Jeff's New Game

[Monroe]

The last topic about this was sadly locked, but we really should be talking about this a lot more, I think.

 

I'm curious as to what kind of adventure you guys think the new game should have. Jeff has shown that he is capable of a number of adventure themes, from exploration, to chases, to factional worlds or worlds heavy on main plot. I made a poll with familiar themes from Jeff's games, what kind are you hoping to see more of? Or maybe something new?

 

You might disagree with my categorizations (yes there is exploration in Geneforge and some factions in some Avernums) but you can probably get an idea of what I'm getting at. I myself liked the open world with factions to choose from, like the older Geneforge games had. Exploration and choices are things I really like about Jeff's games. More recently, though, it seems like Jeff's been making his games more linear, which is fine, since it seems to enable him to tell a better story, and he's a great story teller. What do you guys think?

 

[Alorael at Large]

Factions are probably in to stay. The idea arguably appeared in Nethergate and has been present in every new plot but A4. More so in Geneforge, obviously, but it's still there.

 

Linearity, similarly, is also here to stay. Jeff has gotten much better at having a lighter touch than impassable broken bridges that get repaired, but I think this is now an accepted cost of solid storytelling and careful balancing.

 

—Alorael, who is hoping for the new and crazy. That's what new series are for!

[Slawbug]

Factions appeared -- actually and not just arguably -- in A Small Rebellion, just prior to Nethergate.

 

The majority of E/A 2 is significantly less linear than A4 or A6.

 

I also voted new and crazy.

[Randomizer]

Factions in some form will appear especially since one area is 5 nations that are united and an outlying area that isn't part of them.

 

Linearity will be with us from now on since Jeff no longer wants to balance out a free form world where you can just explore instead of doing quests.

 

I liked the idea that we get the cool toys because we work for the powers that be.

[Monroe]

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

The majority of E/A 2 is significantly less linear than A4 or A6.

True, true. I was most referring to the fan-favorite Dark Waters section of Avernum 2. One of the more linear parts of any Spiderweb game.

I also wouldn't really consider the quest givers in Avernum 6 factions, since you can do every quest for every one of them with little or no consequences. The main thing that changed endings was who you killed, which made new playthroughs kind of tedious because little changed. I wish it was more like Small Rebellion, or Geneforge, where large parts of the game change based on who you choose to work for.

[Enraged Slith]

So Jeff doesn't want to do any more exploration? That's kind of sad, though I admit I preferred linearity in the Geneforge and Avernum series.

[Goldengirl]

Originally Posted By: Enraged Slith

So Jeff doesn't want to do any more exploration?

I wouldn't say that at all. Jeff is just willing to sacrifice the amount of free exploration for greater control of the plot.

That said, though I've not gotten very far, I feel that Jeff has come up with a great compromise on this issue in A6. He offers up a massive area of land, the entire Great Cave, basically, for exploration. Are there still linear elements guiding you along? Yes. However, there's so much to do and explore that one could forget all about the plot and just wander off for a while.

If you were into that stuff. If not, then you can follow the plot.

[Randomizer]

It's more to do with game balance.

 

When Jeff first beta tests a game, he releases it in sections. So testers have a few weeks to completely do a section and we reach a point where we go everywhere while waiting for the next section even if the places are meant to be done later in the game.

 

The second group of testers come in after about half the game is done and play more like regular players. They can stick to the main quests and ignore all those little side quests and harder areas.

 

This makes it harder to balance the game since Jeff has mostly heard from the completionists with higher level characters that have done almost all the quests. The ones that have stuck to the main quest path have lower level characters and will have a harder time than the completionists. Jeff has to go back and alter the main quests so they can be done by someone that has a lower level party.

 

This is why Jeff is pushing for more linearity, so anyone can do the main quest path.

[Rowen]

Something new and crazy that uses factions and exploration is what I hope for.

[Student of Trinity]

Yeah, I think Jeff somehow got this part working well in A6. By releasing most of his linear plot in simultaneous three-mission chunks, he let the player spend most of the game feeling as though there were a lot of options and a lot of places to go. Yet he also kept a handle on progression and balance, and could let player actions affect the world without creating an impossibly complicated cascade. And to achieve this, all he really had to do was design quests in sets of threes that would be doable in any order, so that the whichever quest the player tackled first wouldn't be too hard, and whichever one they did last wouldn't be too easy.

 

That's not too hard. I mean, I'm not saying I could do it; but for an experienced designer like Jeff, it's probably not too hard to tune the quests so that the party can lean on wands and potions and scrolls a bit on the first mission, and coast a bit on the third, and get them all done in any order.

 

The main thing I like about A6, and really want to see continue, is just that Jeff put quite a bit more story into all the quests. Each one is a tale with a twist or two in it, something memorable for more than just the loot.

[The Mystic]

I voted for new and crazy; it seems to be the trend so far...

[Øther]

I myself don't like many factions like the geneforge series had, but that is my opinion. I did like the exploration and open world of the Avernums, but I would rather see something completely new from Jeff. We already have these kinds of worlds, why should we see them again and again when we have a chance for something completely (or at least partly) new?

[Triumph]

I think factions can be cool, I'd just want some of them to be remotely likable, or else include to choice to ignore them. One of the things that annoyed me about G3 (besides the boat system) was being forced to choose between murderous rebels with occasionally quasi-nice-sounding ideals and the harsh-and-mean-sounding Shapers who didn't murder people right and left but were still rather cruel. If all the groups are stupid, at leave in the freedom not to join. But ideally there should be factions that actually have appealing qualities. The factions in G1 and G2, and G5, included some very interesting and thought-provoking groups.

[Dintiradan]

Mad monks.

 

That is all.

[Callie]

New and crazy, and I'd love to see Exile III's item description of pants make a return.

[Alorael at Large]

Pants: the Clothing?

 

—Alorael, who wholeheartedly supports efforts to distinguish between the garment and very rapid breathing.

[Callie]

Very rapid breathing generally isn't considered an item.

[tehpineapple]

New and Crazy, New and Crazy, New and Crazy!!!

 

*dies of excitement*

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Descubrir la cuadratura del círculo

Pants: the Clothing?

this would make a pretty good white wolf game

[Monroe]

If y'all are gonna choose New and Crazy! it would be really cool if you could share the kind of crazy things you're hoping to see in a new game. Otherwise that answer is just the easy way out, you know.

[keira]

I'm thinking something like Arcanum would be pretty neat.

[Acky]

I would like "New and Crazy". What I would really like is a mix of the subfactions of Avernum and the main-style factions of Geneforge. For instance, Geneforge 5 has a 5 different factions, each with its own goals and motives. What I would like is, perhaps, several smaller groups who aren't really aligned with anyone and have their own specific goals. An example?

 

Let's say, for instance, that there was a church that was widely popular in Terrestia. Then a schism occurs, and you can chose who to help gain more power, the Orthodoxy or this new group. You don't have to help them to complete the game, and they only serve as a major series of sidquests. Whoever wins will affect the future of the faith for the outsiders. This could work because the Shapers have no preference for a persons religious beliefs as long as they unacknowledged the Shapers as the supreme secular power, and the Rebels would be too busy fighting the Shapers to really care about this schism in the religion.

 

Or, let's say King Starrus was very old, and had two sons. The older one would naturally take the throne, but he doesn't know much for governing. The second son understands government better the first, but he is very strict in his views, and would make a harsh ruler (perhaps even a tyrant.) As your going around, they each contact you in an attempt to get your help against the other. Neither affect the main plot; they both want to slith horde defeated. But that would play a big role in the future of Avernum.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Master Ackrovan

Snip.

So basically like a G1 esque, where in addition to the "faction" there are also other groups to choose from, like Trajkov and Gottesch?

[Sudanna]

Trajkov and Goettsch both directly influenced the main plot of Geneforge. He's asking for bigger, more important side quests, basically.

[monolith94]

From what I've heard of the new game, it's going to be a battle between good and evil, civilization vs. barbarism. What's interesting to me is the Bluebeard influence.

 

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/23/6723-050-87ADDE3F.jpg

 

Bluebeard's a very creepy story, but it's got a very ornate and rich feel, as well. What I'm hoping is that we have an opportunity to play in a world where civilization is wealthy but decadent, and politics might be a factor.

 

I'd love to hear more updates on the new game's progression, but it's probably too soon. Can't wait forever though Jeff!

[Spddin Ignis]

Spddin is actually quite excited about the new game. (And no, I am not ripping of Alorael, I just felt like talking in third person.)

[Sudanna]

Then you are ripping off Nalyd. So hah.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Nalyd

Then you are ripping off Nalyd. So hah.

Dikiyoba thought you abandoned that gimmick. Also...

[Alorael at Large]

Ooh! Maybe the game will have the option to play in first-person, third-person, or first-person-except-for-the-last-section mode!

 

—Alorael, who wonders how seriously Jeff is taking his previous off the cuff comment about entering the world of the 3D.

[The Mystic]

First- and third-person games are everywhere. Why not do a second-person game?

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Alorael

Ooh! Maybe the game will have the option to play in first-person, third-person, or first-person-except-for-the-last-section mode!

Given how many people occasionally slip into third person in A6, Dikiyoba would not be surprised.

[Spddin Ignis]

Servile speak

[waterplant]

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba

Originally Posted By: Nalyd

Then you are ripping off Nalyd. So hah.

Dikiyoba thought you abandoned that gimmick. Also...

the waterplant has nothing to add.

[Slawbug]

Maybe he is really ripping off -X-...

[Acky]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Originally Posted By: Master Ackrovan

Snip.

So basically like a G1 esque, where in addition to the "faction" there are also other groups to choose from, like Trajkov and Gottesch?

Quote:

bigger, more important side quests

Basically.

[inni]

inni doesn't think that talking in third person is gimmick stealing.

Nalyd gave his up so.....

 

Inni who would think that this conversation is going off track rather nicely.

 

Inni and gimmicks, had one but no one noticed so i don't do it that often.

 

[Monroe]

So 45% of people prefer Open Worlds to the 10% who prefer linear ones. Unless nearly all of the New and Crazy voters prefer linear worlds, that means most people preferred the open worlds. I wonder if this is because they don't realize that linearity is necessary to tell a good story, or if they just genuinely prefer openness and options to following a single plot.

 

I actually feel that way myself, playing a game doesn't need to be like watching a movie for me, it can have next to no plot and I can still have a great time wandering around doing odd quests and such. Avernum 5 and Dark Waters felt like movies to me, with the plot moving in a single direction no matter what you did. No openness. I guess I agree with the majority here in saying I prefer that openness to linearity. No matter how good a story is, I play rpgs to make decisions, you know?

[Slawbug]

I have to say, it's a very interesting dichotomy to look at. Thurilith wrote the authoritative article on this as it applies to BoX, but it's a bit different with Jeff's games. Time and again people in the forums say that the open-world SW games are more fun, and time and again Jeff laments the fact that open-world games are much harder to balance and result in more e-mail complaints. The disjunction between the crowd here and Jeff's customers in general is old news, so he may be right about that call. Or does it even matter? Exile 3 (100% open world) and Avernum 4 (semi-open) were both heralded as great commercial successes, while Geneforge 4 and Dark Waters -- the most grittiest and most linear of Jeff's games -- were forum favourites.

 

Looking at a few comparisons:

 

- Jeff's most cited and most obvious gaming influences from the early days were mostly open-world. Ultima and Wizardry were all open-world with nested quest sequences much like X1 and X2, while the most celebrated of the Gold Box games, Pool of Radiance, was open-world much in the style of X3.

 

- Traditional console RPGs are mostly linear, but they also spend a lot more time on plot, notably including character development (PCs as well as NPCs) and plot that is actually shown with, you know, moving pictures. These seem to have limited relevance to both Jeff, his customers, and the forums -- I swear that every time I make a Chrono Trigger reference here, fewer and fewer people get it.

 

- Newer generation "gamer" RPGs are mostly open-world, with long lists of quests just like newer SW games have, and other elements borrowed from MMORPGs. Jeff has been openly critical of many elements of these games, but he still employs some of those elements, and he definitely still plays the games.

 

Really, even Jeff's more linear games have a lot more rollick than grit, and they have a lot more in common with modern open-world games than with actual old-school RPGs. Well, except maybe for not being real time... and thank goodness for that.

[cfgauss]

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

I swear that every time I make a Chrono Trigger reference here, fewer and fewer people get it.

edit:
Images don't work?! No! Spekkio is even less pleased!

[Enraged Slith]

Why is Chrono Trigger always put up on a pedestal? Even if it's the king of JRPGs, it's still a JRPG.

[Triumph]

You may look down your nose at JRPGs, but Chrono Trigger is STILL an outstanding RPG, lo these many years since it first came out. I actually played it for the first time this past fall, with DS port of it, and much enjoyed it.

[cfgauss]

Saying chrono trigger is "just" an RPG is like saying Jesus was "just" a man to a Christian. Except Jesus can't cast luminaire or use triple techs.

 

I actually think the absolute best thing Jeff could do in his new series of games is to take a page out of Valve's book (e.g., play through HL/Portal with commentary on, and note how much work they put into playtesting).

 

I really think his games could benefit hugely from more broadly taking player's concerns into account (i.e., not just about the details and balancing), and doing the kind of usability testing that companies do. That is, *watch* a bunch of people play your game, see how they do things, see them get pissed at some things, or love some other things.

 

As one of the commentary nodes in HL2 episode 2 said, "when our playtesters die while laughing, we know we've done a good job." And that's really true, because there are so many times I've been amused at how I'd died in HL2 or Portal.

 

I very rarely got frustrated at HL2, and I don't think ever at all in portal. But there've been plenty of times I've had to quit Jeff's games because I got to some place that was just punishingly unfun. Not necessarily (though sometimes) hard--just unfun.

 

Another thing they mention--"the player should never feel like the game mechanics killed them." But really, I feel like 75% of my deaths in Jeff's game are because of the game mechanics (the other 25% are from accidentally going to a place that's too hard for my level). Oops, my guy was one square too far away to be healed by mass-heal, he's dead. Oops, accidentally clicked behind the guy instead of on him because of the isometric view, now I'm dead. Oops, the game was too slow to respond and I accidentally clicked again sending one guy someplace I didn't mean and he died. Oops, pathfinding sucks and made my guy take a crazy path and use up all his AP now someone dies.... etc etc...

 

In my experience trying to get other people to play these games, the mechanics is an absolute deal breaker, and has made every single casual gamer I've suggested Jeff's games to reject them as being too unfun. It's also resulted in me not having bought an Avernum since Avernum 3, and not actually played all the Geneforges.

 

Which is really a shame, because other than the terrible mechanics and UI the games are fantastic. So I really think, plotwise, I don't care if the next game is linear, non-linear, faction based, or whatever, because I'm sure the plot will be great. But I really wish he'd be more careful with the gameplay mechanics.

[Slawbug]

Well, that wins my award for the smartest post on these forums in a couple of months. And it would do so even without comparing Crono to Jesus

 

Actually, I think the post also answers ES's question, in a roundabout way. Sure, CT was great on a number of fronts: it had great graphics and sound for its time, an engaging story, likable and differentiated characters, and so on. But the thing that truly makes CT the gold standard for RPGs is that it is never unfun. You never lose because of the mechanics or the controls; you never get irritated because of the mechanics or the controls; there isn't a single menu or dialogue option in the game that is clunky, awkward, confusing, or laggy. The game is easy, but that isn't an issue because it is so incredibly well-paced, both in terms of balance and storyboarding, and there is so much _meaningful_ variety in terms of who, what, where, when, why, and how that it never gets old. Chrono Trigger, much like Queen Latifah's taxi, is simply immune to traffic.

[Alorael at Large]

cfgauss's prescription is apt, but I've enjoyed Spiderweb games in large part because the mechanics don't get in the way. Yes, the pathfinding can be terrible (I move by keyboard in Avernum and usually move a few spaces at a time in Geneforge), the isometry leads to errors, and there are some other oddities, but the games play very well. The last truly miserable section of gaming for me was A4's Eastern Gallery.

 

—Alorael, who does hope that with a new game, new world, and new engine Jeff may be a bit more receptive to his tester's more hostile comments. Also it may be time for new and more hostile testers.

[Student of Trinity]

I worry that this is a counsel of perfection. That is, telling someone to be perfect, in a situation where shooting for perfection and missing would be catastrophic. The really useful thing would be to find something Jeff could do that was easy and had low risk of failure. Anything more ambitious than that is probably just beyond what Spiderweb can do.

[grasshopper]

Quote:

Really, even Jeff's more linear games have a lot more rollick than grit, and they have a lot more in common with modern open-world games than with actual old-school RPGs. Well, except maybe for not being real time... and thank goodness for that.

What is your problem with real time? Do you have the reactions of a geriatric slug?

[grasshopper]

Quote:

Another thing they mention--"the player should never feel like the game mechanics killed them." But really, I feel like 75% of my deaths in Jeff's game are because of the game mechanics (the other 25% are from accidentally going to a place that's too hard for my level). Oops, my guy was one square too far away to be healed by mass-heal, he's dead. Oops, accidentally clicked behind the guy instead of on him because of the isometric view, now I'm dead. Oops, the game was too slow to respond and I accidentally clicked again sending one guy someplace I didn't mean and he died. Oops, pathfinding sucks and made my guy take a crazy path and use up all his AP now someone dies.... etc etc...

ditto, and this is why i feel that a 2d isometric game, no matter how good can never be as immersive as a 1st person 3d real time game.

[Swimmin' Salmon]

Apples and oranges.

 

A Geo Metro can never be as good as a Ferrari Testarossa, but they will both get you from Point A to Point B.

[cfgauss]

I disagree that a 2d game can't be as immersive as a 1st person 3d one. I can think of plenty of examples to contradict this; Exile 2, Baldur's gate, Fallout 2, Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, etc, etc.

 

I don't think that my complaints can't be addressed by Jeff, though, there are plenty of small indi game makers out there who manage to do much better in the gameplay realm without much trouble. It's just a matter of learning to understand the subtle things that can be glaringly obvious / irritating / unnatural to people that are hard to notice when you're the one designing them (just like you'll never notice the sign error that makes you think you discovered new physics until someone else points it out to you). And I know there're a billion textbooks out there on UI design, so tricks to make good gameplay design can't be a big secret, either.

[Slawbug]

Originally Posted By: boggle

What is your problem with real time? Do you have the reactions of a geriatric slug?

No, I like to think before I act. I'm not going to throw an insult back about your cognitive ability, but I will suggest that you read the code of conduct before you throw any more tough talk around.