Jump to content

Alhoon's generic geneforge world questions


Recommended Posts

Welcome to the forums.

Awesome question.

If I could expand it... how long till Shaped Serviles are ready to handle tools? Some Serviles seem to be Shaped with technical information like an instinct or something. But are they able to go repairing things like 10 minutes after they're created?

Same with batons, mines and living tools that are Shaped and not Bred like usual. Can they actually be used immediately or they require training like the bred varieties?

Edited by alhoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, please don't start laughing. I want to ask about the "disruption" damage found in wands. First, I very recently discovered the existence of a type of damage that hits creations unmitigated and not anyone else and that by accident as I tried to use a discipline wand on a non-creation. Having read the wand deals a lot of damage (I don't) I expected some effect. The person was immune. Then I tried on a creation and it zapped it.

There is probably an explanation on such wands somewhere in the series but I've either missed it or forgot about it completely. Fact is, I don't know anything about this weird, awesome and dangerous damage type.

 

First, it is peculiar it is on a wand. Is disruptive damage something a non-shaper can deal with non-Shapey magic? That would be quite bizarre and very dangerous. Yet, wands are made mostly by Outsider mages.

 

Second... why only in wands? Shouldn't there be a spell about it? Perhaps in healing (since I assume disruption it's Shaping) or even battle magic? It would make a lot of things easier...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh... I'll wait for the remake of GF1. The various limitations GF2 had + the inventory screen make me reluctant to play the earlier games. It was GF2 story that made me soldier on despite the many annoyances.

Also, I've probably missed stuff from GF2 too since I was kinda rushing through the game.

Edited by alhoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it explained anywhere else? It seems kinda strange that it would be explained only in the first game when some things are repeated twice in the same game. GF5 was supposed to be self-contained for example, without requiring any prior GF knowledge. Thinking of it, Rawal in the end of the Tutorial does use disruption to kill everything.

Not sure if that was an actual disruption spell though or it was supposed to be generic magic that just Rawal used against the creations.

Edited by alhoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of things are only explained in depth in one game of the series, even if they are referenced briefly in other games. G1, as the first game in the series, has by far the most world-building. Actually, I'd say Jeff did less and less world-building as the series went on. The first game and (to a lesser degree) G2 are more focused on discovery and on the background of the world than on any ongoing plot event. In contrast, the latter three games focus more on depicting the Shaper-Rebel war than telling history and background.

Also, G5 can be "self-contained" without including all the world-building info Jeff ever dispensed. You were never "required" to have background knowledge from earlier games in order to enjoy it. But that doesn't mean G5 was the definitive source of all knowledge or that knowing the older games couldn't increase your appreciation for G5..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Triumph is correct.  G1 is probably the most important game in the series when it comes to understanding the world of Geneforge.  So, yes, you will continue to get laughed at when you ask questions about the culture and history of that world, but refuse to play G1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, my question on the disruption and how it works still stands, if one wants to answer it.

 

As far as I got with GF2, it had less world-explaining than other GF games I've played. Even new things introduced in GF2 like Rots, and Gazers barely get an explanation from what I saw. In GF4, Litalia (and others) tell me Gazers are quite crazy. In GF2 nobody mentions it. They do seem kinda cookoo if you ask me but nobody mentions it. Drakons... their honor system and culture is barely touched at compared with GF4-5. Sure I am told somewhere once that it's "survival of the fittest" there but that's it mostly. More examples come to mind. Enough to make me surprised to see one saying GF2 was trying to explain things. With all the factions and what was going on in GF2, it would be very hard to delve into explanations of what a Battla Alpha is or a Cryodrayk. They were kinda thrown there.

From what I've seen so far, GF3 is the one that explains stuff the most.

Edited by alhoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It kind of sounds like what you want is book report style exposition.  You want the game to just state things -- as the sequels do when they are summarizing stuff players who are returning from earlier games would already know.

 

What the earlier games do instead (and the later games do as well, though to a lesser degree) is to present the player with a world and allow them to explore and discover.  The information is presented less in book report format, and more as something to be discovered, unravelled, bit by bit.

 

There's nothing wrong with your preference.  But your preferred style of receiving information, is not the only way the games lay out information for their players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alhoon said:

Even new things introduced in GF2 like Rots, and Gazers barely get an explanation from what I saw.

    question = "How have you improved battle alphas?";
    text1 = "_We have developed a variety called the rotghroth. Stronger, larger, and with a corrupting touch

 

How is this not a sufficient explanation ? What exactly more do you want ? Something about their society, their culture, their mating rituals maybe ? Dude it's just a rot. Stop sperging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Alhoon, you would have completely overlooked Zakary's Guardian contingent if I hadn't essentially given you the guided tour. ;) In light of that, I'm a little skeptical when you say "The game didn't explain such-and-such!" It's entirely possible that the game DID explain it and you just never found or noticed it.

 

2. Maybe some things DEVELOPED OVER TIME and therefore DIDN'T EXIST in the earlier games. E.g. in G2 half the drakons you meet are very old, upgraded drayks, or were at least heavily influenced by them. It's no surprise that the "drakon culture" they possessed would be quite different from the "drakon culture" of later games, where every drakon in existence originated from Ghaldring and he had a very different background and formative experiences than Rhakkus, et al. There are also relatively few drakons in G2 and they've only been drakons and/or existed a few years, whereas by G4-5, there are enough drakons to actually have a distinct culture, they've been around long enough to develop one.

 

3. You haven't finished G3 either, have you? :p

4. Since Nim already pointed out there's about rots in G2, I'll just offer some info on Gazers from the game:
 

Spoiler

"I am a Gazer, one of the first of my kind. My eyes see all and warp the minds of our enemies. Even you, if you make it necessary. My design was first created by Barzahl. I was perfected and created in the mountains of the Takers, and my eye's path led me back to here."

"How have you improved vlish?";
"That was Barzahl's work. He developed the gazer and the eyebeast from the basic vlish template. We haven't made many yet. But soon."

"We gazers are very new. Only a few of us exist. The drakons are the only ones who can make us now, and they have not fully explored our power."

 

So, pretty clearly, Barzahl started from the vlish template and created the gazer design, and then the drakons took that and ran with it. I'm not sure if you were expecting a more extensive treatise, "On the Origin of Gazers" or something (?), but I feel like the game does offer multiple points of dialogue addressing what gazers are and where they came from. If you didn't see that dialogue, that's YOUR fault, not the game's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The fly in Keoghtom's ointment said:

It kind of sounds like what you want is book report style exposition.  You want the game to just state things -- as the sequels do when they are summarizing stuff players who are returning from earlier games would already know.

 

What the earlier games do instead (and the later games do as well, though to a lesser degree) is to present the player with a world and allow them to explore and discover.  The information is presented less in book report format, and more as something to be discovered, unravelled, bit by bit.

 

There's nothing wrong with your preference.  But your preferred style of receiving information, is not the only way the games lay out information for their players.

 

Yeah, I would much much prefer a book there in the lab that had a paragraph about the Rots and how they think and how their internal organs are small etc like we see in the load cards + "The new Variety of Rotgroth, the Rotdhizon can usually beat two alphas together!".

 

Nim: Well, 7 words is not what I had in mind. At least with the Rotdhizon, I got the text "The mad variety you will see there... that's the standard variety unfortunately, not one that got rogue, that's how willful they are".  I got the mating rituals for the Gazers in not one, but two games.

 

Triumph: Yeap, I got the Gazer part from discussing with the Two Gazers that are discussable. I didn't see anyone telling me they're mad. Drakons are also kinda-explained when you meet the Takers. By that time though, I had seen like 10 Drakons and no dialogue option of "Hey, Barzahl, a little down the corridor there's a big reptile. What is this?" or something. Also, the first time I heard the word "Eyebeast" was "there's an Eyebeast in there, go calm it". Same with Drayks and Alphas. By the time I got a line on Alphas being hard to control (not what they are), I had encountered 5-6 alphas. By the time I encounter an Alpha in GF3, I got a full page on it. Same on GF5.

A n00b that starts in GF3-5, gets some information on what an Alpha is when he or she encounters it. If I didn't know what an Alpha is when I found an Alpha or Drayk or Glaahk in GF2, I would say "Wait, what's that reddish\greenish thing?" Same with Clawbugs and Vlish I think. That's fine since GF2 is a sequel, but it certainly a less "stand-alone" one than GF3-5 ones are. You will have a harder time understanding the world IMO if you start at GF2 than if you start at GF3, GF4, or GF5.

 

As Slarty mentioned, the way GF2 chooses to present the information is to throw a big reddish humanoid at you that has the name alpha on it and lots of hp. Or you go in a cave and a strange green reptile starts talking to you and you call it Drayk. My apologies, but that's just sloppy presentation because the player is automatically assumed to know what a Drayk \ Alpha is. In GF3-5 that's not the case. Except of course with Wingbolts and Kyshaaks that are explained by the infiltrators near the freaking end of GF4 and if you sit there and chat them up.

 

As for Gazers, rots or Drakons, I didn't expect a treaty, no. But I expected to see about 1/5th of what I saw about serviles (in later games that Servile society isn't as prominent).

 

I understand that early GF games are like "first love" for you my friends, but IMO they lack the professionalism of the later series. I am not saying GF2 is bad, I'm saying it gives a less robust and well-rounded explanation of the world, and presumes more things are known from GF1, unlike the later games that tend to ease you softer into things.

Edited by alhoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless on my above post on why I prefer the delivery system of the later games and part of the reasons I consider them more "professional" ... the question about the disruption still stands. I understand if you want to keep your stance of "You own the game! Play it and find out" but perhaps someone else would indulge me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, alhoon said:

As Slarty mentioned, the way GF2 chooses to present the information is to throw a big reddish humanoid at you that has the name alpha on it and lots of hp. Or you go in a cave and a strange green reptile starts talking to you and you call it Drayk. My apologies, but that's just sloppy presentation because the player is automatically assumed to know what a Drayk \ Alpha is.

 

Respectfully, alhoon, this isn't about "first loves."  This is like a very polite version of ragequitting.  When the game does something (in this case, presenting information) in a way you don't like (which frequently means, doesn't fit with the experience you had when you played G5 or whatever), you complain endlessly about it on the forums.  (Or use it as a reason not to play the game in the first place.)  It's a serious broken record at this point.

 

 

15 minutes ago, alhoon said:

Regardless on my above post on why I prefer the delivery system of the later games and part of the reasons I consider them more "professional" ... the question about the disruption still stands. I understand if you want to keep your stance of "You own the game! Play it and find out" but perhaps someone else would indulge me.

 

Actually, alhoon, the reason no one is indulging you is because -- and we have told you this before -- it is a constant, repeated thing that we have a discussion about something; a topic comes up that you don't know about because it was explained in parts of the games you haven't played; and you then ask us to explain it to you.  This isn't a one-time thing, this happens over and over again.

 

If a random user asked, they'd probably have had three different thoughtful explanations by now.  Instead, the question is coming from someone who asks these questions constantly -- then turns around and insults the games (and half the time also argues with whatever answer he is given).  It is not our job to serve as your personal library elves, looking up and summarizing stuff for you in works that you find, apparently, unworthy of actually playing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't insult the games, I like the GF series. But of course it is not your job to address my questions.

But to set the record straight: I like the GF series very much, they are among the best games I've played in the past years, hence I'm engaged in them. And yet, while I am sure the story of GF1 would be nice and rewarding, I prefer to wait a couple of years for a better version before diving in, because of some flaws in the game system.

While I certainly find the origin of the disruption spells and other pieces of lore interesting and all, it's not that important to spoil my future GF1 experience over it. 

 

I would also like to say that I have not argued with whatever answer I was given, at least recently. I realize you may have grown tired of answering my questions though and I respect it. I just hope someone isn't.

Edited by alhoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, alhoon said:

it's not that important to spoil my future GF1 experience over it. 

 

 

But it is important enough to ask the same question 3 times in an 8 hour period, even after several people responded pointing to where the answer can be found in-game, because that wasn't good enough for you.

 

This is exactly what I'm saying.  It's not important enough for you to trouble yourself to solve it, but you think it is OK to ask other people to trouble themselves to solve it for you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's simply not the case. I don't ask other people to invest several hours in a game, I ask if someone that has played it is interested in spending a few minutes answering. You clearly stated you are not and that's perfectly fine. Others may be. I am not asking you, I am asking the generic person that may see that question a week from now. You are posting "I am not going to answer you" thrice now in an 8 hour period. But I am not asking you, let alone "demand" an answer as if I have any rights on your free time.

 

All in all, I asked 8 hours ago a simple enough question. You politely answered that I could find the answer in GF1. I said that I am not interested in that approach... and then I've been defending my view since.

Edited by alhoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, alhoon said:

By that time though, I had seen like 10 Drakons and no dialogue option of "Hey, Barzahl, a little down the corridor there's a big reptile. What is this?" or something.

Yes, but there are characters you can talk to about drakons! It's not fair to Jeff to say "I think it's unprofessional that NPC so-and-so didn't answer all my burning questions, even though several other NPCs in the game answer the question!" I think that's a silly criticism, frankly. Additionally, I know (99% sure) G2 has "Oh, what's this strange new thing?!" dialogues for gazers, drakons, and rots, at a minimum. You may not have seen them all in a timely fashion, depending on the path through the game you took (a hazard of the game's freedom of exploration), but they are there.

 

4 hours ago, alhoon said:

You will have a harder time understanding the world IMO if you start at GF2 than if you start at GF3, GF4, or GF5.

I don't believe this true, at least not at face value; G2 has plenty of explanatory, world-building dialogue. However, there might also be a grain of truth to what you're saying. What you might be picking up on is that G2 is a lot less linear than the later games, and doesn't force you to visit key zones and talk to key NPCs in the way that the later games do. You can play G2 without ever talking to Zakary, Barzahl, Pinner, Rhakkus, or whoever (you can even skip Slarty's beloved Aodare! ;) ) . This is very different from how there's literally no way you can avoid characters like Litalia, Rahul, Khyryk, and Akhari Blaze and still finish G3. Some of us love having the game give us all that freedom. Like with more meaningful liberties, though, the freedom of non-linearity in a game imposes responsibilities on the player - including the responsibility to pay attention and explore and not expect the game to just shove knowledge into one's face. This goes Back to the difference in emphasis that I mentioned before. The early games are all about exploration and discovery. It would defeat the point of the game to just hand you all the info. The later games are about experiencing, seeing the effects of, and participating in the big war. The later games throw exposition at you because there's a war story that needs to move along and the game has to make sure you under the scenario that is playing out. The later GF games are more a reflection of Jeff's evolving design sensibilities (which can actually be seen throughout his entire corpus) than a matter of having more refined or "professional" writing.

Also, there's no "first love" toward the early Geneforge games for me. The first time I played the G1 demo I thought it was weird and boring. The first Geneforge game I ever played the full game of was G3 (in fact, G3 is the first SW game ever that I played all the way through). :p

 



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I agree that GF2 has great freedom. That's one of the reasons I gave for it not having enough (I should have said "timely in my exploration") information:

7 hours ago, alhoon said:

With all the factions and what was going on in GF2, it would be very hard to delve into explanations of what a Battla Alpha is or a Cryodrayk.

 

However, that freedom comes at a cost: it makes it IMO a very hard place to begin with for a newcomer. But there are ways that come to mind that could have made non-linear GF2 easier for the newcomer, like including the information on multiple locations with a counter. The game does it a couple of times I think. The note about "You're going canister mad" triggers in two towns at least. Could have done that with other things.

By the time I was discussing with Drayks about Drakons (read the hilarious comment in my sig) I have met some in the Barzites. There could have been someone there, like the idiot that told me "open this vat, there's something called a rot inside. Upgrade of the Alphas. Kill it" and then I opened the vat and the Rot killed me before I managed to blink... that would tell me "We hope Rots will fare good against the Drakons of the Takers. Drakons are powerful, very headstrong and arrogant variants of the Drayks but we keep them in a short leash". All I was told about Drakons from the Barzites is that they plan to make thousands of them to defeat the Shapers.

 

Also, is this: "The later GF games are more a reflection of Jeff's evolving design sensibilities different than this "a matter of having more refined or "professional" writing" ?

In any case when I said the later games seem more professional I also mean more polished, what the world is more solidly structured and better level design.

 

All in all the world is very interesting but according to my tastes there is maddening little info about it. Yes, I would like to have a rough number describing how large Terrestia is. How many people in a province. How many Shapers per million Outsiders. A range of how many Creations per Shaper (40 is a ridiculously high limit according to Alwan's Shaper but attainable). What color are Astoria's hair. How long is a Gazer's natural lifespan. Do Rots just rot away and die within a few years like the Unbound? (I thought I would get both of these answers in GF2).

I enjoyed GF2 very much, and the different factions were very refreshing. But later GF games were IMO better designed (although not sure if they are better) and easier to follow. Different in emphasis, perhaps. But it is what it is.

 

 



Also, there's no "first love" toward the early Geneforge games for me.

  

You certainly defend them a lot. About the heresy part of the "boring" demo...  I was amazed that I got a game where I could make my own party. Literally make my own party. No need to roll for stats either; you build your party makes with them. My decision to go for GF4 instead for GF3 as a friend suggested was based on "GF4 is more modern and complete" suggestion I got. And it may be first love, but GF4 is IMO the best Geneforge game.  

Edited by alhoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, The fly in Keoghtom's ointment said:

Well, just because design sensibilities are evolving doesn't mean they're turning into something better;)

 

True, that's a matter of opinion. Not sure about GF5 compared to GF4 for example. GF4 had IMO better level design. GF5 had a bit too much grinding to get the nice stuff for artifacts IMO and did lack from the sense of impeding doom that GF4 had. Things that some posters don't like, like zones within zones within zones felt fine for me. Even the grindy zones, like the three zones in Monarch's that you could not clear without taking out the mad creator (or Monarch) had a reason to be grindy.

 

... or it could be that I was new to GForge and I haven't found that forum yet, so nobody to tell me "don't bump up the str and dex of you favorite Drayk mate, whatever you do, it won't be better than a Drakon despite the levels he had gained."

Really hard decision to kill my Drayk for a Drakon. Postponed it for long. That Drayk had saved my hide several times. I still vaguely remember sitting there and thinking "Can I do it?". I even fed my Drayk a bit of meat before killing him even though he was at full health. I made the drakon, loaded back. Fought. Loaded and fought with the Drakon. In the end... Drakon. I have a save called "Still Drayks" in GF4. It's a save about 6 hours before the end game save.

Edited by alhoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, alhoon said:

You certainly defend them a lot.

Guilty as charged. I think G1 is among Jeff's finest works, and the best game of the Geneforge series. :D I was just clarifying that I don't hold that view merely because of fond nostalgia from having played it first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Triumph said:

 I think G1 is among Jeff's finest works, and the best game of the Geneforge series.

 

Oh come on! I said I wanted to avoid it. :(  The above makes it harder. You people certainly know how to build up hype.

How long till it gets repolished? 2 years? 1 1/2 ?

Edited by alhoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the past, when people have compared personal feelings about and rankings of Geneforge games here, there has been a general gravitation towards the following two orders:

 

1 > 2 > 4 > 5 > 3

or

1 > 4 > 2 > 5 > 3

 

However, every time it gets discussed, there always seems to be a pretty broad consensus that G1 is the strongest of the bunch, overall, and G3 the weakest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like 3 so far personally. Frankly, I don't want to place it last. But it is. Not because it's bad, but because the others are better. 

I still like though a lot. It goes like this for me so far: 4>5>2>3. But not having finished 3, I can't be sure. Frankly I would say it's 2=3 so far. Not that they are equal, but GF2 does some things better than GF3 and some things GF3 (so far) does better than GF2. At least I didn't have to chug through 2 areas chocked full of mines. But there are no good factions in GF3 (actually there are just 2 factions). The Rebels are... quite bad. I would say they are worse than the GF2 Takers. Makes sense in a way that the few surviving Takers were further radicalized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think G3 was a transition point in Jeff's game-writing endeavors. It was the most linear of any of his games up to that point (which IIRC, consisted of E/A 1-3, BoE/A, Nethergate, and G1-2?). It was also the first time he ever wrote NPC party members (yes, there are NPCs that can join the party in previous games, but they never receive any meaningful development in the way Greta and Alwan did). It was, in some respects, a darker and grimmer world than his previous offerings, what with making sides of the war so unappealing and all. I think Jeff went on to do better in subsequent games a lot of the things he first tried to do in G3. Because of all that, G3 stands in an odd place where some people don't care for it because it departed from Jeff's older design ethos (and they preferred that style of game), while those who favored the kind of thing Jeff was trying to do have seen him do it much more effectively in later games (e.g. G4), so they too don't particularly appreciate G3. At least not as whole; it has bits that people are fond of - e.g. IIRC, Khyryk is one of most liked characters in the entire series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was also, if I have the story straight, in the middle of writing G3 when it became clear just how (initially) commercially disappointing BoA was.  G3 and A4 (the next game) were definitely a step in the opposite direction from that.

 

I would not say, though, that G4 was a sharper version of "what G3 was trying to do."  G3 was structural hand-holding + a story built around deliberately painful forced choices + zero mechanics/balance changes.  G4, OTOH, asked you to play a double agent rather than pushing you to pick one path, built a story around grit more than anything else, and featured some of the bigger mechanics/balance changes of the series.

 

It's worth noting that despite originating in G3, Khyryk is basically the polar opposite of it -- he avoids paths that are laid out for him, refuses problematic forced choices, has a personality, and ultimately shakes up the balance of the world.  That's why he's so beloved.

 

G5 I think was a little bit aimless: it was the big finale with everything packed in.  It has some of G4's grit, like with Mehken and Rawul; but also a lot of G2's open-ended rollick.  I think this meant that everyone found something to appreciate about it but few loved it start to finish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Triumph

Hmm? Litalia was trying to kill him, I doubt he went in Rebel-held lands after Burnwood was secured. Litalia was saying she didn't have the resources to go after the Trakovites when she told me to go kill that Drayk that in my finale, saved the world. But after Burnwood was secured, she could. And if there's one thing Litalia is good at, is killing people.

 

Quote

 a story built around deliberately painful forced choices

:/ So... I guess the difficult choices don't stop coming. I want to be a rebel and so far I have found no reason other than "canisters" after I saw what they did to Master Hoge.

However, GF4 had difficult choices too IMO, both gameplay and story-wise. Giving Monarch's papers to the Shapers was the easiest thing, but still not easy. There was often the "right" choice and the "easier\pays-better choice".

 

And mind you sir, I was not a double agent. I was a 100% Rebel. That turned Trakovite at the last moment.

Edited by alhoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There actually is...hmm, no spoilers, a zone that really helps you sympathize with the rebels in G3. The problem is that it's a zone in the endgame, after you're already locked into one side or the other, so it has no chance of persuading you to be come a rebel (because either you already are or it's too late to change your mind). At least it can make you feel better about your choice to be a rebel, I guess?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, alhoon said:

All in all the world is very interesting but according to my tastes there is maddening little info about it. Yes, I would like to have a rough number describing how large Terrestia is. How many people in a province. How many Shapers per million Outsiders. A range of how many Creations per Shaper (40 is a ridiculously high limit according to Alwan's Shaper but attainable). What color are Astoria's hair. How long is a Gazer's natural lifespan. Do Rots just rot away and die within a few years like the Unbound? (I thought I would get both of these answers in GF2).

You will be perpetually disappointed if you seriously expect to get this.

8 hours ago, alhoon said:

the sense of impeding doom that GF4 has

There is never any urgency in G4, most of the time you are off doing who knows what unconnected to the main plot, you can even make it to Northforge and then go off killing Monarchs Titan without anyone batting an eye. Nevermind that you are the only one actually doing anything, not even the fabled infiltrators really act, they just sit around.

8 hours ago, alhoon said:

Things that some posters don't like, like zones within zones within zones felt fine for me.

G1/2 had a single (good looking) world map with all areas on it. Going to a split map with dungeon areas not even on it is a major decline.

7 hours ago, Triumph said:

It was, in some respects, a darker and grimmer world than his previous offerings, what with making sides of the war so unappealing and all.

Feels the opposite for me. G1/2 are are dusty, grey while G3 is colorful and bright. And calling both sides unappealing ? Nah, the rebels are just vastly worse, that one area you hinted at on the last island doesn't change that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can confirm that the boats are not to my liking either. Thankfully so far the islands are isolated and I don't need to do much hoping around.

 

3 hours ago, Nim said:

You will be perpetually disappointed if you seriously expect to get this.

 

I have realized that pretty quickly through the first game I played, but indeed the total lack of fluff is disappointing in such an interesting world. I realize though that in the first games at least the world was not fully developed in the author's mind so questions as "how big is Terrestia" could not be answered.

 

Size analysis (for those that are interested):

Since it takes "weeks" to go from the Drypeaks to the Citadel, it takes "weeks" to cross the GF5 map from east to west. A week on foot is about 200 miles. Now, to go to the citadel we don't go straight, but we go through Kratoa-Kell. Adding in a few delays, I would say that width of the western continent is between 300-600 miles. However, that would make Terrestia problematically large in size (250K-750K sq.miles). The smallest estimate of that, is about the size of modern France... that supported 18-20 million people in the Middle ages, without the use of Ornks, genetically modified crops or a good understanding of botany and biology. Even with half Medieval France's population density (despite ornks etc), we end up with a lowest estimation of 10 million. Which is... very high.

 

On the other end of the spectrum, we have GF5, that requires just 2 days to go from Gazaki-Uss to the Citadel. Even if we assume break-neck pace and "2.5 days", it would make it 80-90 miles from Drypeaks to the Citadel which could lead to the western continent being just 50-100 miles wide. Now, we end up with a tiny Terrestia (7K - 30K sq.miles). We're on the other hand of the spectrum here. While it is theoretically possible, a place with as much geographical diversity as Terrestia (woods, mountains marshes, desert) that small would be quite peculiar.

Population-wise though, that scale is closer to my expectations (500K to a Million people).

 

Edited by alhoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎6‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 5:44 AM, marvin5881 said:

I've always wondered if intelligent creations like Drayks, Drakons, and Gazers had conversations with their creators. And how long it takes before creations are fully mature. Say you make a drayk, could you start having conversations with it the same day?

 

So... any insight on that? 

 

Since the Serviles created by Shapers in GF4 were "shortly" able to function as full spies and a newly made Drayk can fight the moment it pops out of the vat\Shaper\mine, I would say that yes, you probably can have discussions with them within the day.

Edited by alhoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

this goes Back to the difference in emphasis that I mentioned before. The early games are all about exploration and discovery. It would defeat the point of the game to just hand you all the info. The later games are about experiencing, seeing the effects of, and participating in the big war. The later games throw exposition at you because there's a war story that needs to move along and the game has to make sure you under the scenario that is playing out.

 

I think this is the single most explanatory piece here on information presentation. The first two games you are in a world you don't really know both in game story and freshness for players. So generally esp g1 will explain things much better. But also the main vibe of the first two games are mystery. This is sort of emphasised in g2 where the majority of the map isn't even visible to you. And the main quests are more of like find out what in the hell is going on. So giving you what you want without the need for exploration would defeat one of the main purposes of the game and the entire main quest line.

 

 

The writing is honestly much better in the first games because most characters on them have distinct personalities you lose that in g3 where the only remarkable ones are khyrick companions or people we generally hate. I.e. Lankan. From g4 onwards we start having the "main characters" kind of writing.  Which is not bad but for at least me was just like copy pasting the same stories and dialogues from previous games. Honestly no offense to Jeff.

 

On disruption magic I think even without g1 this damage is pretty self explanatory through gameplay mechanics. I think its the only instance in these games where gameplay accurately represents lore. 

 

On healing I think the line is drawn in g3 with the monastery of tears prisoner.  I think healing is allowed and not considered human shaping so long as it does not improve  on who you are were already physically. You can restore people but you can't "improve" them. 

 

On drayks and gazers speaking to creators u also have your answer in g1 I think g2 too. 

 

Services being able to function in full I suppose strongly depends on whether they were created or born. With created being able to work as an aadult and with born ones... More @ g1!!! Lmao but for real even if they feel clunky and hard as games I really think you should just finish them as they are. Of all people here you seem to be the most invested 

in geneforge lore. I think you'd really benefit from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Owenmoz said:

 

 

Lmao but for real even if they feel clunky and hard as games I really think you should just finish them as they are. Of all people here you seem to be the most invested 

in geneforge lore. I think you'd really benefit from it.

 

I hear that here often enough... I also was told that most people like GF1 the best, even if they didn't start there. It is damn tempting, but I hope to hold out, slooooowly itching through the rest of GF2 and GF3 till there's an update of the game. I would buy it even if it costs 30$ if it's in GF5's engine. I won't wait for bug-fixes and stuff. Let it crash every 2 hours for all I care.  

 

As for disruption, in game mechanics yes, I understand what it does. I don't know if it's Shaping or normal mages can do it. And even if only Shapers can do it... it is very rarely used. I only recall Rawal using it. And the follow-up question of course is... in all those instances when you "unShape" a creation, breaking it down to essence... do you actually use disruption?

 

I understand that GF1 would tell me much about Lore. However, based on moderately disappointing amount of lore present in GF2, or the difficulty of finding such lore*, for the new creations (for me! Don't jump to attack me all of you early GF-lovers! Personal opinion), I am not sure  I will get enough. I have resigned by now that my personal tastes are not the same as the author of the games, especially in the early ones.

 

Characters... I disagree. All games I have seen have very distinct characters. The good, the bad and the in-between. I may hate them as personalities (Rawal, Taygen, Lying Zakary the Deceiver, I-decided-I-don't-like-people-so-I-will-kill-them-all Monarch etc) but they are the people you love to hate. It is a great part of the appeal for me in the games frankly. The system? That I can't say I like. The story? Very good. The characters? Memorable and very good. The world? not-as-much-info-as-I-want but very... original. Seems well thought.

I so, so much want the author to use a better engine. Or at least the GF5 version. Given proper funds (which are unfortunately beyond a one-man-studio), I could easily see these games reach the success (at least in cult-status) of Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment.

If I win the lottery or something, I would certainly try to fund Jeff for a few months to convert GF1 to GF5's engine before the other games he seems intent to update first.

 

*Example: I found out why we don't see Rotdhizons often even when tier 5s are routinely around. They are crazy according to one servile in an area that I may well have overlooked that told me "Go calm that thing there. It is completely bonkers. Unfortunately, that's the default Rotdhizon. Not one that got crazy" and I went "ohhhh, that's why there are no Rotdhizons seen along with rots in later games!".  I am absolutely sure there is more info hiding in places in GF2 that I would really love to know.

I guess that is part of the "mystery appeal" many of you like.

Edited by alhoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, once Avernum 3 is out, Geneforge 1 is the most likely target to receive an update.  That said, I would not expect it to be the next release after A3 -- that will probably be a new game.  (And of course there's no guarantee Jeff will stick to past patterns and do G1 at that point, even if it is our best guess right now.)  So I would not expect an updated G1 until 2019, probably late 2019.

 

Also, I would expect significant game mechanics changes when it is updated, so even if it looks more like G5, it might not play like G5.  That's been the case with all of Jeff's previous remakes (Exile to Avernum, Nethergate to N:R, and Avernum to Avernum Remake).  And remember that G5 is already 9 years old and will be 11 years old, at least, by the time any G1 remake hits.  That's over a decade of time for Jeff's design sensibilities to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Narrow of Cobblestone said:

FWIW, once Avernum 3 is out, Geneforge 1 is the most likely target to receive an update.  That said, I would not expect it to be the next release after A3 -- that will probably be a new game.  (And of course there's no guarantee Jeff will stick to past patterns and do G1 at that point, even if it is our best guess right now.)  So I would not expect an updated G1 until 2019, probably late 2019.

 

Also, I would expect significant game mechanics changes when it is updated, so even if it looks more like G5, it might not play like G5.  That's been the case with all of Jeff's previous remakes (Exile to Avernum, Nethergate to N:R, and Avernum to Avernum Remake).  And remember that G5 is already 9 years old and will be 11 years old, at least, by the time any G1 remake hits.  That's over a decade of time for Jeff's design sensibilities to change.

 

 

 

Late 2019? I really hope you're wrong here. I don't think I can hold off for so long. Recently I've tried playing other RPGs but I find their worlds and characters somewhat lacking in originality. And I find that I miss the "comfort" of the Shaper/Rebel divide, or for GF2 the No-creation-rights / Creation-rights divide.

 

As for playing as GF5, I don't mind as long as the screen is bigger, the inventory is not a horrible pain to navigate, items that are essential are not the same color and icon as other stuff, I can see the value of things I pick up instead of having to walk to a vendor, there are no misleading "dex affects chance to hit!" etc.

Frankly I liked all changes I saw in gameplay from game to game (or at least I don't remember any problem). GF3 plays better IMO than GF2. GF4 than GF3. GF5 than GF4. Speed? I prefer the GF5 version. Way to show the creations? Prefer the GF4/5 version. Leveling creations? Prefer the GF4/5 version. Inventory? Prefer the GF4/5 version. etc.

So, I am really optimistic that a GF1-remake would actually be better for my gameplay preferences than GF5.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff on Geneforge remake in his Twitter feed on April 29, "Yes, in a couple years hopefully."

 

Just changing the number of action points per round and those needed for a combat action to GF5 will completely change the game.  It will make everything move farther in a round across the zone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Narrow of Cobblestone said:

This isn't the first time we've told you this, but you have really wanted to hope it happens sooner.  I don't blame you for being so eager, but this is the reality.

 

As we say in here, "Hope is the last thing to die". I will try to repress the memory of "in a couple of years" too but I think it is futile at this point to deny that 99% it will be indeed, late 2019.

 

 

Actually, what do you guys prefer? A new game completely or a remake of GF1 in a new engine? I vastly prefer a remake of GF1.

(Not that I am suggesting the opinion of 5-10 people out of 50K-100K that have the games matters, just academically speaking)

Edited by alhoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

New game, easily.  Though I would be happy to see a G1 remake, the Spiderweb games that begin new series frequently end up being the most interesting ones of the bunch.

 

I'm willing to bet this answer would correlate strongly with whether you have played all SW games, or only Geneforge games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there's a reason I stayed within the GF games only (aside of finding them very cheap in a sale and buying the bunch for a few $$), and that is that the world of GF allows me to make my own party... literally. That's different and very original from the "default" fantasy world. What I mean is that while for example Pillars of Eternity had memorable characters... I kinda lost interest in the game after a few hours. With another game, Tyranny, I was a bit more invested and clocked ... 15 hours? 20? About that. Once upon a time, I spent... 30-40 hours on Skyrim. That was a game I liked a lot but I find it hard to remember any particular NPC. I liked the graphics, the leveling system, the crafting... but the villains? None comes to mind.

I doubt I will forget Monarch, Taygen, Moseh, Litalia, Ghaldring, Rawal, Learned Pinnar, Greta, Alwan, Astoria, LZtD, Master Hoge, Lankan, Dubi-? (OK, I will never learn his name, but I remember the character), Lord Rahul etc for many many years. I mean, I am discussing those fellows with people that haven't played the game. It is not that rare that I will talk to a friend that is vaguely aware of the game about say politics and say "that politician should go easy on the canister abuse!" or about blow steam about my students (I am a Teaching Assistant) in the Uni and say "there are times like this that I find I can't 100% blame Litalia..." (I am kidding, I love my job and my students; but they are damn frustrating at times). And that pic Triumph sent about the "best defense" on a Thesis? I had a discussion (prep-talk) with a student before he defended his thesis and I said "Look, you have nothing to fear; they could have big scorpid-like creatures big as a table there and you would still manage to defend your work!"  

 

With Geneforge (except GF3) I have finished the games I have started. That is rare for me. GF5 I finished with most endings. GF2 with all the problems I have with it, I plan to finish it with the Takers too to learn more about Drayk ~> Drakon and their geneforge (OK also because I liked their flag!). And we're talking about a chain of games that for GF2-3 I found the gameplay downright annoying and for GF4-5 just passable but still clunky.

And yet, I finished the games, spending 115 hours (I clocked) in GF5, and ~80 in GF4 because the world felt so original compared to the average fantasy world, and of course, because the NPCs.

Edited by alhoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...