Quote:Original post by Taolung
A bit of a different game, but this is part of the reason I liked Freelancer. When the game ends, (assuming you stick to the storyline closely) you've only really explored something like 25% of the game world. At the end is when they let you loose to explore, discover new star systems, forge new alliances, and start down a new career path. There were lots of neat little adventures and things to find still out there, (the planet of monkey-people hidden way off the map...hehe) and when the game ended, you almost felt like things were just beginning for your career.

You know, I actually told Juni to stuff it for about two weeks while I went on exploring and fighting by myself. I actually have some SERIOUS problems with the way Freelancer did story because they locked systems and RESET (!!!) alliances as you worked through the game. To me, this was the equivalent of being lead by the nose AND nerfed (especially after I'd worked so hard to get in good with the Liberty Navy). By the time they let me go off by myself, I was so disgusted with the game that I did very little (the repetitive "Go here, kill all" missions did me in).

Quote:
I only wish that they had created a few mini-stories that you could encounter. Rather than just picking up a standard "kill him" or "deliver this" mission at a port, it would have been neat to encounter a few NPC's who had a short series of missions for you. I would think it would have been relatively easy to add just a few more scenarios and short story lines that you could stumble onto once in awhile and have fun with. If not in the standard game, then in expansions.

I actually enjoy replaying Freelancer as a combat game, if I tell myself that's all it is. But when I expect more (like the cool missions you mention) that's when my annoyance with the game really spikes. But you're right, it is a good example of allowing you to keep playing. (Even more fun when you get the patch to bypass the #*$*%! story on replay [grin])

Quote:Original post by Iron Chef Carnage
I love post-game wandering. Escape Velocity was great for this, because I could download all sorts of mission packs and take my ship and wealth and secret technology on new adventures.

Oy! Very agreed!

Quote:
Fable sort of had this, but by the end your character was pretty much maxxed out and all the missions shut down, so I just spent my time marrying as many girls as possible and killing people so I could buy their houses and shops. Meh.

If you could really start to have an influence on the game world, like actually clear the shadowy forest of monsters so people would start to live there, or start a new crime organization that would control certain roadways, that would be cool. It's that sort of sandbox play that I'm after.

Curious, what does this do for you in terms of game longevity? Do you feel more like you're a part of the world? Or do you get the sense that you can try out different strategies? What makes this compelling?

Quote:
But that would require a lot of work that might have been better applied to lengthening the story or tweaking other systems, and those improvements would appeal to a wider audience anyway. The Fable "cut loose and go" system would be enough for me, really.

I'm still holding out for the possibility of story being synonymous with the "gaining ground" aspect you described above.

Quote:Original post by ishpeck
After all, part of the reason we even play RPG's is so we can develop characters, give them personality, and grow to love them. It should stand to reason that the love continue with the advent of replayability of these characters.

Wouldn't you think that with all the money these games are putting into being able to customize your character that this sort of thing would be obvious? If I spend hours outfitting my guy with the coolest gear, adjusting the space and height of his eyes, putting scars and tatoos on him, etc., haven't I made an enduring investment?

Quote:Original post by Gyrthok
So if you want to you could export all your characters, make a new game and import them and start the game over with your uber-crew, or you could export them all and then load them to play in the sequel. The different series themselves (NWN, BD, IWD) i don't think are reverse compatible with each other because of the differences in the engines, though i'm not sure about Icewind Dale since Black Isle was shutdown and there's little information on it.

Hey, I installed IWD II and saw this, but I couldn't find it for I. Haven't gotten far, but I'm assuming that the goblins get replaced by salamanders or get many more hit points?

currently I'm in the design stages of a somewhat similar idea. I agree with you, for games like Final Fantasy Tactics, I enjoy the combat much more than the story. The idea for the game will be to have a persistent party, but the only gameplay will be to engage other, human players in combat. Mostly like an advanced chess game (actually, mostly a rip off of Tactics, but whatever).

The important aspect of this is the online play. I could throw NPCs at people all day, and after a while it gets boring. I want my game to be unboring, and variety is the key. That's essentially the role of story in single player RPGs, it adds variety.

Example, if you play chess, you don't want to play the same game every time. If your AI opponent uses the same move list every time, then you will quickly grow rather bored of destroying your opponent. That's why we play against dynamic opponents, advanced learning AI and humans. The typical RPG is less about action (no reflex factor) and more about decisions (strategy and tactics). Essentially the player has an infinite time frame in which to make their decisions. A dynamic opponent is the only way to achieve variety in this situation.

Implement an advanced AI system that learns against the player, or cop out and just make them play against other people.

Quote:Original post by capn_midnight
The important aspect of this is the online play. I could throw NPCs at people all day, and after a while it gets boring. I want my game to be unboring, and variety is the key. That's essentially the role of story in single player RPGs, it adds variety.

Do you think that something like this could be pulled off by a single-player RPG, or do you think the game needs to be geared to multiplayer from the start. If the latter, how is this different from MMORPGs?

Quote:Original post by Wavinator

Quote:Original post by capn_midnight
The important aspect of this is the online play. I could throw NPCs at people all day, and after a while it gets boring. I want my game to be unboring, and variety is the key. That's essentially the role of story in single player RPGs, it adds variety.

Do you think that something like this could be pulled off by a single-player RPG, or do you think the game needs to be geared to multiplayer from the start. If the latter, how is this different from MMORPGs?

I think it could be done on the single player side, but it would be incredibly difficult to pull off. Like I said, variety is the key, how do you achieve variety in a static game? Some of this can be accomplished through repeatable, pseudo-random content generation, but you also have to offer a variety of enemy strategies. This is the difficult part, as there is yet to exist a truly sophisticated AI in computer games other than Chess.

In FFT, eventually the challenge came down to who had the most hit points, you or the enemy, because you could learn the pattern that the enemy fought with. Chocobos attacked until they were hurt, then regrouped to heal themselves before attacking again. As it turns out, the tactic used against the common Chocobo was the tactic for the entire game, your entire team goes after one target at a time, until everyone is destroyed. In order to add the variety in strategy, as I said before, you're left with implementing sophisticated AI (very hard) or copping out and implementing network play (very easy), using human brains instead of artificial brains.

The difference from normal MMORPGs: With online play there are basically 2 types, match play and persistent play. Chess is match play, MMORPGS are persistent play. For this RPG battle-unto-itself idea, I think you will need to focus mostly on match play. Otherwise, you'll probably wind up in the same trap as every other MMORPG, wandering for hours between each 5 minute battle. In a common MMORPG, exploration is the game, and there are few obstacles to this purpose. Consider the mandated no-PK zones, obviously battle is considered an obstacle to something in this case. With a battle-only game, you will have to remove the obstacles to battle, and that is the persistent world of the common MMORPG.

Take Diablo, for example. When you log on to a multiplayer game, there are portals to take you to some of the deepest levels of the dungeons. The upper levels are an obstacle for the advanced player, in order for the game to remain fun those obstacles must be removed.

So, for my game, it will be all match play. If there is a world map, it will only exist as a chat room, a place to shop for your party, and match negotiator, basically just a lobby. Actually, I almost envision something like the Risk board map. FFT is similar in this regard, Disgaea: Hour of Darkness takes it a step too far.

On the topic of pseudo-random content, I've thought that perhaps the topography of the network of lobby servers could be used to generate the world map data, and travelling to different towns would be travelling to different servers. Different servers would run different rule sets (similar to first person shooters), and the notion of travel would be used to mask the concept of connecting to distinct servers.