposition of statements you've made there...

To paraphrase: "It feels like ME2 is just a collection of NPC-related side missions. Also, the high Metacritic score isn't accurate because they judged the entire game, not just the side missions."

I don't want every NPC to have a quest

Nope, nobody does. That's not what I'm getting at in this thread.

I don't want to be collecting NPC's just for the sake of doing a quest.

Nobody wants this, either, but you pound that straw man, baby!

I would rather that some NPC's join you so that you will help them, some join for other reasons and it turns out you can help them, Some join for the money, some join because they have a backstory but they don't want you involved in at all, some join because you just completed the backstory before you got to them.

Hell yeah, sounds awesome! Sounds a lot like something I heard somewhere else. Oh yeah, I heard it at the top of this thread:

Sure, there should be some NPCs that are just hired guns (for more on that, check out this thread), but for the plot-related NPCs, I'd love to spend some time getting to know them by following them on their personal missions.

Man, I really hate sounding like an ME2 fanboy, I just really liked how half of the story was based on the NPCs instead of just being a camera attached the shoulder of the "chosen one" as he lunges from cover point to cover point across the galaxy.

[Woolfe]

This was not rated by Metacritic, the whole game was.

Interesting juxtaposition of statements you've made there...

To paraphrase: "It feels like ME2 is just a collection of NPC-related side missions. Also, the high Metacritic score isn't accurate because they judged the entire game, not just the side missions."

What? That doesn't even make sense...

Metacritic rates the entire game. So that is narrative, Gameplay, dialogue, story blah blah blah, all in together

You however were pointing a single element and then when others mentioned they didn't like that element you pointed out that metacritic rated it at 96. Except that that is incorrect, Metacritic rated the whole game at 96, not just the narrative. So the narrative may well have been rated lower by itself. You raised the strawman in the first place.

Anyway the point I was making however was that I haven't enjoyed the extra "character quests" I actually quite liked the recruiting bit, just the loyalty stuff, has been bland overall (Jack was kind of interesting).
A lot of the chatty dialogue that existed in ME1 has gone I liked hearing the other 2 talking about shit in the background. If anything that added more character to them than any conversation my shepard had with them.
Also in ME1 the missions related to other stuff, but because of the "chatty" element it still felt like the players you took with you made a difference. In the loyalty quest of ME2, the second character rarely says a word, they don't interact even though they are there as well.
Seriously go play ME1 then ME2 straight after, the difference in the "feel" of it is quite surprising.

Now don't get me wrong I AM still really enjoying ME2, and I think if I had of played it when it first came out I wouldn't have noticed the differences that I am noticing now.

[nathanknaack]

This was not rated by Metacritic, the whole game was.

Interesting juxtaposition of statements you've made there...

To paraphrase: "It feels like ME2 is just a collection of NPC-related side missions. Also, the high Metacritic score isn't accurate because they judged the entire game, not just the side missions."

What? That doesn't even make sense...

I know, right?

Metacritic rates the entire game.

Yeah, which you complained felt like it was nothing but NPC side missions. So wouldn't that Metacritic rating actually be almost entirely based on those side missions, if that's what the entire game felt like?

Anyway, moving on.

Seriously go play ME1 then ME2 straight after, the difference in the "feel" of it is quite surprising.

I did, actually. Having missed the boat when ME1 came out, I only played through it a couple weeks before ME2 was released. The time between completing ME1 and starting ME2 was about as long as it takes ME2 to load. I thought the narrative mechanic was vastly improved and that my connection to the story and the NPCs was amazing. Hence I posted the idea here in the hopes that Wasteland 2 puts more effort into fleshing out its storyline NPCs with side missions.

[Woolfe]

Metacritic rates the entire game.

Yeah, which you complained felt like it was nothing but NPC side missions. So wouldn't that Metacritic rating actually be almost entirely based on those side missions, if that's what the entire game felt like?

No... because that is simply my opinion. I would still rate the game highly. Higher in some areas, but lower in others. We were discussing on of the areas that I consider "low"

Seriously go play ME1 then ME2 straight after, the difference in the "feel" of it is quite surprising.

I did, actually. Having missed the boat when ME1 came out, I only played through it a couple weeks before ME2 was released. The time between completing ME1 and starting ME2 was about as long as it takes ME2 to load. I thought the narrative mechanic was vastly improved and that my connection to the story and the NPCs was amazing. Hence I posted the idea here in the hopes that Wasteland 2 puts more effort into fleshing out its storyline NPCs with side missions.

Wow really.
I am so completely the other way. All the Character stuff has just been annoying. I think maybe its because the First one had more of the Main storyline occur before you did your NPC missions.
I have really noticed a lack of interaction with and between your companions. Like the fact you can't just click on one of them anywhere and talk about stuff, and having one of them grunt when you pass somethign interesting, so you can then talk to them and find out what they are saying.
Also the NPC interaction is down(mostly because this was a game mechanic to hide long load times) In the original the NPC's would banter back and forth in the elevators and things. In fact now I think about it, the only ones who seem to be "chatty" are Tali and Garrus. They seem to talk a fair bit. But even that isn't what it should be. Altho there is a funny line about the elevators that amused me.
However. My caveat on this. I am literally starting the final run at the moment. I have already noticed a marked increase in the interaction in the Reaper IFF mission. I am thinking that there may actually be a lot more communication coming up, that may mollify my current position.

[nathanknaack]

All the Character stuff has just been annoying.

Think about it this way: If the bulk of the game hadn't revolved around assembling your team and exploring their personal stories, what would have taken up all of that time?

It would have been Shepard and his band of undeveloped cardboard cutout NPCs running around the galaxy from cover point to cover point, fighting nothing but Collectors, as those were the only plot-specific bad guys.

The whole story between Shepard being revived by Cerberus and assaulting the Collector base would have had to be stretched out and padded with a bunch of smaller hurdles between those major plot points. Oh look, Collectors hit another colony, go there and fight Collectors. Admiral Hacket is on the line, asking you to fight a Collector ship somewhere. Guess what, more Collectors have taken over a space station somewhere.

Boring.

[Woolfe]

All the Character stuff has just been annoying.

Think about it this way: If the bulk of the game hadn't revolved around assembling your team and exploring their personal stories, what would have taken up all of that time?

It would have been Shepard and his band of undeveloped cardboard cutout NPCs running around the galaxy from cover point to cover point, fighting nothing but Collectors, as those were the only plot-specific bad guys.

The whole story between Shepard being revived by Cerberus and assaulting the Collector base would have had to be stretched out and padded with a bunch of smaller hurdles between those major plot points. Oh look, Collectors hit another colony, go there and fight Collectors. Admiral Hacket is on the line, asking you to fight a Collector ship somewhere. Guess what, more Collectors have taken over a space station somewhere.

Boring.

I finished it last night, and I enjoyed the end run.

I also think I worked out why I am disapointed with the character stuff, and why I think 1 is better than 2.
In ME 1, the character stuff was additional. You didn't have to do it, it didn't "matter" in the grand scheme of things. Whereas in 2 if you didn't get the other guys to be "loyal" then you missed out on specific rewards, and made things more difficult overall. It changes it from something I am doing because I am enjoying the story and like the characters, to I need to do this to get the best result in the end game.

Also, as I said earlier, compared to the interaction in the first, the second left a lot to be desired, it was all, click here on this indicator to hear about someones life. Whereas in ME1, it felt more like I was choosing to hear stuff. Even with Ashley(who was a complete chore to talk to). Thats not super clear what I mean there. But I can't think of how to explain it better.

So yeah, outside of the Characters explicit stories, and when I am diretly "chatting" to them, the characters felt somewhat wooden. The only one I used to regular go chat to(outside of the standard response stuff) was Mordin, and that was because he almost always had something cool to say. Oh and I felt more affection for "Kelly" than some of the NPC's I had.

Maybe it was an element of NPC overload as well. Too many characters. So talking to them all became a chore.

Finally I think the pace was off. If I remove the "character" stuff from the flow of the narrative, there isn't a lot of guts to the story.