b0rsuk wrote:I think he wants game mechanics to be built around the story ("make rules as you go"), rather than start with mechanics and "let's see what we can do with this."
No, I don't see any reason at all why the mechanics should be built around the plot (if that is what you mean by "story"). Maybe a better way to say this is: I think that developers should balance
their rules before, while, and after they design their game. I don't like having a pen-and-paper ruleset set in stone for a video game, when you don't even have a good idea what you want the player to be doing
(as in actual game engine mechanics first, then onto basic mechanics from the player's perspective, etc.) for the duration of the game.
rules of what the player can and cannot do in the game engine should come first, and everything else (including specifics of character stats) should be measured out when you have a better idea of what the details are going to look like. There is nothing bizarre or strange about this. The devs just shouldn't try to make a PnP ruleset before they design a video game. I'm not trying to say they should design the video game badly, lol. This thread just keeps on proving the following statement:
Game_Exile wrote:Some people are asking for an inferior video game because they don't have the imagination to see anything better than past CRPGs, or anything much different from pen and paper style rules.
tuluse wrote:My main point however, was that you can create somewhat generic systems and quest goals, and then the player can interact with the systems to create unique experiences.
This is close to what I'm saying. Generic systems are a good way to accomplish complex game mechanics, but it's not necessarily what I'm after (though let me say, for people with low reading comprehension, that I am most definitely NOT opposed to generic systems).
In the end, the effect should be that you are making more interesting and complicated decisions in the game(and this is best done with solid and complex mechanics, NOT relying on a plot and a bunch of gags thrown up loosely around some pre-written character rules), and you shouldn't get the feeling that you're just knocking down one pin after the other . A "list of obligations" quest system is what we want to avoid, am I right?
Mandemon wrote:More paths and results create better illusion of freedom... In 4X games AI have limited amount of actions they can perform based on pre-determined conditions.
Or to put what you said in a different way: Actions performed by the player
are interesting because
1) they come from many possibilities based on many possible conditions.
2) more importantly, the actions will lead to
many different possible actions based on many factors, which in turn are based on many other factors/conditions, etc.
Altogether, this gives the player a lot to think about when he is making his choices.
TL;DR In theory, if two games' engines are the same, then you will have about the same amount of "choices" any way the quest system, character rules, etc. are designed. What you want, is for the choices/actions to be meaningful and important. So this particular "illusion of freedom" is actually created by the way that the game restricts
the ways that the player thinks about it (i.e. giving players ways to win and to lose
), and therefore causing players to reflect
more on their decisions. What I'm talking about here is the difference between games, like good 4x strategy games, which have the "illusion of freedom" Mandemon is talking about, and other games that are willy-nilly and boring, with a lot of choices/options that you just don't want to bother with.
deus wrote:Module writers(level designers, quest writers, etc) does not provide the game, merely provide the obstacle court.
You don't have a game without the obstacle course, smart guy. Try playing chess without a chess board. And then without opposing pieces or an opponent.
SagaDC wrote: You then responded with a long, profanity-laced response that ended with comments like "try to make a good video game first instead of just trying to simulate pen and paper shit in a video game format" and "fuck the mod tools"
Here are all your profanities: one, count them, one "for fuck's sake" and one "fuck the mod tools" (which you already mentioned). And this in a pretty long post. This is what you call "profanity-laced"? You either DID NOT read the post carefully, or you are blatantly exaggerating due to butthurt. Probably a combination of both is what's happening with you.
but you've seemingly contradicted yourself so many times that I'll be damned if I grasp what you're trying to say beyond that
Man, I just keep "seemingly"
doing things in this thread. If you've got a problem with contradictions, then juxtapose me some quotes where I've contradicted myself (with an objection or explanation of your confusion), so that I can clarify it, or someone else can. And if you just parse my posts for partial quotes that are easily misunderstood out of context, expect me to call you on it.