A rating of PG-18 (or at least PG-16 like Planescape: Torment) would be nice. Medieval fantasy catering for young teens stop to be interesting after reaching a certain age.
Actually, that would be exactly my reason for a family friendly PG-13 rating. R-rated games aimed at angsty teens stop being interesting after reaching a certain age
[There may be more customers between your certain age and mine, but more are heading towards my age every day!]
2. Decouple alignment and reputation, it should be possible to run an evil/high rep or good/low rep game.
Always fun to play intelligent sneaky evil, which could seem angelic from first sight, but in reality, is actually quite opposite, like devoted priest of Talos giving "wisdom" to commoners
Much as my characters tend towards lawful and good, if I do occasionally play the other side, I want to play smart-evil. I don't want to push smart-evil down the players' throats as the only/preferred evil option, but it really needs to be an option before I can consider that play style myself.
Well, the thing is, Infinity style games can get away with a lot more than your average third person 3D game. That's simply because we don't actually see a lot of the stuff happening, but rather read about it and imagine it ourselves and/or the details are missing because it's shown from too far away.
For example, you don't see how Minsc burries his Sword in that kobold's head ... you see him vaguely flailing in the kobold's direction and at one point the kobold falls over. And writing can get away with much more "mature" (as in not suitable for children) themes than a visual medium can, simply because in the end it depends on the reader's imagination.
My point is, depending on how the new game presents itself, it can get different ratings even if it has the exact same story and scenes.
Anyway, I personally prefer mature themes and if that eans an 18+ rating, so be it. And by that I don't mean that you guys should slap tits and guts all over the game. I think you know what I mean. Just treat your players as intelligent adults please >.>
For the sake of argument, let's pretend we were making a D&D game of some kind.
What would be your top-three list of things you absolutely, positively would need to see present in that game -- whether it be in the story or the feature list?
1. Robust character creation and leveling choices where the world adapts to who you are, not the other way around. 2. Interactive story with a serious tone. Quests should have more than 1 way to complete them. 3. Tactical battles that are challenging, but not frustratingly so, preferably with more than one way of completion, but not as important as quests having multiple paths. 4. If you can not deliver on any of the above three, then I will settle for a Gazebo.
These two things, especially music, have a subtle but profound impact on gameplay. IWD and IWD2 are famous for being low on characterization and in-depth storytelling, but Jeremy Soule's music gave a great deal of emotional impact and character to both games.
-Not necessarily isometric as long as there's a well-supported tactical camera view. Zooming in or rotating the camera is fine.
-Options that actually matter. One shouldn't be just a rude way to say something and nothing really changes. You piss off an NPC, they don't give you the quest etc. Fallout style.
-Moddability is a great way to have your product be replayable for years. Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, the Elder Scrolls are proof of this.
-Don't limit freedom. Don't make this or that NPC unkillable because story and hand-holding. You mess up, you deal with the consequences.
-Challenge. Too many developers are afraid to make their games challenging these days. Challege leads to persistence. Persistence leads to accomplishment. Accomplishment leads to satisfaction. You value things more if you worked for them. That's a fact of life in general.
-Great companions with the ability to create your own. A combination of BG and IWD in short, like it was done in Pillars of Eternity.
-No class should feel left out. A campaign with crappy traps you can just walk over and full of undead is horrible for a Thief/Rogue for example. And if there's any crappy option, then it should be improved with patches.
It would be awesome if illusionists could make themselves (and the party) appear to be any monster they had seen previously. Wandering around looking like a group of ogres might save you from a fight, or it could get you into one.
For the sake of argument, let's pretend we were making a D&D game of some kind.
What would be your top-three list of things you absolutely, positively would need to see present in that game -- whether it be in the story or the feature list?
1. A story that isn't a "Chosen One" story. There can be a CHARNAME, but don't make her/him the son of a god, immaculate conception by the Force, an immortal from planet Zeist, etc.. Perhaps let the player choose from a limited selection of backgrounds for their CHARNAME. Each background could have benefits/hinderances as well as some in-game effects (e.g., some NPCs react differently based on CHARNAME's background). 2. A more limited rate of progression. Many CRPGs suffer from over-fast leveling, usually starting with obscene amounts of XP for FedEx quests (e.g., 1000 XP for bringing the town drunk a bottle of rotgut). There's no reason that characters should be at epic levels after two games. Design progression so that characters stay in the D&D "sweet spot" longer (roughly 4th-14th level in older editions, not sure about 5e's sweet spot). 3. Infinity engine-style gameplay.
With the possibility of a new game set in a new location, it occurs to me that there might eventually be new expansions to this hypothetical game. For me this brings up the question of whether the expansions continue the story and progression of our original protagonist, or require that you start over with a new one each time.
One of the things that I love about the BG series is that each expansion expands on my original protagonists story. As much as I liked the Dragon Age games, I would have preferred that they stuck with one protagonist.
I can tell you one tip for your npc. You wish to have coherent stories, a great arch for your characters and stuff of this sort? Hire better writers, or leave the writers you currently got and hire Shawne (he is on this forum). I checked his discussions topic about the EE npcs and honestly I was both sad and disgusted you didn't listen to him. I don't find it hard if you love your product to give another bit of love and actually improve it and remove the flaws.
If you gave in his suggestions, people would not make mods to disable EE npc content. But to each his own. Sorry if my opinion seems aggressive, but it is actually the harsh truth
1. Dragon! Prefeably an epic battle against many of various colors! 2. Magic Sword! 3. Cool Battle Maneuvers. ( special moves like Knockdown, Grapple, Disarm )
Edit!
4. Recurring Villains ( like The Linear Guild in Order of the Stick ) ... since players have access to resurrection, wouldn´t it make kind of sense that the enemies would use it as well?
Please no "I want to rule the world!" or "money makes the world go 'round!" or anything along those lines. And please don't make the main antagonist "faceless". So please no big bad demons or something. Irenicus worked so well, because of his motivation for revenge. Caelar because she is not actually evil. Sarevok kinda works, because even though his motivation is relatively weak, he makes up for it with an insane amout of drive and charisma. Who don't work well are Hephernaan, the Archdemon, Corypheus and Amelissan. And screw the King of Shadows, seriously -.-
I know it's a very common trope to set up a "fake" big bad who is really interesting but then it turns out to be that the actual villain is some kind of faceless monster (looking at you, NWN2). Please don't do that.
Give us a big bad we either love to hate or hate to love.
I don't know, "Mask of the Betrayer" got a lot of mileage out of playing with expectations when it comes to villains: Myrkul is arguably the Biggest Bad in that story, but he doesn't even know or care who you are, and he's got nothing to gain but cruel humor and satisfaction.
Then again, maybe there's wisdom in going for the good old-fashioned traditional villain: with n-Space gone, Beamdog is pretty much the sole company producing actual D&D CRPGs. If nobody else is serving up the classic stuff, we might as well get it from them.
I agree so much with @Buttercheese A good villain with a good motivation drives the story. Good examples being Caelar (noble goal, but misguided), Sarevok (personal power to become a God) and Jon Irenicus (Immortality). Having a big bad a demon or something, that is trying to destroy the world only because "it's there" and "for the evulz" is lame and boring.
Remember the Thor movies from Marvel? Thor 1's main villain was likable, charismatic and basically the whole movie was his road to evil. Thor 2 had some idiot I don't even remember who wanted to destroy the world for no apparent reason.
I certainly agree that a good villain makes the story. I want a smart, complex villain.
Unlike some others I like Manichean evil. Let's take on Sauron.
(And, by the way, the dark elves of Thor 2 were motivated by a desire to return the world to the place it was before the coming of the light -- they represent the void that was and the entropy that remains; very important idea in Norse mythology. The dark, the void, is what was and what will be again and in the present the dark is a force of corruption. They are Manichean evil and I liked that movie)
What I don't like is when people try to fight D&D's Manichean alignment system. In Faerun, unlike the real world, evil is a tangible force -- there are not good orcs. Orcs are born, not made their souls are beholden to an evil god.
And this follows Tolkien -- Orcs were elves that were twisted by Morgoth into foul, evil beings. If there was a good orc he would be an elf -- therefore you cannot be good and an orc; "good orc" is a contradiction like "imperfect perfection". I get that people *reject* the theological underpinnings of alignment system with its origins the writing of Tolkien (and Augustine) and, in real life, so do I -- but I like my fantasy world to have *real* evil in it. Not just greed, ambition and lack of empathy -- real evil that you can detect with a spell.
Gimme smart, complex EVIL -- so I can put a boot in its backside.
Remember the Thor movies from Marvel? Thor 1's main villain was likable, charismatic and basically the whole movie was his road to evil. Thor 2 had some idiot I don't even remember who wanted to destroy the world for no apparent reason.
Oh god, I had already forgotten about this ... this was actually one of the biggest beefs I had with this movie (on a long long list of many).
(And, by the way, the dark elves of Thor 2 were motivated by a desire to return the world to the place it was before the coming of the light -- they represent the void that was and the entropy that remains; very important idea in Norse mythology. The dark, the void, is what was and what will be again and in the present the dark is a force of corruption. They are Manichean evil and I liked that movie)
Of old was the age | when Ymir lived; Sea nor cool waves | nor sand there were; Earth had not been, | nor heaven above, But a yawning gap, | and grass nowhere.
And this follows Tolkien -- Orcs were elves that were twisted by Morgoth into foul, evil beings. If there was a good orc he would be an elf -- therefore you cannot be good and an orc; "good orc" is a contradiction like "imperfect perfection". I get that people *reject* the theological underpinnings of alignment system with its origins the writing of Tolkien (and Augustine) and, in real life, so do I -- but I like my fantasy world to have *real* evil in it. Not just greed, ambition and lack of empathy -- real evil that you can detect with a spell.
I don't know, mate, this sounds really hard to be made interesting or "realistic" (in the broadest sense of the word). The concept of good vs. evil like this is so far away from reality that I can't even immagine playing a character in a world like this. And especially D&D is not about black and white story telling, but about a spectrum ... that's why we have nine core alignments. There isn't just evil. There are two extremes to evil and a middle ground.
Well, and D&D orcs have little left in common with their cousins from middle earth. They are more like barbaric tribes meets raw animalism.
Comments
Proceed.
[There may be more customers between your certain age and mine, but more are heading towards my age every day!]
For example, you don't see how Minsc burries his Sword in that kobold's head ... you see him vaguely flailing in the kobold's direction and at one point the kobold falls over.
And writing can get away with much more "mature" (as in not suitable for children) themes than a visual medium can, simply because in the end it depends on the reader's imagination.
My point is, depending on how the new game presents itself, it can get different ratings even if it has the exact same story and scenes.
Anyway, I personally prefer mature themes and if that eans an 18+ rating, so be it.
And by that I don't mean that you guys should slap tits and guts all over the game.
I think you know what I mean. Just treat your players as intelligent adults please >.>
1. Music
2. Background imagery
These two things, especially music, have a subtle but profound impact on gameplay. IWD and IWD2 are famous for being low on characterization and in-depth storytelling, but Jeremy Soule's music gave a great deal of emotional impact and character to both games.
-Options that actually matter. One shouldn't be just a rude way to say something and nothing really changes. You piss off an NPC, they don't give you the quest etc. Fallout style.
-Moddability is a great way to have your product be replayable for years. Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, the Elder Scrolls are proof of this.
-Don't limit freedom. Don't make this or that NPC unkillable because story and hand-holding. You mess up, you deal with the consequences.
-Challenge. Too many developers are afraid to make their games challenging these days.
Challege leads to persistence. Persistence leads to accomplishment. Accomplishment leads to satisfaction.
You value things more if you worked for them. That's a fact of life in general.
-Great companions with the ability to create your own. A combination of BG and IWD in short, like it was done in Pillars of Eternity.
-No class should feel left out. A campaign with crappy traps you can just walk over and full of undead is horrible for a Thief/Rogue for example. And if there's any crappy option, then it should be improved with patches.
These for now.
2. Plenty of joinable NPCs
3. Equally playable by good and evil characters
2) Good writing and compelling characters.
3) Dragonborns.
Please don't reduce it to good vs evil. I know you guys can do better.
2. Dragons (duh!)
3. Cake... it's always better with cake.
Ok, in all seriousness...
1. A story that isn't a "Chosen One" story. There can be a CHARNAME, but don't make her/him the son of a god, immaculate conception by the Force, an immortal from planet Zeist, etc.. Perhaps let the player choose from a limited selection of backgrounds for their CHARNAME. Each background could have benefits/hinderances as well as some in-game effects (e.g., some NPCs react differently based on CHARNAME's background).
2. A more limited rate of progression. Many CRPGs suffer from over-fast leveling, usually starting with obscene amounts of XP for FedEx quests (e.g., 1000 XP for bringing the town drunk a bottle of rotgut). There's no reason that characters should be at epic levels after two games. Design progression so that characters stay in the D&D "sweet spot" longer (roughly 4th-14th level in older editions, not sure about 5e's sweet spot).
3. Infinity engine-style gameplay.
Absence of drow (done to death)
Evil path as prominent as good or neutral
(Balanced classes and races)
One of the things that I love about the BG series is that each expansion expands on my original protagonists story. As much as I liked the Dragon Age games, I would have preferred that they stuck with one protagonist.
I’m curious how others feel about this.
If you gave in his suggestions, people would not make mods to disable EE npc content. But to each his own. Sorry if my opinion seems aggressive, but it is actually the harsh truth
ciao
2. Magic Sword!
3. Cool Battle Maneuvers. ( special moves like Knockdown, Grapple, Disarm )
Edit!
4. Recurring Villains ( like The Linear Guild in Order of the Stick ) ... since players have access to resurrection, wouldn´t it make kind of sense that the enemies would use it as well?
Give us a villain with an interesting motivation!
Please no "I want to rule the world!" or "money makes the world go 'round!" or anything along those lines.
And please don't make the main antagonist "faceless". So please no big bad demons or something.
Irenicus worked so well, because of his motivation for revenge. Caelar because she is not actually evil.
Sarevok kinda works, because even though his motivation is relatively weak, he makes up for it with an insane amout of drive and charisma. Who don't work well are Hephernaan, the Archdemon, Corypheus and Amelissan. And screw the King of Shadows, seriously -.-
I know it's a very common trope to set up a "fake" big bad who is really interesting but then it turns out to be that the actual villain is some kind of faceless monster (looking at you, NWN2). Please don't do that.
Give us a big bad we either love to hate or hate to love.
Then again, maybe there's wisdom in going for the good old-fashioned traditional villain: with n-Space gone, Beamdog is pretty much the sole company producing actual D&D CRPGs. If nobody else is serving up the classic stuff, we might as well get it from them.
1)Dread Golems. Possibly one as a recruitable character with a tragic backstory.
2)A cameo of Isolde's carnival.
3) And of course, Strahd.
A good villain with a good motivation drives the story. Good examples being Caelar (noble goal, but misguided), Sarevok (personal power to become a God) and Jon Irenicus (Immortality). Having a big bad a demon or something, that is trying to destroy the world only because "it's there" and "for the evulz" is lame and boring.
Remember the Thor movies from Marvel? Thor 1's main villain was likable, charismatic and basically the whole movie was his road to evil. Thor 2 had some idiot I don't even remember who wanted to destroy the world for no apparent reason.
Unlike some others I like Manichean evil. Let's take on Sauron.
(And, by the way, the dark elves of Thor 2 were motivated by a desire to return the world to the place it was before the coming of the light -- they represent the void that was and the entropy that remains; very important idea in Norse mythology. The dark, the void, is what was and what will be again and in the present the dark is a force of corruption. They are Manichean evil and I liked that movie)
What I don't like is when people try to fight D&D's Manichean alignment system. In Faerun, unlike the real world, evil is a tangible force -- there are not good orcs. Orcs are born, not made their souls are beholden to an evil god.
And this follows Tolkien -- Orcs were elves that were twisted by Morgoth into foul, evil beings. If there was a good orc he would be an elf -- therefore you cannot be good and an orc; "good orc" is a contradiction like "imperfect perfection". I get that people *reject* the theological underpinnings of alignment system with its origins the writing of Tolkien (and Augustine) and, in real life, so do I -- but I like my fantasy world to have *real* evil in it. Not just greed, ambition and lack of empathy -- real evil that you can detect with a spell.
Gimme smart, complex EVIL -- so I can put a boot in its backside.
Sea nor cool waves | nor sand there were;
Earth had not been, | nor heaven above,
But a yawning gap, | and grass nowhere. I don't know, mate, this sounds really hard to be made interesting or "realistic" (in the broadest sense of the word). The concept of good vs. evil like this is so far away from reality that I can't even immagine playing a character in a world like this. And especially D&D is not about black and white story telling, but about a spectrum ... that's why we have nine core alignments. There isn't just evil. There are two extremes to evil and a middle ground.
Well, and D&D orcs have little left in common with their cousins from middle earth. They are more like barbaric tribes meets raw animalism.