A multi-act main plot & a rly awesome arch-villain

[jonny_p66]

The Master was such a good villain it was crazy. He really made Fallout 1 a classic game. Wouldn't have been such a smash hit classic without it. One of the greatest video game villains.

Then u had the water chip first act of the main plot, followed by the cathedral of wotsit, The Master and the Supermutants.

System Shock 2 had a fantastic main story line, with Shodan as obviously one of the greatest ever game villains. Really classic. So good Irrational basically used it again as wrote for Bioshock 1 - and it worked, now a major franchise.

Wasteland 2 needs this type of great story telling and characterisation. I suppose this is the stuff that has already been decided on in the pre-production that was happening before kickstarter?

Anyway, just to emphasize that this is rly important to make the game classic. Balder's Gate 1 is my favourite game on PC because I love the game so much, but I have to admit Fallout 1 has a better story and characters, and a very powerful atmosphere for story telling. I suppose Wasteland 2 will have a similair atmosphere with the post-apocalyptic setting and Mark Morgan sound track (Rly Love Fallout 1's music) so I really hope the plot and villains / heroes of the story are juicy.

Btw does Wasteland 1 have a good plot? I downloaded it from Abandonia and know it is loved by many but on first inspection it seemed like that might be mainly nostalgia?

[Drool]

I downloaded it from Abandonia and know it is loved by many but on first inspection it seemed like that might be mainly nostalgia?

So play it and learn for yourself.

[Game_Exile]

Instead of having mandatory main quests, maybe you could have a plot that moves forward when certain broad goals are reached. Something like gaining enough wealth or political favor to set up a stronghold/base somewhere or other (with multiple possibilities) might be what ends Act 1. And the arch villain will be trying to stop you more and more aggressively till the end (or whatever).

[Vryheid]

Wasteland 1 had a pretty dang good plot for an RPG of its era, but it was rather disjointed in terms of dialogue. You had to infer a lot of what was really going on from contextual clues and exploration. Still though, there was a certain emotional connection you could have to the NPCs which was lacking from almost every other game from the era. It was at least as deep as Fallout 1 in my opinion.

[TΛPETRVE]

@Game_Exile: With you on that. I don't like the idea of a plot that can be rushed through by simply following the breadcrumbs on your map, while everything else is completely disjointed from the story and acts merely as filler. This way, you are forced to actually participate in the shit that happens all over the Wasteland, which automatically opens you to a large array of choices that will shape your further progress.

[BlackGauntlet]

I'd prefer MULTIPLE Arch-Villains, each scheming and plotting to take over the wastelnd in their own ways and expertise.

[CaptainPatch]

I've never been a fan of HUMONGOUS Final Bosses. If they are sooooo enormously powerful threats that you threaten the very existence of the town/nation/world, then just what the hell have they been doing with all that enormous power while waiting for you to level up enough to stand a chance of surviving the Grand Finale? If they are that tough, at the start of the game, you should already be too late.

[Game_Exile]

This way, you are forced to actually participate in the shit that happens all over the Wasteland, which automatically opens you to a large array of choices that will shape your further progress.

Yes, this is exactly what I had in mind. And if the devs aren't confident that they can build a complex and "dynamic" quest system that flows well from beginning to end, then sectioning off much of the quest system into multiple acts may be the answer. There can even be a few act "branches" much like there are quest "branches".

When I used the word "dynamic", btw, I was referring to the fact that your choices "will shape your further progress". Political factions, economies, VIPs, arch villains, etc. should react to what you are doing in the game (which basically amounts to very complex quest "branches", so I guess I'm not really saying anything new). I will add that much of this should be predictable in some way, meaning the player should have the opportunity to make informed, and preferably tough and complicated, decisions.

[Aldereth]

I'd prefer MULTIPLE Arch-Villains, each scheming and plotting to take over the wastelnd in their own ways and expertise.

Hmmm... put a map on the Main Menu with with a zoom in and 3D clockwork model at each of them and we have The Game of Thrones - Wastland edition

Make the multi arc-villain to be the PC and we have <spoiler alert>







KOTOR 1


Both are good in their own ways. So yes, by all means.

[Marty Czosnyka]

The best main villians are the ones that DON'T die at the end. I mean he's so bad ass, you just put a dent in his plans, but really he's just too powerful for you to fully defeat. I don't want a main bad guy to just up and drop after the final battle, what I want is an epic struggle, where u have to foil time and again a superior adversary. I would wholeheartedly support such a main bad guy.

[TΛPETRVE]

The "best" villains are usually talking heads who have others think for them. See Adolf Hitler - a miserable little alehouse politician who would have been nobody without his ability to shout and act up like a fucking gorilla, and a few dozen pounds of real brains standing behind him and doing the mental work.

[jonny_p66]

The "best" villains are usually talking heads who have others think for them. See Adolf Hitler - a miserable little alehouse politician who would have been nobody without his ability to shout and act up like a fucking gorilla, and a few dozen pounds of real brains standing behind him and doing the mental work.

stop hyperbolising!

oh alright carry on.

[TΛPETRVE]

stop hyperbolising!

Read "Mein Kampf" - it's half snoozefest, half unintentional sitcom, all bollocks .

[MinscAndBoo]

I'd prefer MULTIPLE Arch-Villains, each scheming and plotting to take over the wastelnd in their own ways and expertise.

I just hope we don't get the Deus ex: invisible war approach to multiple villains/factions. That was terrible.

Their approach being

a) Design one arch-villain's/factions aesthetics, weaknesses, motivations and back-story.
b) Add Lycra tights
c) Copy/paste 10 times
d) For each copy, colour tights different shades of grey
e) Name each copy, and search/replace name in the weaknesses, motivations and back-story design document.
f) Congratulations, you've just created 10 completely different and exciting arch-villians each with their own unique aesthetic, weaknesses, motivations and back-story.

[Aldereth]

For me, "best villain" are so memorable and have depth of characters that you actually admire or identify with or at least would hate to see them gone.

From gaming, I would say Ravel Puzzlewell from Planescape:Torment. She is largely responsible for the mess the player character is in by giving him the favor he asked for. The kicker is, the PC asked the favor out of greed and cowardice but she did it for him out of love. I was sad to see her fell and the multiverse seems that much smaller in her passing.

[CaptainPatch]

I could never fathom why it is that soooo often, the Biggest Bad Guy at the Grand Finale _never_ seems to make a strategic retreat when he/she/it has lost 50% hit pits /power/strength. If they as sooo smart enough to _be_ the Biggest Bad Guy, they should be smart enough to know their victory is NOT inevitable. Fall back, regroup, recover, rethink the assault and then try again. And again and again if necessary. It should be fairly obvious to even a half-wit that you will NOT accomplish your goals if you're dead.

[Aldereth]

I could never fathom why it is that soooo often, the Biggest Bad Guy at the Grand Finale _never_ seems to make a strategic retreat when he/she/it has lost 50% hit pits /power/strength. If they as sooo smart enough to _be_ the Biggest Bad Guy, they should be smart enough to know their victory is NOT inevitable. Fall back, regroup, recover, rethink the assault and then try again. And again and again if necessary. It should be fairly obvious to even a half-wit that you will NOT accomplish your goals if you're dead.

I think some of the bosses do have phases (I know most MMO ones do) and they do retreat and regrounp somewhat. I get what you are saying and yes, they should actually go away, out of combat mode but I think it is a matter trade off between pissing the player off by forcing them through the same fight again and again vs. the resource it take to build a multi-stage, multi-arc final fight.

Actually, my problem with most "foozle" is not the last fight. It is what the heck does an obviously intelligent and ambitious fellow like "foozle" is doing sitting on his dark throne and basically does nothing except wait till Mr. Hero shows up and mop the floor with his/her broken body. I would like to see a game where the last fight is a random / player picked location instead of the usual "dark castle" option. Heck, one can even make a "quest" out of luring the dark lord to fight the last battle at a location favorable to the player instead of his death trap ladden deathstar.

[CaptainPatch]

That's another thing: Usually in Real Life, someone powerful enough to wield the power of a nation is NOT himself the singularly most powerful unit at his command. Emperors, warlords, masterminds, kingpins are singularly powerful because of the forces that allow themselves to be under his command. Masterminds without henchmen are just geeks _daydreaming_ about being all-powerful Evil Overlords. They should be smart enough to know their own limitations -- and therefore know when it's time to run away to fight another day.

[MinscAndBoo]

What would be interesting would be a singular artificial intelligence with only enough power to influence one physical robot/machine at a time.

In a robot factory, it could be controlling one, you break it half, then another completely different type of bot wakes up, then a tank, then factory machinery, but all with the same ambient text and put downs, making you believe its the 'one' enemy.

Over time it could learn about you, and perhaps come up with some strategies to counter your strength's.

Would an A.I understand or need the concept of fear to be victorious (by way of retreat)?

[CaptainPatch]

If the AI can freely switch from one robot to another, even if it was limited to being in control of ONE robot at a time, the net effect would _still_ be the protagonist versus many. The AI could cycle at near-light speed, effectively having sensors from all over a LARGE area, maneuvering units into ambush positions optimized by the sensor data. The party would be continuously walking into a trap. Plus, since the AI can freely shift _out_ of a robot, it could literally throw itself at the party here -- a banzai charge essentially -- and then be in position there to attack the party with a different unit while mere mortals are having their attention riveted here.