|
God drat. But on the other hand we don't have anyone even close to Rank 5.
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:35 |
|
|
I assume it'll be a usable item if we do take it? We don't know how good it'll be, and I'd feel better giving it back to the sibling. If it turns out to be game-changingly good, oh well.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Also this feels like the sort of choice that could lead to us getting more out of giving the item up than we lose (or losing more by not giving it up than we gain by having it).ViggyNash posted:I assume it'll be a usable item if we do take it? We don't know how good it'll be, and I'd feel better giving it back to the sibling. If it turns out to be game-changingly good, oh well. He said in the post that the neck is too high rank for anyone to use right now but is literally +1 to everything, which sounds fantastic but chances are there will be a serious story downside to keeping it later on at the very minimum, and quite possibly the loss of an equally good item or a character who'll leave/not join because we are amulet stealing assholes.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Also, it's kind of a dick move to tell some dude "Bro, we will find your brother's body, and bring back the necklace." and then root around in corpses until we find some flashy jewelry for ourselves. How could we sleep at night after doing that?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Chewbot posted:Believe it or not, this wasn't made to gently caress with the player while I giggle just out of sight, my hand over my mouth. We had so many characters to try to build up in a short time that everything is done with the intent of character development. You learn a hell of a lot about Gunnulf from this one dumb event, and if he survives you learn a lot more about him later. This event is about Gunnulf, not the cart. How many games have characters who act on their own beliefs and don't instantly do what the players wants just because they're the "hero"? Let me rephrase that for your benefit. What you're saying is "our grim and gritty viking-man games has ~meaningful decisions~ where the player can't get everything his way all the time" (which is already... but let's leave that aside for for now). In order to teach that lesson, you balance the life of a party member against something that doesn't have any mechanical benefit. Except that item has (or should have) major storyline function, as it's literally half the reason you're out here, and in the game you are "paying tribute" to, things that were important to the story had mechanical consequences, and just because you couldn't see see numbers on the screen didn't mean they were of no consequence. When a player assumes (at first) that your game is just as deep, that's a compliment, not "greed" or "the desire to have your cake and eat it" or whatever. ... PS: You know what - I just have to point out that calling peoples twats is shittily misogynistic. I'm not really surprised, but still annoyed that's a thing you hear from a developer in 2014. Kinda makes me want to reexamine the roles women play in this game with that information in mind. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Huh. Is that how you respond every time someone criticizes your game? Because that's perfectly reasonable. You are a good dude most times but this time your head is so far up your rear end I'm wondering if you're inspecting what you had for dinner. Not only did he not respond like that the first time someone criticized it more evenly in this thread, literally less than 10 posts above yours, there were a couple other posts pointing out that there were lots of other points of friction on this decision, which were handled just fine. Both on SA and in the 'popular media'. So no, that isn't how he responds every time someone criticizes the game, as demonstrated in the middle of everything. That doesn't mean he has to deal with people acting like dickheads. You acted like a cock, and when you got called out on being a cock, you turn it into an edgy grimdark thing, and a misogyny thing? So, is me calling you a dick a misandry thing? Am I a self-hating man, now? Get over yourself. Also, I love that you just told the writer of a game what his writing should be. The treasure cart might've been what got these people out here, but like a lot of characters won't shut up about, there's a genocide on the horizon. Yeah, priorities might have shifted a bit. I further pointed out that you could even still address this particular MacGuffin by leaving some varl behind to clean the mess up. Get over yourself. You also picked and chose the most negative interpretation of the concept of 'there is no strictly optimal path' - which is a theme that occurs a good handful of times in this game - and turned it into poo poo that was never said. Manufacturing bullshit is not impressive. Get over yourself. In summation, get the gently caress over yourself.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
Chewbot you are my hero and infinitely cooler than any of your haters.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
I think it's safe to say that you should stop being be a sexual organ of any kind. I totally got Gunnulf killed here. Glad to know that's not an uncommon experience. Also I'm not at all surprised that Chewbot had a hand in this game.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 09:08
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Huh. Is that how you respond every time someone criticizes your game? Because that's perfectly reasonable. So I take it you got Gunnulf killed and are mad as hell
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
I propose that, in order to be sensitive to those who are rightly bothered by gendered insults within the thread, we refer to each other entirely with the word "Shitjarl" from this point on. What say ye, Shitjarls?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Feinne posted:I propose that, in order to be sensitive to those who are rightly bothered by gendered insults within the thread, we refer to each other entirely with the word "Shitjarl" from this point on. I'm good with this. As for Xander77, I'm going to quote his Rap Sheet here Axe Maniac posted:Quit being a twat, nobody likes that. High and mighty has no place in a video game watch me play forum. So seriously dude, calm down.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Shitjarls is an excellent phrase that deserves to move into the real world. Say it out loud. It's a pleasing sound.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:Shitjarls is an excellent phrase that deserves to move into the real world. With a hard J or a soft J?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Deadmeat5150 posted:With a hard J or a soft J? Either! Confuse and infuriate your enemies. [e]:VVV Soft J like Jarlsberg. Rigged Death Trap fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Deadmeat5150 posted:With a hard J or a soft J? Neither. It's pronounced like yarl.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
Well, with a vote of one to zero against, I will be taking the necklace with intent to return it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
If this were any other videogame, I'd say return the necklace. But no. The only reason I'd want to return it is 'cause my gamer sense says that you'll get a commensurate reward for "being good." gently caress that. Keep the necklace
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
I'm just gonna go ahead and point out that +1 to everything is actually kind of underwhelming as a level 5 item, so you're not really missing out on a ton here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
FairGame posted:Chewbot, as a general rule, does the AI prioritization go something like this? Thanks! Our tech director actually laid out the whole thing in a forum post recently: here. Captain Oblivious posted:Shitjarls is an excellent phrase that deserves to move into the real world. That is a nice phrase! I might have to work "shitjarl" into TBS2, which we are currently working (already stressing) on. Making your own game is so weird. People come out of the woodwork just to poo poo on you, like now that you've made a game it's open season to be a giant cock (see, gender equality). It's absolutely bizarre. We had one guy email us un-ironically to say he hated the game so much he hoped our children got AIDS and died. Another would comment on any article we were in telling everyone we're "con artists" because we also released Factions for free (in case anyone is wondering, Factions barely pays for its own server costs). Of course, they're the minority but wow, video games are serious business. We get plenty of really lovely comments, too, I really appreciate that. Hermetian posted:If this were any other videogame, I'd say return the necklace. But no. The only reason I'd want to return it is 'cause my gamer sense says that you'll get a commensurate reward for "being good." gently caress that. Keep the necklace "Choice in games" has always been a really interesting subject to me. I worked on BioWare games for a decade and learned a lot of what to do and not do. I wrote a lot of CYOA-type stuff on this subforum. I wrote some text adventures that I never released. TBS was my attempt to make a game based on choice with decisions that really matter. I think I did as good as I possibly could have hoped, but it could still be done better. Probably a lot better. Something that became very clear after we released though, was that despite what most people tell you, they don't *really* want choices. This isn't universally true, I think a lot of people really appreciate what we tried to do- but the majority... the vast majority of players subconsciously don't want choice, they want to feel like they're infallible badasses. Look at the success of Telltale's "The Walking Dead", or Mass Effect (very few real choices at any point in the trilogy, even before people figured it out at the end of the third game). I know people will disagree with this theory- hell, I would have before I made TBS, but I currently think it's true. Except for a niche population, gamers want to be heroes and save the day without working too hard. Games are just for fun, and I can't really argue with that. I mention it in regard to this comment because it brings a tear to my eye to hear your thought process (and you're absolutely right). Can't wait to start throwing down about a certain event we're all waiting for near the end of the game! Chewbot fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
Return the necklace because it seems like it might be valuable to be known as honorable and it's a small thing amidst the apocalypse. If nothing good comes of it, nothing good comes of it, but it seems worth that risk for such a small thing. I also agree that to an extent, players want to feel like they're right in games. I mean, I finished my Master's Thesis finally and can now fulfill my vow not to get into TBS until after doing so, but I found myself kinda hesitant on hearing just how many ways you could gently caress up in this game. But speaking of Mass Effect, I remember that what made the first game stand out to me was it felt like I was making decisions that could either go very well or very badly in later games and I was doing the best I could with what I knew; the bottom kinda fell out of that as early as the second game, when it turned out it didn't matter if you'd overthrown the galactic government because they just appoint a new one that acts exactly like the old one in all ways and all. Hesitant or not, I'm eager to play a game where I can actually gently caress up if I mess up. I want one where a hasty decision to sacrifice a bunch of leaders or something might actually bite me in the rear end OR turn out really well, for once.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Return the necklace because it seems like it might be valuable to be known as honorable and it's a small thing amidst the apocalypse. If nothing good comes of it, nothing good comes of it, but it seems worth that risk for such a small thing. I like that stuff, too. King of Dragon Pass is one of my all-time favorites, for example (I even own some of the original artwork). But we are definitely the minority. People don't like to make the wrong decision, and if they do it's always the game's fault. The interesting exception is Russia. Russians freaking love us.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
The anti-choice compulsion in gaming is something with a long as hell history. When I was in college I actually did a semester project on this, and I went as far back as the Alter Ego games. For those who aren't familiar with it, Alter Ego is basically a game where you play a normal person's life, from cradle to grave. It's split up into modules - infancy, childhood, teenager, young adult, mature adult, old age. The game has a tendency to lecture you for 'bad' behavior at times (like if you act like a jerk to your SO, you might see some chiding on how you're not being sensitive), but generally speaking it pretty much lets the reins go and lets you live your 'life' however you want. Interestingly, people will pretty much all play it the same way, at least in the test group I studied. These were people from radically different wealth, racial, and national backgrounds. And yet, everyone had a near obsessive eye on their 'stats', which just measured various things like your Family sphere, your Professional sphere, to show how well developed those aspects of your life were, and then in maxing out esoteric stuff like Calmness and other parts of your personality that people don't really think about. The game simply displays them on a rank from 0 to 100%, and god drat but did people want those things to be at 100% as bad as they could. Some folks even explicitly chose the peaceful death event in old age very early specifically so their near-perfect stats wouldn't deteriorate. The game did not score these things. There were no numbers beyond the 0-100% attached to it. But those simple meters made powergamers out of a disturbing number of my test group. Combine that with the dizzying scope you get out of giving players 'real choices' that can radically change the unwinding of a game or story and the conclusion I had to draw in the project that I submitted was that there had to be a serious question of the value of choice in a video game. And even if the value was deemed to be worth it, the execution had to be absolutely flawless as not to implicitly whittle away at the choices you just took so much time creating.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
Coolguye posted:The anti-choice compulsion in gaming is something with a long as hell history. When I was in college I actually did a semester project on this, and I went as far back as the Alter Ego games. That is very interesting. I guess I've come at it from a personal perspective in which I was unsatisfied with the degree of choice in game story and wanted to make something that put choice in the spotlight. I mean after all, books, tv and movie have got the "linear story" thing covered and it seems like an interactive medium is a great place to start giving options. I've got no followup to that, except... huh. I'm just glad that enough people like the game to keep working on em. Btw Coolguye, who is the green-haired anime girl that keeps reappearing in your sig? It kept changing in the Transformers thread, which was pretty much my favorite LP in the last 8 months or so, but I never got the reference.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 08:24
|
|
|
Chewbot posted:I like that stuff, too. King of Dragon Pass is one of my all-time favorites, for example (I even own some of the original artwork). But we are definitely the minority. People don't like to make the wrong decision, and if they do it's always the game's fault. This is pretty much one of the biggest reasons I love KoDP. If you think like a modern person and not a pseudo-celto-viking-macedonian you would never be able to win at the game. In one of the the events that crops up a group of "adventurers" shows up asking for a place to stay. In any other game you would think to put them up for the night and maybe give them a quest. In KoDP you have to remember that Heortlings view outsiders as less than even slaves, fit only to be killed and plundered (they aren't really human after all), so of course the correct course of action is to slaughter them and take their magical gubbins.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 08:31
|
|
|
Chewbot posted:That is very interesting. I guess I've come at it from a personal perspective in which I was unsatisfied with the degree of choice in game story and wanted to make something that put choice in the spotlight. I mean after all, books, tv and movie have got the "linear story" thing covered and it seems like an interactive medium is a great place to start giving options. I've got no followup to that, except... huh. I'm just glad that enough people like the game to keep working on em. e: I should also mention, of course, that not everyone in my test group turned into a powergamer. If my memory serves me right, it was just over half. So there was still a good ~40-45% of the players that just sort of played however they wanted, and some took pride in making stereotypically ruthless decisions in mature adulthood to advance their careers, for example. They had to do what they had to do, they said. The thing that surprised me is I had not expected to see so many people put so much weight on a bunch of filling sliders. They turned that into the game's 'score' even though there is absolutely no reason to construe it as such in the game's interface. Similarly, I wager that a lot of people in TBS ended up seeing the number of alive characters or the size of their caravan as a sort of score, though the shifting between distinct caravans definitely helps limit that sort of thing, I think. quote:Btw Coolguye, who is the green-haired anime girl that keeps reappearing in your sig? It kept changing in the Transformers thread, which was pretty much my favorite LP in the last 8 months or so, but I never got the reference. 
Coolguye fucked around with this message at 09:26 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 08:50
|
|
|
Oops, I should have joined in the vote to keep the necklace. Detouring who knows how long to return it versus earning back some of that poor lost tax money?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 09:50
|
|
|
It's kind of sad that gamers at large aren't mature enough to accept that sometimes things blow up in your face, wheter you like it or not. I guess part of the problem is that amongst them there is a noteworthy number of teenagers, who aren't known for their patience and acceptance. Until very recently I have basically lived under a rock when it comes to gaming, so finding out that Mass Effect ruined what could have been a wonderful feature breaks my heart. I really hope that someone other than Paradox Interactive pulls off consequences reaching more than one game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 09:54
|
|
|
paradoxGentleman posted:It's kind of sad that gamers at large aren't mature enough to accept that sometimes things blow up in your face, wheter you like it or not. I guess part of the problem is that amongst them there is a noteworthy number of teenagers, who aren't known for their patience and acceptance. Subverting conditioned beliefs is something that people are often not comfortable with. This is true in pretty much all media.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 10:08
|
|
|
While Xander was being rude, I think he did have a point as to the whole losing Gunnulf thing. Here's my reasoning as to why people might lose him other than simple greed. 1. Varls are supposed to be really tough and strong, and Gunnulf is one of the stronger varls. So a player will think that he'll easily be able to save the wagon, and that there's no risk to trying. And if I understand it there's a choice to help him? 2 varls should have no problem saving the wagon! They're really strong! 2. Money might not have any use mechanically, but losing it might have huge consequences as far as the player knows. Maybe the king those taxes belong to will be less likely to help the less taxes he gets back? Who knows. 2b. As a counterpoint though, the game does a nice job of letting the player know the money means nothing by practically never mentioning its existence as far as I've seen. 3. This is the real kicker. When you first tell Gunnulf to let go, he doesn't listen to you. This is a big problem. At least for me, when the game tells me "Are you sure you want to do that?", which is what this situation seems to tell me, it's very easy for me to assume that I just almost made a mistake, and the game is giving me a chance to change my mind. I think this might have been a mistake to do this, giving the player a second chance to screw up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 10:19
|
|
|
paradoxGentleman posted:Until very recently I have basically lived under a rock when it comes to gaming, so finding out that Mass Effect ruined what could have been a wonderful feature breaks my heart. I really hope that someone other than Paradox Interactive pulls off consequences reaching more than one game. But there are different levels of choice and consequences in games? The Mass Effect trilogy had quite a number of choices you could make that affected many aspects of the following games. Characters could die, certain groundwork could be laid for quests in ME2 or ME3 etc. It's just that the overall course of the story didn't change. Even the (correctly) vilified endings of ME3 had different outcomes depending on how you played the game. If Gunnulf potentially dying if you make the wrong choice is such a wonderful feature, then ME would deserve credit for having several such situations. There are even several main character deaths that cannot be avoided, you can only choose which character dies. It ultimately comes down to how you see choice in gaming. In relatively open strategy games (Civ, CK2, Total War games etc.), the players choices have a tremendous consequences, with playthroughs possibly radically different. In RPG's that tell a story, you will always be more limited in what player's choices can affect. You can have two very different branches like in the Witcher 2, but that will probably always be the exception. From a pure resource point, the overall story will in most cases be relatively similar in each playthrough. Your choices influence the state of the world and the fate of a few characters, and they may even give a new meaning to certain parts of the story. But more is probably not very practical. And to get back to the 100% completionists: Just because players want to get a 100% run doesn't mean they are anti-choice. I like to be the hero and save everybody in my first playthrough in basically all RPG's, but I always try the evil path or roleplaying in a way that prevents taking the best choices every time as well in subsequent playthroughs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 11:12
|
|
|
I'm all for choices and consequence in my games but as long as some kind even distribution of good and bad rsults. I recall in one of the myriad of Mass Effect threads that some posters wanted the Renegade choices to be the only ones that produced some kind of beneficial result, since that's obviously the only way you'll get results while the Paragons would at best result in nothing since doing a good/compassionate thing would always be detrimental to your end result. I guess what I'm trying to say that keep giving me choices with actual consequences in my games but don't tie them to a morality bar.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 11:26
|
|
|
I'm not saying that every choice should result in a character's death, I'm just saying that having the plot change significantly between games is a pretty cool concept. I realize, however, that it's not practical to employ in such story-driven games.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 11:43
|
|
|
Chewbot posted:I like that stuff, too. King of Dragon Pass is one of my all-time favorites, for example (I even own some of the original artwork). But we are definitely the minority. People don't like to make the wrong decision, and if they do it's always the game's fault. Well, I love you too, man. Banner Saga is an awesome game. Everything about it is great and I was flabbergasted to hear you say that only three people worked on it, you included. I also love that, as I play along Prof here, I am indeed faced with the indecision and incertitude of a leader. Am I making the right call? Was there a better choice to be made? The tension makes me appreciate the choices even more, because I have to take into account the character's abilities and personalities too. If I hadn't been playing catch up at that point, the choice that could have killed Egil would have been my doom, since I would have forgotten about Rook's archery. The choices are integral to the story and I love it. The detail into the art and animations is also a big draw for me, mind you. In other words, I adore the work you guys put into the game and you've got a loyal follower for The Banner Saga 2. The Russians are pretty particular about video games, though. They love a lot of stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 13:23
|
|
|
Mehuyael posted:While Xander was being rude, I think he did have a point as to the whole losing Gunnulf thing. Here's my reasoning as to why people might lose him other than simple greed. On the other hand, when Gunnulf did die, I realized what went wrong and didn't really hold it against the game, since it became obvious that the gold (whose value is effectively meaningless from a mechanical point of view) was going to be lost no matter what and the only real choice was between getting Gunnulf killed or not. I thought the gold was going to be important for plot reasons and something that as a caravan leader I should've tried to preserve and had the means to, but ultimately made the wrong choice that I had to live with throughout that playthrough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 13:34
|
|
|
The reason I lost Gunnulf on my first playthrough was that I had this idea that a loss of treasure might also mean a loss of Renown.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
radintorov posted:That's pretty much why I too lost Gunnulf the first time I played even if the money itself had no meaning, since it's not a resource and just a single plot point, but I had assumed that Gunnulf and Hakon would've been strong enough to hold onto it (since they are massive Varls) and bringing those taxes was one of the original objectives of the caravan: said objective might've been postponed due to impending Dredge invasion, but since I was in charge of the caravan, I was going to try to do my best to see things through. They are strong enough to hold on to it...with the assistance of the tree that Gunnulf is holding on to. Problem is, the tree isn't strong enough. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
Part of what Coolguye is referencing, I suspect, may come from the fact that these are games. People see a score, or seek an objective, and they go for it. When I was first getting into tabletop RPGs when I was young, one of the first things I asked my first GM was 'So what do we do to win? What's our goal?' because it seemed like that was what you did in a game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:They are strong enough to hold on to it...with the assistance of the tree that Gunnulf is holding on to. Problem is, the tree isn't strong enough. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
I think most people get unpleasantly surprised when bad things sort of come out of the left field (however many warnings there are or aren't that they've caught on to), and they did do that, repeatedly, in my first attempt on the Banner Saga. I lost Egil, Gunnulf, Erik ('Haha, let's be noble! He'll join up later, right?'), Yrsa and, I think, Mogun, plus another character we haven't seen yet, most of them people whom I had invested a fair amount of Renown in. Eventually that, plus the fact I was still learning the battle mechanics, got to me so much that I simply restarted the game before finishing it (and got a very different experience along the way for my second go). Does that mean the game is bad? Nah, I mainly submitted to a gamer's desire of wanting a do-over where I could do better and not lose people I had come to like and/or value (and go figure, some of them I lost anyway, because this game doesn't play nice with your expectations). I'm fine with consequences in games. That doesn't mean I'll run with them if I don't like how things turn out, because it is, after all, a game, and hunting for optimal choices (even among a set of suboptimal ones) is something I've gotten used to doing. Yet I still love the Banner Saga, and I love its approach to choices, especially since it has taught me how to curb my expectations somewhat. The next game will probably have me approaching my decisions differently and likely won't, no matter what happens, lead to me going for a restart unless I get outright stuck. Coolguye posted:Similarly, I wager that a lot of people in TBS ended up seeing the number of alive characters or the size of their caravan as a sort of score, though the shifting between distinct caravans definitely helps limit that sort of thing, I think. Case in point: I freely admit my chief 'good guy' run of this game was trying to gather and keep as many clansmen alive in Rook's caravan as I could by the end of the game. It takes a lot of supplies. My poor, poor renown pool. If I could make a suggestion to Chewbot, though, is that when you lose heroes in TBS2, especially in cases where heroics are involved, you might consider instead, or in addition, of simply refunding all the renown you've spent on them, you could reward a fixed amount. That means if the hero isn't part of a regular lineup, or in addition to the refund, you might gain renown, or if they are, and there is no refund, losing them still has an impact in wasted renown depending on how much you'd invested in them. It would still be bad, their death would just feel a little less wasted. Or, instead of just renown, reward an item, and/or a few varls, warriors or even clansmen might survive/join. Or a new hero you wouldn't otherwise get! Obviously this wouldn't be appropriate for every hero's death/departure, but I feel like choices that lose one or more of your heroes having some sort of impact, major or minor, for 'good' instead of just their deaths would be a nice touch and might help ward off the sort of outrage that have lead you to consider refunding renown. By and large you seem to have had the philosophy that the only choice when someone dies is between either just losing that character (occasionally plus additional negative consequences) or doing the 'right' thing, in which case you simply preserve them, which is a nice reward in itself, but still... the former kind of compelled at least me to restart the game once I had enough. Others might just put it away in frustration, therein your quandary as a gamedev. The added benefit to this is that it might add more interactivity to the game, because some paths might be less optimal than the others, but they're not entirely just a negative consequence to be avoided in future playthroughs either (for example, once I found a path that appeared to be optimal through Skogr, I stopped experimenting because that appeared to be it, thus I never got to save the chieftain). That said, I think negative consequences should have their place in games that purport to give you actual choices that impact future gameplay, and I admire the Banner Saga for going out there and giving it to us.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 18:35 |
|
|
Also, going by the inspirational material, sometimes a heroic death is the best thing you can do and might merit reward for the character's commanders and allies after their death.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 14:54
|
|