This game is going to be such an undertaking for Bioware. So many things could end up sucking...
View From The Road: Flash Frozen
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
I honestly would love to play where your choices mattered and could cause inter-player conflict. For instance lets say you are with a guy and he decides to kill the dude. You don't want too. You have several options from here. Let the other guy have his way and let the dude die, split letting the guy die but not partaking, or fighting your party member over it. That would become very immerse. Imagine you are both Jedi's faced with slaying a Sith you have battled. The sith is at your mercy. One of you might want to be a pure Jedi but the other a little dark. If it is important enough to you you could fight each other over it. This is how a lot of the conflicts within the Jedi happened in the real thing
I don't think it's at all possible to have a deep immersive storyline in an MMO. I know I criticize other people and how they interfere with gaming, but yeah, you're not going to have immersion with thousands of other people running and jumping around, typing in innate dribble.
This was more what I was envisaging (and probably not describing very well). A system by which it is assumed you will role play the class you chose, jedi or sith, but if you consistently act outside the boundaries (trying to be a good sith or a bad jedi) you will affect some sort of in-built morality meter, and shift sides. It would be possible to shift back and forth indeterminately, which would lead to a constantly changing game experience. If you got bored of being nice, you know you're able to change sides by kicking a few puppies, then when that gets boring, you can claw your way back to the light side.The Gentleman said:
I personally think it would be best done by starting with the majority vote concept. In the sequence the rest of the party will kinda peer pressure the fourth into doing what they want. If this is a choice that isn't going to effect your entire journey from then on in some sort of large way it will leave it at that and the fourth will go through with what the party decided on. But, if it is something that will have a major effect on the story it will again start by going with the majority vote, but at the end of whatever the party is doing the person that wanted to go against the majority will get an additional story element. This additional story will allow the odd players out rectify their mistakes, or make some sort of repayment to the faction or person they went against with their party through a solo quest. After they've done whatever was asked of them through this optional solo quest they can then continue the story from then on as if they had initially made the other choice.
This will allow the party gameplay to remain intact, but will also allow the players that wanted something else to make their own choices. The story concept will also remain unbroken because the game will make it apparent that the party forcing the one player into following them, with the single player then doing something separate from the party to go with side he was initially forced to go against WAS in fact part of the character's intended story. The only apparent weakness I see with this concept would be that the player wouldn't be able to do the party quest the way he/she wanted to. But wouldn't having to comply as part of a party make since gameplay and story-wise anyways?
This will allow the party gameplay to remain intact, but will also allow the players that wanted something else to make their own choices. The story concept will also remain unbroken because the game will make it apparent that the party forcing the one player into following them, with the single player then doing something separate from the party to go with side he was initially forced to go against WAS in fact part of the character's intended story. The only apparent weakness I see with this concept would be that the player wouldn't be able to do the party quest the way he/she wanted to. But wouldn't having to comply as part of a party make since gameplay and story-wise anyways?
Has anyone played America's Army? It is a first person shooter where /both/ sides play the side they want to play (American military), and against the bad guys (generic terrorist).
If flash points are to be as simple as choosing sides in conflicts, then this would work equally well in TOR:
My 3 friends side with the Mandalorians, and so they see Mandalorian allies, and Hutt enemies.
I side with the Hutts, and so I see Hutt allies and Mandalorian enemies.
Do I have to know what my friends chose? No; the important parts of what I see is mirrored for them. Note that the type of weapons used and graphics need not be the same for both versions, only the actual effects must be the same.
I.e.: If my Hutt allies put a debuff on the Mandalorian enemies, then my friend's Mandalorian allies must put the same debuff on their Hutt enemies; same goes for area of effect things.
In the end, I am playing my story, and my friends are playing theirs; that we have different stories matters not, because through slight of hand we can still play together.
If flash points are to be as simple as choosing sides in conflicts, then this would work equally well in TOR:
My 3 friends side with the Mandalorians, and so they see Mandalorian allies, and Hutt enemies.
I side with the Hutts, and so I see Hutt allies and Mandalorian enemies.
Do I have to know what my friends chose? No; the important parts of what I see is mirrored for them. Note that the type of weapons used and graphics need not be the same for both versions, only the actual effects must be the same.
I.e.: If my Hutt allies put a debuff on the Mandalorian enemies, then my friend's Mandalorian allies must put the same debuff on their Hutt enemies; same goes for area of effect things.
In the end, I am playing my story, and my friends are playing theirs; that we have different stories matters not, because through slight of hand we can still play together.
I have a felling flashpoints are the small-scale "raid" content. Designed to be multiplayer, but at the same time roughly independent of a character's "Main" quest line.
One idea to keep people from "Gaming" the rewards is to essentially offer roughly the same rewards for Light and Dark side choices removing the short-term "loot"-incentive. Besides, only the Jedi/Sith should have items that are "Alignment"-specific if they have such items at all.
To keep the flashpoint "fair" to the group it could track how each person in the group responded when given an option to speak in the flashpoint. For the PAX demo it seems like the control of the conversation seemed fairly "round robin" with each player participating equally. However they could tie the "key" choices to the specific player rather than the whole group. So if the Sith Warrior and the Bounty Hunter do the flashpoint and the Sith Warrior kills the ship captain, the family of the ship captain isn't going to be looking for the bounty hunter, they'll be after the Sith warrior.
There are ways it could be handled, and it will be interesting to see what BioWare comes up with.
I do have a feeling that MMOs are changing socially, you're less likely to socialize in the game unless you know of the people outside of the game, like message boards for instance.
One idea to keep people from "Gaming" the rewards is to essentially offer roughly the same rewards for Light and Dark side choices removing the short-term "loot"-incentive. Besides, only the Jedi/Sith should have items that are "Alignment"-specific if they have such items at all.
To keep the flashpoint "fair" to the group it could track how each person in the group responded when given an option to speak in the flashpoint. For the PAX demo it seems like the control of the conversation seemed fairly "round robin" with each player participating equally. However they could tie the "key" choices to the specific player rather than the whole group. So if the Sith Warrior and the Bounty Hunter do the flashpoint and the Sith Warrior kills the ship captain, the family of the ship captain isn't going to be looking for the bounty hunter, they'll be after the Sith warrior.
There are ways it could be handled, and it will be interesting to see what BioWare comes up with.
I do have a feeling that MMOs are changing socially, you're less likely to socialize in the game unless you know of the people outside of the game, like message boards for instance.
Isn't a flash-point in the game tied to a particular character's storyline? I was under the impression that only the CHARACTER WHOS STORY YOU ARE PLAYING gets to make the decisions. The other members of the party get to chime in on non-essential dialogue bits.
And Mr Funk has officially displayed why this shouldn't have been an MMO.
Everything I read about this game just screams "Single Player RPG"
I haven't read a single thing about it that says "This is an MMO", other then BIoware SAYING that it is one.
Everything I read about this game just screams "Single Player RPG"
I haven't read a single thing about it that says "This is an MMO", other then BIoware SAYING that it is one.
Another option (and the one I thought they were going with, at least from some of the videos) - one player calls the shots on each flashpoint. The choices are made by that player for that player. The others will get their choice on subsequent runs.John Funk said:
Yet another option (an extension of your 4th option) - Either the leader calls the shots or it's popular vote, but at the end the player is asked if he wants to accept the choice(s) made during the flashpoint. If yes, then great. If no, he can make the choices again when attempting the flashpoint the next time. I dislike the idea of changing it post facto since you'll miss on the gameplay. This would allow players to try each fork in the road and see how it plays out before finalizing their choice...
Good writeup - I've been thinking about the same thing since I saw the video where the Sith Warrior and Bounty Hunter did the Flash Point where they had to bring in a rebellious ship captain. The dialog in that scenario jumped from player to player, and the warrior was the one who got to choose to kill the captain or not, and he did so. The Bounty Hunter had no say in it, and while I sincerely hope that that's not the final model they choose to go forward with in-game, it seems like it will be. I'll live with it, but I think a lot of players are going to be upset when they have it happen in-game.
I don't understand why this is a problem. It sounds to me like this is a novel opportunity to make a game that is different from its main competitor. TOR won't succeed by being "WoW, but in a galaxy far, far away"; it will succeed by being a unique experience for those who decide to play it. WoW has made us used to MMOs where everything is repeatable, all content is available to all players, and no choice is ever permanent.
I've only watched the demo so far, so I'm not sure if anything about the specific consequences of Flash Points has been mentioned. I know that the quest itself will run differently, but--as shown in the case of the disobedient captain--that amounts to minor differences in the end (I can't imagine that the quest itself would end up being fundamentally different. And as an aside, perhaps it's best to stop thinking of these as quests and more as story points? We'll see). But a consequence I can see would be different available missions and story points down the line. If you kill the captain, maybe you don't get a special mission from him or something, but on the other hand, specific new quests open up for you, a whole new chain of events that branches away from the let-the-captain-live chain of events.
This is where it becomes a matter of "six one way, half-dozen another" because in WoW, not every quest is played in every zone and not every opportunity will be taken advantage of by the player. It simply won't happen. What's the difference if TOR simply turns that inevitability into a story structure? Those excess quests aren't simply "things-you-don't do", they're another branch of a flash point that you will have to experience another time on another character. People used to the WoW formula may see that as restricting or something, but the reality is that you're character will still progress at the same rate, still be competitive with other players who made different choices.
The particular example in the video showed the Sith making the big choice, so perhaps not all Flash Points will be up to the entire group (but some or many might). There's no reason to be troubled by that. Ultimately it means that each play-through is different and unique in its own way. The thought of leveling new characters the WoW way is sickening sometimes, but this could extend the initial novelty of the game experience beyond what WoW ever had. Quest-lines that differ based on class, faction, AND player choice? Sign me up!
I've only watched the demo so far, so I'm not sure if anything about the specific consequences of Flash Points has been mentioned. I know that the quest itself will run differently, but--as shown in the case of the disobedient captain--that amounts to minor differences in the end (I can't imagine that the quest itself would end up being fundamentally different. And as an aside, perhaps it's best to stop thinking of these as quests and more as story points? We'll see). But a consequence I can see would be different available missions and story points down the line. If you kill the captain, maybe you don't get a special mission from him or something, but on the other hand, specific new quests open up for you, a whole new chain of events that branches away from the let-the-captain-live chain of events.
This is where it becomes a matter of "six one way, half-dozen another" because in WoW, not every quest is played in every zone and not every opportunity will be taken advantage of by the player. It simply won't happen. What's the difference if TOR simply turns that inevitability into a story structure? Those excess quests aren't simply "things-you-don't do", they're another branch of a flash point that you will have to experience another time on another character. People used to the WoW formula may see that as restricting or something, but the reality is that you're character will still progress at the same rate, still be competitive with other players who made different choices.
The particular example in the video showed the Sith making the big choice, so perhaps not all Flash Points will be up to the entire group (but some or many might). There's no reason to be troubled by that. Ultimately it means that each play-through is different and unique in its own way. The thought of leveling new characters the WoW way is sickening sometimes, but this could extend the initial novelty of the game experience beyond what WoW ever had. Quest-lines that differ based on class, faction, AND player choice? Sign me up!
This is a problem because almost no-one seems to have paid any attention to how Bioware has said to be dealing with the situation and are assuming they are as bad at games design as John Funk is.
The problem is solved, JaredXE explained why. You only get these big choices when it's your quest, other people get inconsequential choices and their own storylines aren't affected by what their compatriots chose to do in their own quests.
The problem is solved, JaredXE explained why. You only get these big choices when it's your quest, other people get inconsequential choices and their own storylines aren't affected by what their compatriots chose to do in their own quests.
What you have not considered, Mr Funk, is that it's SUPPOSED to make you feel uncomfortable. As a bounty hunter you side with a Spy, then you're in a forest on Kashyyyk, your partner separated from you by an enormous tree. Does you partner leave you or go off on his own? This creates moments of tension because you can't speak up for your partner, if he makes the wrong choice then you have to deal with the consequences, but THAT IS IMMERSIVE.
Why is it immersive? Because it makes you feel like you're there. Friends who make the wrong choices, allies you thought you could trust to make the choice that you would. You can place yourself in Ashley's shoes in Mass Effect
. It's immersive because it is tense and you have to consider that things might not go your way.
Rather than thinking about it in the "This is my personal adventure and no one is invited", which is kind of how I feel about it too, you have to also think about it in the "This is a world where anything can happen, people can screw me over with their choices and I might not be able to say anything".
/For The Love Of The Game
http://www.interstellarmarines.com/
Why is it immersive? Because it makes you feel like you're there. Friends who make the wrong choices, allies you thought you could trust to make the choice that you would. You can place yourself in Ashley's shoes in Mass Effect
when she disagrees with you for saving the Rachni queen
Rather than thinking about it in the "This is my personal adventure and no one is invited", which is kind of how I feel about it too, you have to also think about it in the "This is a world where anything can happen, people can screw me over with their choices and I might not be able to say anything".
/For The Love Of The Game
http://www.interstellarmarines.com/
Exactly.Astalano said:
If some people want to say, kill the sith at the end but some don't the resulting conflict IS a consequence of that choice.
Say there are 2 Jedi and one wants to off the sith but one wants revenge for something that sith did and wants him dead then there should be some kind of player conflict.
Does the good Jedi feel betrayed by his friend? Does he understand his feelings and forgive him but warn him that such act are not the Jedi way? Or does he try to stop his friend outright?
That kind of player conflict can create some great RP!!! Oh noes player conflict!!! Can't have that!!! Right?
Here I come, out from the darkness of the internet, to return to give my say on this matter:
I think that flash points will not happen in non-class specific group quests. From the demo they've shown, I took the Sith/Bounty Hunter team up as less of a quest for both characters and more of a quest for the Sith Warrior. The Warrior needed assistance because the quest requires it or something, so he brought the Hunter along, and to make it so the Hunter wasn't completely left in the dark, he was allowed a couple lines of dialogue.
So, basically, there are non-specific group quests like those in WoW, and there are group quests that are still centered around specific classes. Flash points only happen in the latter. Or, at least that's my theory.
I think that flash points will not happen in non-class specific group quests. From the demo they've shown, I took the Sith/Bounty Hunter team up as less of a quest for both characters and more of a quest for the Sith Warrior. The Warrior needed assistance because the quest requires it or something, so he brought the Hunter along, and to make it so the Hunter wasn't completely left in the dark, he was allowed a couple lines of dialogue.
So, basically, there are non-specific group quests like those in WoW, and there are group quests that are still centered around specific classes. Flash points only happen in the latter. Or, at least that's my theory.
From the demo video, I thought it looked like one person, usually the actual party leader, is posed with the question. This is creates perfect immersion because, as stated by Astalano a few posts above, it creates tension within the party.
Asking the leader makes a lot of sense, because the party has already decided this person can be in charge of the group as a whole. Take the example in the article. For each group that has this choice, either the Mandalorians or the Hutts get the money, and in a real-world situation, the entire party might not like it. And if you don't like it, you can't really do much about it until after the fact.
This leaves you with 2 possibilities: try to convince your party someone else should be leader, or leave the group. Which would be the same options you'd have in real life.
Where this will find problems is that eventually, someone will discover the most efficient choices to make for leveling/getting the "right loot", and nobody ever sees what happens if you do something different. Hopefully this won't somehow lead to ghost-town areas, because that's what really kills an MMO
Asking the leader makes a lot of sense, because the party has already decided this person can be in charge of the group as a whole. Take the example in the article. For each group that has this choice, either the Mandalorians or the Hutts get the money, and in a real-world situation, the entire party might not like it. And if you don't like it, you can't really do much about it until after the fact.
This leaves you with 2 possibilities: try to convince your party someone else should be leader, or leave the group. Which would be the same options you'd have in real life.
Where this will find problems is that eventually, someone will discover the most efficient choices to make for leveling/getting the "right loot", and nobody ever sees what happens if you do something different. Hopefully this won't somehow lead to ghost-town areas, because that's what really kills an MMO
Well, I don't know about all of this. I mean, you are going with party cohesion. If you are playing with like minded individuals, and you allow them to select the ending, then it's your ending too, or you can not do it and get the other ending. In life, if you go with your friends to Bar A but you really wanted to go to Bar B, you don't get to see what happened in Bar B on that nite later in life. So to me, it makes sense. Bow to peer pressure and let them pick your tale, or find like minded indiviuals and do your own thing.
There should be no 'do-overs' and especially not for loot. If you want the other side of the story, reroll. If you want the other loot, trade.
It's definately a risky proposition, but it makes sense in continuity and such. Sometimes you just have to tell your friends, no I'm going to Bar B to meet the hottie that gets me free beers, you all can go to the sausage-fest all alone.
There should be no 'do-overs' and especially not for loot. If you want the other side of the story, reroll. If you want the other loot, trade.
It's definately a risky proposition, but it makes sense in continuity and such. Sometimes you just have to tell your friends, no I'm going to Bar B to meet the hottie that gets me free beers, you all can go to the sausage-fest all alone.