Why I did not like Geneforge 3

[Mike Montgomery]

Let me preface by saying I have bought literally everything Spiderweb Software has for sale: Exile 1,2,3, blades; Avernum 1,2,3,4, blades; Geneforge 1,2,3; Nethergate, etc. I have played all of these to completion, and enjoyed them very much, with the exception of Geneforge 3.

 

My goal here is not to bash Geneforge 3, but to give some heartfelt feedback on what did not work for me, that Jeff might take into consideration for future games.

 

Now a bit about myself, so that my feedback can be understood. I prefer my roleplaying to reflect the choices I personally would make if thrust into a situation. I do not roleplay evil characters. I am OK with neutral characters as long as they largely can make morally sound choices. I view the neutrality to indicate more allegiance to their own internal moral compass than to the letter of the law. I prefer to play heroic characters, where the role playing situation allows them to perform acts of great good and kindness.

 

This bring me to Geneforge 3. With Geneforge 3, my choices are too constrained. The game starts out fine, but at one point I am forced to choose one side or the other, and either way, I will be required to perform immoral actions to move the plot forward. Unlike Geneforge 1 and 2, there is no neutral path. In real life, I would flee from the situation to seek other choices. Given no moral or neutral course of action in the game, I chose not to continue the game. This leaves Geneforge 3 the only Spiderweb game I will never finish, unless it someday receives an update that will add a morally viable choice.

 

I realize some people have no problem with playing evil characters or taking evil actions like slaughtering entire innocent towns. After all, it is just a game. They bought the game; they can enjoy it as the like. I have no problem with a game giving them the flexibility to do what they like. I just want the flexibility to do what I want as well.

 

I personally cannot enjoy a game unless I am given choices that are morally viable for me. And there is no reason to continue playing a game you are not enjoying.

 

I hope that by bringing this concern to the forefront, perhaps Jeff will take this into consideration when designing future games.

[MagmaDragoon]

Why you don't try to play like me? I wasn't rebel and I wasn't loyal. I did only what I belive. For example, I beliwed that Diwania was too much anger with Lankan. But I don't wanted to make Lankan a cold leader. So, I hit the source of the problem: I killed all the rogues.

 

If you don't want to choose a path, make it yourself.

[Mr.Bookworm]

That was intentional. Jeff designed the game so that you had to pick between the Rebels and the Shapers. You have to decide which is the lesser evil.

[Zeviz]

This is actually one of the reason I abandoned Gf3 after Dhonal's island. I found myself stuck, because I was giving reasonable (usually pro-servile, or neutral) opinions, while doing loyalist quests.

 

I know that Jeff is trying to make a point that "war is hell", but he does a good job of making both sides so repulsive that I don't want to join either of them. Neither the "lick my boots, slaves" Shapers, nor the "let's fill the land with monsters that kill any innocent villager they catch and prevent villagers from earning a living just to prove our point" Rebels look like an acceptable choice for a decent character.

[Student of Trinity]

Maybe I'm forgetting some of the plot; what I recall is that there are lots of opportunities for evil things, but the only people you really have to kill are leaders committed to one cause or the other, and that would seem to fall under the RPG version of 'just war' theory. It's true that both sides have their objectionable points, but both sides can also be interpreted as pursuing just goals by necessary means. And G1 and G2 were both like that, too.

 

Is it that you feel there are morally superior choices available within the G3 circumstances, which the game arbitrarily denies to you as options? Or is it that you want the game to be a fantasy of morality as well as of magic, where circumstances never force you to choose among evils, but always include a purely good alternative?

[Grain of Salt]

I decided to kill both Rahul and Akhari, since both are completely crazy with power. Sadly, Akhari's summoned creatures don't do enough damage to actually kill him, so it didn't work out. But no-canisters rebel is pretty virtuous in my opinion.

 

(Pssst.... Jeff...AWAKENED IN G4)

[Zeviz]

Quote:

Originally written by Student of Trinity:
Maybe I'm forgetting some of the plot; what I recall is that there are lots of opportunities for evil things, but the only people you really have to kill are leaders committed to one cause or the other, and that would seem to fall under the RPG version of 'just war' theory. It's true that both sides have their objectionable points, but both sides can also be interpreted as pursuing just goals by necessary means. And G1 and G2 were both like that, too.

G1 and G2 had Awakened, whose policy was to do the minimal amount of violence nesessary to survive. In G3 your choise is between a tyrannical Shaper regime which is portrayed in a very negative light and the power-hungry rebel group whose tactic is to kill innocent bystanders just to steer things up.

Quote:

Is it that you feel there are morally superior choices available within the G3 circumstances, which the game arbitrarily denies to you as options? Or is it that you want the game to be a fantasy of morality as well as of magic, where circumstances never force you to choose among evils, but always include a purely good alternative?

If we are compairing things to real world, then it's G3 which is unrealistic in the black and black worldview it presents. It portrays the sides so starkly that your only options look like a choise between joining SS or KGB. I think you'll agree that people like Hitler and Stalin aren't the only leaders in the real world and there are few situations in which the only paths available lead to genocide (pro-Shaper ending of G2), or world war to gain personal power (Taker ending of G2).

EDIT: As for the possible morally superior choices besides Awakened, what about Shaper-like group without the whole "lick my boots, slave" thing (magic has to be controlled, but that doesn't give us the right to treat people like slaves). And/or a rebel group that is more careful in its methods and whose goal was removal of shaper tyranny with as few casualties as possible, rather than "teh powar!!!111" by any means.

EDIT2 [in responce to DV's post below]: You've just completely spoiled Geneforge for me. There are enough moral ambiguities in the real world to not have to also worry about them in computer games. I play games to have fun, rather than to deal with situations that are even worse than RL.

[Delicious Vlish]

The Awakened suck too.

 

Enslaving Drakons to do their bidding, reckless experimentation, demonic summoning, there was some really nasty skeletons in their closet. They seemed nice on the outside, but were rotten to the core when you think about it. In G1, they were the only faction that wanted you to use the Geneforge. In G2, Tuldaric is so far gone with canisters that he no longer cares about serviles or creations, there is no love left at all. Just empty power, and they push you to become empty as well.

[The1Kobra]

In Gf2, it seems like *EVERY* faction is a large group of .......s

DV sums up the awakened nicely, the Barzites take the worst of the takers and loyalists and combine them into a large colection of .....

The rebels/Takers are also *bad*, (Sarcastic tangent warning) ok, take EVERY canister you want, become a *Horrible* person running around *murdering* everyone who we dont like, become a horrible freak of nature.... and oh yeah,, help out some poor somewhat innocent serviles while you are out randomly killing everyone.

The loyalists/Servants are the other worst end.. (Sarcastic Tangent warning) Ok, ENSLAVE and *Brutally* treat *any* creation that exists and kill *any* who show *any* interest in thierselves.. oh, and make sure horrible mutants dont blow up the world while you are busy torturing innocent creations.

Sum it all up, *no* faction in this world is great, and.. go figure, the unaligned ending in G2 doesn't seem like a perfectly *moral* choice either...

[Dikiyoba]

Originally by Delicious Vlish:

 

Quote:

In G1, they were the only faction that wanted you to use the Geneforge.

That's because in G1, the Awakened had nothing. They had a noble goal, but no way to implement it, or even protect themselves.

 

Quote:

In G2, Tuldaric is so far gone with canisters that he no longer cares about serviles or creations...

Really, slaying Tuldaric would solve some of the Awakened's problems. No more demonic summoning and fewer reckless experiments. Of course, that would also mean doing without the powerful shaping, but many serviles have already been shaped and would pass that along to their descendents. It would also mean deciding who would slay him and ensuring that no one took his place. There's really no moral justification for the enslaved drakons, but at least the Awakened in G2 are salvageable, unlike the Barzites and Takers.

 

Dikiyoba.

[The1Kobra]

I find that the Awakened are just better at keeping thier skeleton closets hidden. Of the factions in G2, the awakened *seem* to be the most reasonable, and while Tuldaric is a "Large gaping Skeleton", that isn't the only thing working against the awakened.

Its actually something I like about Gf2, as I think it would be pretty unrealistic if there was only one "moral" faction amoung so many ones that are just completely "immoral".

Its one of the things I like about the GFs...

[Mike Montgomery]

In GF1 and GF2, to me the overriding moral goal was not the alignment with any particular faction, but the destruction of the Geneforge and any tainted by it. Any technology that grants so much power and simultaneously removes any kind of moral inhibitions against harming your fellow man is inherently evil. The question of which faction comes out on top pales in comparison with the necessity of destroying the Geneforge.

 

As pointed out by Denos, though Awakened had some very good points, they did not understand the danger of the Geneforge. Still, they looked like the most salvageable faction. Destroy the Geneforge, kill Tuldaric, amd support the Awakened, and then you could have a pretty good outcome. As it was with the options available, I felt that playing an unaligned untainted character that destroyed the Geneforge was morally satisfying, even if the choices and endings were was not all that I wished would be available.

 

Quote:

Originally written by Student of Trinity:

Is it that you feel there are morally superior choices available within the G3 circumstances, which the game arbitrarily denies to you as options?

This is a GREAT question! That is precisely how I feel. I want to take up the rebel cause, but I want to destroy the abominations that the rebels have created that indiscriminantly kill those who cause they supposedly represent. But if I destroy the abominations, I have "picked" the shaper side, and can no longer get rebel quests that I could do in good conscience. I like the idea of MagmaDragoon of "If you don't want to choose a path, make it yourself.", ignoring both groups and just killing rogues. But I don't see how to advance between islands without helping one group or the other. Nor do I see how to get to a satisfying ending.

 

I want some options to help me be a catalyst for change rebels or shapers. I don't want to help either side achieve their goals because their goals are misguided. I want to be able to influence their goals. This may require a rebellion within a rebellion, where you are given a chance to assassinate the rebel leaders who want to create unrest at any cost, and replace them with rebel leaders who had disagreed with their previous leaders "win at any cost mentality", but had been silenced. I'm sure I can't be the only one who recoils in horror at the thought of deliberately creating rogues who kill innocents just to cause unrest. A surgical removal of the cancerous head of the rebels might be just what is needed to let more reasonable leaders take power.

 

Quote:

Originally written by Zeviz:

...As for the possible morally superior choices besides Awakened, what about Shaper-like group without the whole "lick my boots, slave" thing (magic has to be controlled, but that doesn't give us the right to treat people like slaves). And/or a rebel group that is more careful in its methods and whose goal was removal of shaper tyranny with as few casualties as possible...

My thinking exactly! We are really on the same wavelength! Regardless of which side we help, we should also have the option to help steer it to a more moderate course if we like, as Zeviz suggests. Or perhaps help act as peacemakers which help steer both shapers and rebels to more moderate positions and then broker peace between them. So when we talk to rebels, we might have conversation options which agree with some of their goals, but deplore their means of achieving them. When we talk to shapers, we might have conservation options like what you find in Bicentennial Man, like "don't you think depriving freedom from any creature of sufficient intelligence to ask for freedom is wrong?" And instead of the game engine being confused about what side you are really on, it catches on that you are taking a neutral position, and instead tracks your influence by keeping track of how much each side is shifting toward center, until you get to the point where brokering peace is possible. This would be a very satisfying ending!

[MagmaDragoon]

Quote:

Originally written by Mike Montgomery:
...I like the idea of MagmaDragoon of "If you don't want to choose a path, make it yourself.", ignoring both groups and just killing rogues. But I don't see how to advance between islands without helping one group or the other. Nor do I see how to get to a satisfying ending...

Well, in fact I was like Zeviz: pro-servile options but a rogue-killer. I choiced to obey at Lord Rahul only because I saw how cold and emotion-less has became Litalia. I want to kill the abomination that make this horrible thing. And I did.

Maybe the problem of GF3 is that the Rebels aren't simply guys with pro-servile points or a group of indipendent and smart seviles: the look more like the Takers. Mad, want to kill *everyone*, etc... It seems more than the Rebels don't look if you like serviles, but look only if can kill more people.

I mean, I never saw Litalia saying "We kill Shapers for Serviles Freedom". She only and always said "The Shapers must DIE". It seems that a faction is missing, there are only "Takers and Loyalist" in GF3, so where are the Awakeneds?

[Drayk Armitage]

I agree with most of what's been said, but I want to point out that the first two games were a lot better on this front.

 

The Awakened were crazy in G2, sure, but not in G1. G1 also had some respectable Sholai.

 

In G2, there was a non-aligned option. Although it was never explicitly outlined, it had its own ending, and I found playing it quite satisfying.

 

Also, I think it's interesting that Jeff has only made ONE game in the past decade that hasn't made you pick sides, and that was arguably Jeff's least-plotful game -- Avernum 4. (The lack of picking sides in the other Avernums was predetermined based on Exile.) Nethergate and G1-3 make you pick, as does one of the mainline scenarios in BoE/BoA.

[ThirdParty]

Yes, what exactly is wrong with the mild Shaper path? I gave consistently pro-servile answers, and so couldn't buy the highest-level creations, but I accept that morality comes with a cost (I did use canisters, trying to avoid situations that would set off my uncontrollable anger). I consistently killed rogues who were threatening innocents, but never touched serviles. At the end I got an ending I liked: the Shapers strongly disapproved of my views, but took me in anyway; the war was visibly killing off the extremists, and several other moderates were also rising in power. Things weren't perfect, but they looked to be improving.

[Mike Montgomery]

The issue is not whether you pick sides or not, but what options the game makes available in each case. I don't really see that the Exile/Avernum series had you pick sides. The majority of the quests were heroic, and even the worst quests were not overly objectionable (like smuggling drugs). And many quests you could just choose not to do if you did not like them.

 

You did not really pick in Nethergate. It was like two separate roleplaying games in one, and you decided at the beginning which of the two games you would play. But regardless of which side you started, the quests were largely heroic.

 

In G1, the Awakened were very reasonable, except in wanting you to use the Geneforge. The quests for the Awakened seemed moral to me. I would have prefered a G1 ending where the Awaken come out OK if you were aligned with them when you destroy the Geneforge. Because the Geneforge must be destroyed, regardless of the consequences to the Awakened.

 

In G2, the Awakened had been perverted by their leadership, in my opinion. I would have liked an option to kill Tuldaric and have someone reasonable take over leadership of the Awakened. I played G2 unaligned and unmodified, and was happy enough with the ending.

 

In neither G1 nor G2 did I feel the plot forced me to take on quests that were unethical. There was a path to walk; a more difficult path in G2 being unaligned, but a satisfying one.

 

In G3, this does not seem to be the case. I just have not found a morally acceptable path in G3. Zeviz seems to share my delimma. MagmaDragoon indicated that he had made his own path. I will not repair devices which spawn rogues; in fact, I feel compelled to destroy any such device I find. Which seems to block the rebel path. But I don't want to help the shapers enslave or kill intelligent serviles either. At the risk of spoilers, does someone have a path through G3 that they can suggest that does not require immoral action?

[Kelandon]

I think ThirdParty just outlined one.

 

I don't know; this all seems like too much angst over an RPG to me.

[Nick Ringer]

It'd be just about impossible to make happen.

 

But changing leaders' minds about their own goals? Ah yes. It's nice, rather than choosing to either obey or kill them.

[MagmaDragoon]

Quote:

Originally written by Mike Montgomery:
MagmaDragoon indicated that he had made his own path.

Yes, but in the end, I killed the rebel chief. So I can say that I shared your delimma. That was for revenge Litalia and not for obey at Lord Rahul, but anyway I indirecly obeyed his orders.

Then, I can give you a solution. Well, is not a real solution, but... Do what you belive in. Listen both Rebel and Loyalis opinions, but do what you want. When you will be in front of the Creator, make your decision. Not for Rebel. Not for Loyalist. For yourself.

I can tell you, I was tempted to repair the Creator. Then I saw it. And I made my decision... "No. Too much people will be killed if I repair it. For now on, I will aid the Loyalist. The Rebels method are wrong. This is for you, Hoge."



Maybe this because I fell bettere kill a Drakon than a man and his wife.
I don't see myself as a terrible person when I try to protect my kind and the peace. Maybe not the justice. But the peace, yes.

A last statement: "In GF3, the Rebels are the attackers. They started a circle of violence. The Loyalist, at least for now, are trying to defend themselves and the people."
So, like Zeviz, I became a Loyalist in actions, but a pro-Servile (and a little Rebel ) in mind.

(Whoa, very deep, huh? It seems that I don't write this... Still, I can surprise myself.)

EDIT: As usual, Nick, you are very wise. 4 stars for you. )

[Mike Montgomery]

Thanks for all of the good insights!

 

When it comes down to it, I liked the rebel ideology, but hated their methods. I wanted to be a rebel, but I was barred from being one by the gross immorality of repairing the Creator. I destroyed the Creator, but this left me no way to progress as a rebel, and since I did not like the loyalist ideology, I stopped playing.

 

It looks like I stopped too soon. The path MagmaDragoon and ThirdParty followed of being a minimal loyalist with pro-servile ideology could work for me. I think I will go back to my last G3 save and give it a go.

 

Still, I hope Jeff picks up the main point of this thread: that there are some people who care about the morality of their RPG choices, and that he will take this into account in his future games, particularly Geneforge 4. For some people, the way they best enjoy an RPG game is to do whatever it takes to maximize the power of their characters. For me, I best enjoy an RPG game by making choices which maximize the heroism of my characters. If the RPG plotline choices restrict me into choosing between dispicable choices, I would rather not bother playing the game.

 

Thanks again!

[Spidweb]

I found this thread to be very interesting. Especially after reading in the Avernum 4 forum a long rant how I just make thoughtless games for 10 year olds now. I didn't have anything to say to that, because it didn't really seem congruent to reality for me. But this, I can respond to.

 

In my games, I try, to some extent or another, to tell a story. I create a world. I create events in the world. I figure out what are reasonable reactions to those events. And I program them into the game.

 

My resources are very limited, so I can only really script a certain number of responses for the player. I know this is a flaw, but it is one I can't avoid.

 

In Geneforge 3, you start with a young character who has made certain choices and is in a certain situation. I figured out what I thought were to most viable responses to those situations.

 

I agree with you that none of the options are entirely, perfectly moral. But this is how computer games can, I feel, be an artistic expression. The Geneforge games are an expression of how I see life works. Sometimes, you have to tease out the least ugly options of the choices you are offered.

 

Clearly, you do not want to spend time in the world as I philosophically see it. I can understand that. And I don't think Geneforge 4 is going to be much to your liking either. But I am trying to do something different, something innovative with these games, and I know it isn't going to be to everyone's taste. The problem isn't you, it's me. :-)

 

Now maybe I'll go back to the Avernum 4 forum and read how I'm just like all the big, soulless ... on second thought, maybe I won't.

 

- Jeff Vogel

 

P.S. I wrote this very carefully, because I know some people would happily get their giggles by taking my quotes out of context to make me look bad. I don't like having to be so guarded when writing on these forums. Please be assured that attempts to piss me off will succeed.

[Delicious Vlish]

Jeff, I think you did a fine job of forcing players to choose the lesser of the two evils presented.

 

For a while, I really detested G3. I didn't like how I was forced to go along for the ride. After playing through it several times, I have come to change my opinion and see it for the game it was.

 

The center did not hold and now both extremes are the gathering points for everything flying out of the center.

 

It does not make it a bad game, just a very different game. Sort of like a book you can't put down even though you can not agree with it.

[Nick Ringer]

Quote:

Originally written by Spidweb:
P.S. I wrote this without thinkin, since I know some would happily get their chuckles by making up words from scratch to make me look stupid. I like having to be such a guardian when writing on these forums. I reassure you that attempts to piss me off will succeed.

Wouldn't it just be easier to diliberately misquote you? Who's going to go back and check?

[VCH]

Quote:

Originally written by Nick Ringer:

Quote:

Would you please diabolically massage my hair? Who wants to be first?

. . .

[Dikiyoba]

Originally by Nick Ringer:

 

Quote:

Wouldn't it just be easier to diliberately misquote you? Who's going to go back and check?

Dikiyoba, for one.

 

And in other news, as VCH as already shown, we now have the justification to attribute whatever words we want to Nick Ringer!

[Kelandon]

I did notice in GF2 — I didn't play GF3 — that many of the pro/anti-servile dialogue options seemed entirely too one-sided. I found myself forced to express opinions with which I didn't agree at all.

 

One of the complaints that has been made about some of TM's scenarios is that he sometimes puts too much into the mouth of the PCs. People ask, "Why is my character saying this? I don't want my character to say this!" I suspect that GF3, even more than GF2, gives the player the choice between two bad dialogue options, which is only marginally better than forcing one bad dialogue option. Again, putting too much into the mouth of the PCs.

 

Allowing more realistic opinions, perhaps less baldly stated, would be nice. You know, instead of "I hate serviles" or "I hate Shapers."

[Spidweb]

I think that the dialogue option choices worked reasonably well, but I have removed them entirely from Geneforge 4. Now everything faction-wise is determined by what quests you decide to complete or how you complete them.

 

I have my worries about the new system, but I think it'll be a bit more interesting overall.

 

- Jeff Vogel

[Drayk Armitage]

Hurray!

 

Honestly, the dialogue choices weren't much worse in G3 than in previous games. And I liked them in G1. It's just that longtime Geneforge fans found themselves answering the same questions for the kazillionth time.

 

Hurray!

[Mr.Bookworm]

Quote:

Originally written by Spidweb:
I think that the dialogue option choices worked reasonably well, but I have removed them entirely from Geneforge 4. Now everything faction-wise is determined by what quests you decide to complete or how you complete them.

I have my worries about the new system, but I think it'll be a bit more interesting overall.

- Jeff Vogel

Dammit. Now, don't get me wrong, the new system sounds great. But I loved being able to choose what to say. Maybe in G5, Jeff can strike a balance between the two.

[Student of Trinity]

It's true that real moral choices are not always so extreme as, as Zeviz aptly put it, joining the SS or joining the KGB. But sometimes they are very hard, with grief in every choice; and declining to choose is itself a choice, rarely the best.

 

The Geneforge games are based on a sharp moral dilemma of power: you need power to do good, but the power is very apt to bring evil. I think that the game mechanics may give an illusion that the dilemma can be avoided. The PC eventually becomes so powerful that he or she can completely wipe everything in the game, so it is easy to suppose that with the PC's help the good guys could win, if only some good guys could be found.

 

But with good role-playing I think one should imagine that, beyond Sucia Island or the Drypeak Range or the Ashen Isles, there is a world of immensely powerful Shapers (and now immensely powerful Rebels as well), who could not possibly be defeated by a single PC, even one of 65th level. In fact the games' endings generally imply that even Sucia Island or Drypeak or the Isles remain full of rogues hidden away between zones in some way, even after all zones have been cleared by the player, so that fully clearing the game locations alone requires armies.

 

So even with the player on their side, any good guys that might be found would actually require a lot more power to survive: as much power, in fact, as will be gathered by their opponents who are unhampered by goodness. That is why the Awakened really needed the Geneforge in G1 and Tuldaric in G2. And that is why I do not feel, myself, that more moral choices really are available in the Geneforge world than are offered by the games.

 

On the other hand, the games are by no means blind to the desirability of better options. You have to join a side in order to finish G3, but staying true enough to your side in order to win just means completing a few key actions. It is perfectly possible, for instance, to eliminate most of the rogues in the game while playing as a Rebel; and you can help the most sympathetic rebels while playing as a Loyalist. The game works fine, for me, if my character is a reluctant Loyalist or wavering Rebel.

 

If you also want to get the most possible side-benefits from each side, you may have to power-game your dialogue responses. If you are less than whole-hearted as a Loyalist and yet want them to teach you all their secrets, then it is not a flaw that the game makes you say things you don't believe; it is just forcing you to role-play dishonesty. If you don't want to lie, you can admit your true views to the Shapers. They won't expel you, just refuse to teach you higher level spells.

 

And especially in G3 there are a few hints that perhaps a better way might someday emerge. There is a Drayk (I think) who hints that perhaps there could be a way to prevent or resist the dehumanizing effect of the canisters. There is the reasonably enlightened attitude of Khyrryk; perhaps in the stress of the war he or others like him could gain enough leverage in Shaper society to make deep reforms. And there is a Battle Gamma (I think) who knows he is going dangerously mad from a creation flaw, but is permitted by the Rebels to live out his life as much as possible. That indicates that there is some sincerity among the Rebels as well.

 

I think it's the great thing about the Geneforge series that when we are anticipating the next installment, we're not dreaming of great new graphical effects, but hoping for some new thread to be added to a moral dilemma.

[Steel Angel]

Quote:

Originally written by Spidweb:
I think that the dialogue option choices worked reasonably well, but I have removed them entirely from Geneforge 4. Now everything faction-wise is determined by what quests you decide to complete or how you complete them.

It worked for KOTOR, it can work here with good implementation.

With the dialogue options, there was also the option of not saying anything at all and ending the conversation, which I did quite a bit. It was a little annoying, but it did serve my purposes when I wasn't in the mood to polarize people.

[MagmaDragoon]

Quote:

Originally written by Spidweb:
I think that the dialogue option choices worked reasonably well, but I have removed them entirely from Geneforge 4.

I have my worries about the new system, but I think it'll be a bit more interesting overall.

- Jeff Vogel

You are right to worry. The dialogues options are a main characteristic of the GF Series. I'm not very glad to hear this, but on one thing I'm sure: You know your job, so I trust You.

[VCH]

Sounds a bit more like NWN. It should work, actions being bigger than words and all that.

[Delicious Vlish]

I especially liked the dialog with Khyryk... In fact, it was what finally swayed my opinion about G3. When you have a chance to confront him about having Awakened views, but sitting back in his perfect little ivory tower talking a good game about the wrongs in Shaper society but doing nothing about them, just hiding away and waiting for the Shaper Council to come to him for a confrontation, (which is what he wants, really) and doing absolutely nothing to help the world, just sitting around moaning with his passive agressive stance, it's that kind of dialog that makes me appreciate these games. Khyryk has all that power but does nothing. It is because of him that evil has gained foothold. I mean, goodness, the guy has resources, he grew Reaper turrets to protect him self, mined his front gate, has his own pylons, a huge well stocked tower, he has everything. He has enough creations to completely retake the island. I mean really, if you can swarm the island and squash all resistance, than he should be able to do it too, no problemo.

 

Instead, he does nothing, he sits at home and watches the world crumble around him.

[Tyranicus.]

I loved the dialogue options. Sure sometimes I hated having to make some options over the others, but after playing BoE I realized how much I actually like having a choice on what to say. And I’m sorry but the little chat thing on BoE, where you have to ask what you want is really annoying, especially when you’ve never played the game before and have no idea what to ask. Even when sometimes the options on GF were one-sided. It will be interesting playing differently though, and allowing your quest to play a bigger role. I’m really excited about GF4, with the weather, the new character choices, and better quests.

The reason why I didn't finish playing GF3 was mostly because of the moral options. Although it is just a game, it just felt wrong to pick between two way extreme sides. At times I didn't feel like aligning myself with either of them. Not mentioning that I was hoping GF3 would bring a certain spice and distinct point of view, instead I found two more severe versions of the factions presented before and the extinction of the faction I cared about the most.

SoT: exactly

[Drayk Armitage]

There seems to be a rough consensus that Khyryk is the best part of G3.

 

His dialog options are great. They also are very different from the standard iloveserviles vs. ihateserviles options. They aren't even on the same continuum. Include more of those, by all means!

[Zeviz]

Quote:

Originally written by Spidweb:
I think that the dialogue option choices worked reasonably well, but I have removed them entirely from Geneforge 4. Now everything faction-wise is determined by what quests you decide to complete or how you complete them.

I have my worries about the new system, but I think it'll be a bit more interesting overall.

- Jeff Vogel

Sounds good.

If the view of the world is even bleaker than that of Gf3, I might still not buy it (the whole RL is bad enough without RPing a dystopia thing), but I will dislike it less if my character isn't forced to act like a snob if he wants to save the area from monsters. I am not saying that I would only play a "heroes save the world" kind of game, but I'd like an option of a more sane group, even if the best ending only allows that group to get a bit of land to survive on (or even simply escape into exile and thrive there).

Quote:

Originally written by Student of Trinity:
On the other hand, the games are by no means blind to the desirability of better options. You have to join a side in order to finish G3, but staying true enough to your side in order to win just means completing a few key actions. It is perfectly possible, for instance, to eliminate most of the rogues in the game while playing as a Rebel; and you can help the most sympathetic rebels while playing as a Loyalist. The game works fine, for me, if my character is a reluctant Loyalist or wavering Rebel.

The idea of "role playing" is to play a role, seeing the world through your character's eyes. While what you suggest is perfectly viable way to play the game, it makes no sence from your character's point of view: you kill most rogues, but then help their creators re-create them. It would be similar to joinin Wermaht in WW2, helping win several major battles, and then assasinating Hitler, because you were supporting Stalin all along. As long as your final action in the game is to support the Rebels, you are helping the creation of rogue invasions throughout Shaper lands, regardless of what you do to the rogues on your own islands.

EDIT: About conversation options, I am not against them in general, in fact I liked them in early games. I just disliked the fact that in some cases the only available responces were too extreme and even if acceptable, they would forse you into the side opposite from your actions. I guess I just gave up on the game before finding people like Khyryk.

[Spidweb]

There is a reason why I engage in these discussions relatively early in the design of the game. Reading what you wrote, it is starting to occur to me that entirely removing the conversation options was a mistake.

 

I still want most of the faction/proving yourself process to be determin ed by what you do, not what you say. But there does need to be a way for your to express yourself in the conversations, as that is where so much of the story takes place.

 

- Jeff Vogel

[Grain of Salt]

Perhaps there could be "moderate" conversation option? Essentially the same as just ending the conversation, but makes sense in a roleplaying context.

[Mike Montgomery]

Quote:

Originally written by Spidweb:

... Clearly, you do not want to spend time in the world as I philosophically see it. I can understand that. And I don't think Geneforge 4 is going to be much to your liking either. But I am trying to do something different, something innovative with these games, and I know it isn't going to be to everyone's taste. The problem isn't you, it's me. :-)

I don't want to be misunderstood here; I know that the real world is very complex, with many options. And for a game to more closely reflect the real world philosophically, it must include many options with varying morality. I respect this innovation of reflecting the subtle choices of a real life situation in an RPG.

I don't mind how many immoral options are available as long as you create at least one path that does not require any morally dispicable choices. I found a morally acceptable path through G1 and G2, and with some help here, I think maybe there is a path through G3 as well.

With G1, Awakened worked fine for me, except I had to destroy the Geneforge, and wished there was a way to avoid the negative consequences to the Awakened.

With G2, Unaligned work fine for me, and I was fine with the ending.

With G3, I think being a minimal Loyalist with strongly pro-servile leanings may work. I am going to try it and see. When I started this thread, I did not see any morally acceptable way to continue; now I see a possibility.

With G4, I just want you to take care that the plot options include some moral path to follow, like you did with the unaligned option in G2. I don't mind if a moral path is far more difficult, or that it has consequences in terms of giving up power or training or equipment.

Philosophically, I don't think the real world forces people to choose between immoral choices; they just may be unwilling to give up what it takes to make a moral choice. I also believe that there is a heirarchy of moral absolutes. For example, lying is immoral, but lying to save an innocent life is not. The higher value of saving the innocent prevails. Smuggling drugs is illegal. If an agent attempting to infiltrate a terrorist group intending to nuke a city has to smuggle drugs to establish contact, it is justifiable.

But if I were put in a situation where a madman has set up two immoral choices and I were forced to choice, I would not. For example, suppose a madman had kidnapped 500 of my family and friends and put them in a room with a bomb. And he had planted another bomb in the center of a large city. Then he had wired a switch that would blow up one bomb or the other. Then he had kidnapped me and wanted me to turn the switch one direction or another to blow up one of the bombs, and told me that if I did not choose, he would blow up both bombs. I would not choose. I refuse to play his game. When it comes down to it, he controls both bombs. Who's to say what he will do. But if I throw the switch, I am taking an active role in murdering a group of people. Who's to say that if I hadn't chosen, he would have deactivated both bombs?

If a RPG plot puts me in a similar situation, where I am forced to choose to take an active role performing one immoral activity or another immoral activity, I won't choose. I won't play this game.

Nor do I think such a situation accurately reflects realistic choices, assuming this is the goal. I have lived 47 years, and I have never once been in a situation where all available options are immoral. Even in the highly contrived example above, you have the option to do nothing, to attempt to disarm the device, to try to kill the madman, etc. In real life, there are always options, even if the only honorable options results in personal negative consequences or even your death. Hopefully a realistic innovative RPG will respect this, and make sure that moral choices are always available, but perhaps some moral choices will carry a high cost.

[Student of Trinity]

I agree that in real life there is always a moral choice, in the sense of there being at least one morally best option; but I think it may still be one that includes bad things happening. I haven't had to make any nightmare choices so far in my life, either, thank God. But I am sure they exist. What I know of the history of real revolutions, for instance, makes me think that a rebellion against a tyranny tends to bring them.

 

In real life, decling to 'play' is itself a choice which can just as easily be catastrophic as any other. Someone who lets something far worse happen that what could have happened, just from unwillingness to face hard choices, would be guilty in my book. If their conscience is quiet, so much the worse for them.

 

But of course there is nothing wrong with declining to play a game that involves anything unpleasant, including unpleasant choices.

 

As to Zeviz's comments about fighting rogues as a Rebel: if you can't countenance war against the Shapers at all, then don't play a Rebel; you should be fine as a Loyalist. But the Rebel goal in G3 is to build an invincible but intelligent army of Ur-Drakons, not to continue spawning mindless rogues to attack peasants. An honorable Rebel can presume, I think, that once the Geneforge is built the Rebels will be able to end the war quickly and efficiently, with minimal damage to innocent bystanders. This turns out not to be true, but it could have been, and so the choice to support the Rebels with that hope in mind would seem moral to me, as long as violent resistance to the Shapers can be accounted moral under any circumstances.

[VCH]

I could see having dialogue options effect your standing within a certain faction. Perhaps if you bad-mouth the leader you can't go certain places or talk to some creatures. Or if you bully a shop-keeper, maybe they simply wont sell to your character anymore.

[Goldengirl]

I REALLY hate to tell you this, but there can't be an unalligned. You're a warrior in a war, pick one side or the other. If not you get killed. What's more there is often a situation where you have to choose the lesser of two evils. A less common one could be let this maniac free, or kill him? Oh and your answer for the big city/family thing is moronic at best. Your choice: get killed and he'll blow both bombs. My choice: Save the family and friends. You should actually face life and think about consequences and what will happen. Idiot.

(Don't take this the wrong way, it's just you seemed extremly foolish.)

[VCH]

^ Massive Tool Alert ^

[Mike Montgomery]

Quote:

Originally written by NotSoFriendlySpiderking:
I REALLY hate to tell you this, but there can't be an unalligned. You're a warrior in a war, pick one side or the other. If not you get killed.

Actually, in GF3, you are not a warrior in a war. You are a free agent. You SHOULD be able to tell the rebel leadership that you believe in their cause, and want to throw in with them, but there is no way that you are going to help them create rogues. Furthermore, these dishonorable tactics are keeping many on the sidelines that would otherwise join their cause, and are doing the rebels a lot more harm than good. Then if they don't buy it, you go your own way. If the rebels want to waste their resources trying to kill someone who is not fighting against them, then they are just hurting themselves.

Quote:

Originally written by NotSoFriendlySpiderking:
What's more there is often a situation where you have to choose the lesser of two evils. A less common one could be let this maniac free, or kill him?

I don't quite catch the lesser of evils here. Killing a maniac that would otherwise kill innocent people is a virtuous act.

Quote:

Originally written by NotSoFriendlySpiderking:
Oh and your answer for the big city/family thing is moronic at best. Your choice: get killed and he'll blow both bombs. My choice: Save the family and friends. You should actually face life and think about consequences and what will happen. Idiot.
(Don't take this the wrong way, it's just you seemed extremly foolish.)

You should think things through as well. This is a mind game. The maniac could have already killed everyone, and still can, regardless of what do you do. Do you trust a maniac who has kidnapped you and set this up to tell you the truth? What if the switch settings are the reverse of what he said. What if either direction kills both groups? What if after you turn the switch, he raises the stakes to avoid setting off the other bomb? How far do you go? You have just as good a chance to save everyone by doing nothing as by turning the switch. Maybe better. Maybe for the maniac this is just a test, and if you refuse to turn the switch, he lets everyone go. You don't know. Maybe your action of turning the switch kills everyone, including your friends and family, and doing nothing saves everyone.

A lot of evil in this world come from people intimidated or blackmailed into doing someone else's dirty work. Let's take the example down a notch. Someone kidnaps your child. To get her back, the kidnapper says you must assassinate someone. The kidnapper provides all of the logistics, and it looks like a clean setup with little chance of being caught. Do you let yourself be intimidated into performing the assassination? If you would turn the switch to kill thousands of innocents in a city, it sounds like you would. Then you find out that the kidnapper gathered evidence implicating you in the assassination. He then demands further services from you. Where does it stop?

If you think it through, the only sane choice is to not play his game, and try to retrieve your daughter some other way. Perhaps now my reasoning does not quite seem so foolish?

[Spidweb]

In my regular, everyday life, I read a lot of non-fiction. Since so many of my games deal with wars, I try to read a lot of military history, to try to keep things grounded in something resembling a recognizable reality.

 

What I see, again and again, is the agony of decision-making. Life sometimes sticks us with tough choices and no easy outs, difficult, painful, non-hypothetical decisions that people still argue about decades (centuries, millenia) after they happen.

 

So I have a series of games where I put that in. I believe that it is possible to reflect this reality in games and still have them be compelling.

 

(Those who are familiar with them won't be surprised that The Wire and Deadwood are two of my favorite TV shows.)

 

Geneforge 4 will have the rebel and Shaper paths, but, farther in, another path appears. It's hard to find and takes sacrifice, but there is an out to the whole situation. But it is not painless.

 

- Jeff Vogel

[Swimmin' Salmon]

Quote:

Originally written by Spidweb:
There is a reason why I engage in these discussions relatively early in the design of the game. Reading what you wrote, it is starting to occur to me that entirely removing the conversation options was a mistake.

I still want most of the faction/proving yourself process to be determin ed by what you do, not what you say. But there does need to be a way for your to express yourself in the conversations, as that is where so much of the story takes place.

- Jeff Vogel

I agree, actions speak louder than words. Maybe tie things together so that there is a pairing of a word set with an action set, the combination having a greater cumulative effect? And perhaps with a great negative effect if words and actions don't jibe?

Now, about BoA...

[Spidweb]

"Maybe tie things together so that there is a pairing of a word set with an action set, the combination having a greater cumulative effect? And perhaps with a great negative effect if words and actions don't jibe?"

 

Too clever by half. It would be very difficult to both balance that system properly and make it not be too opaque to the player. I like my faction systems nice and clean.

 

- Jeff Vogel

[Delicious Vlish]

Quote:

Originally written by Spidweb:
In my regular, everyday life, I read a lot of non-fiction. Since so many of my games deal with wars, I try to read a lot of military history, to try to keep things grounded in something resembling a recognizable reality.

What I see, again and again, is the agony of decision-making. Life sometimes sticks us with tough choices and no easy outs, difficult, painful, non-hypothetical decisions that people still argue about decades (centuries, millenia) after they happen.

So I have a series of games where I put that in. I believe that it is possible to reflect this reality in games and still have them be compelling.

(Those who are familiar with them won't be surprised that The Wire and Deadwood are two of my favorite TV shows.)

Geneforge 4 will have the rebel and Shaper paths, but, farther in, another path appears. It's hard to find and takes sacrifice, but there is an out to the whole situation. But it is not painless.

- Jeff Vogel

**Wiggles tentacles enthusiastically**

Oooh oooh ooh will Khyryk finally come out of his ivory tower and do something rather than let the world pass him by while he is pining for his lost love?

And this sacrifice wont involve feeding anything to fluffy turtles I hope.

[chibi kaie]

But we shouldn't starve the fluffy turtles! They need food too.

 

*cough* Back to topic ... I think, sometimes, when we play the game, we forget that the character we play has been studying to be a shaper for most of his life. Basically, he's been indoctrinated. If he really believed that serviles possessed independent will and should be treated as humans, he probably would have been expelled, like Greta. It's possible that he does believe that, actually, but to remain in school, he would have learned to bury his true feelings. This is, of course, assuming that he manages to lie convincingly about his beliefs, which may or may not be possible. Many shapers seem to have high leadership abilities, which implies that they're good at detecting lies.

 

So, at the very least, at the beginning of the game, he's never seen an example of an insubordinate servile, and sees plenty of serviles who act just as he's been taught they should--they're happy to serve, and distressed when without shaper control. He's been taught that they are not really people. He might later change his mind, but in all likelihood, he doesn't think like we do in our world. He thinks like shapers do in the shapers' world.