Why I did not like Geneforge 3
Pages
| Author | Topic: Why I did not like Geneforge 3 |
|---|---|
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, May 24 2006 21:18
Profile
Homepage
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." -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Board Administrator
Member # 1
|
written Wednesday, May 24 2006 21:52
Profile
Homepage
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 -------------------- Official Board Admin spidweb@spiderwebsoftware.com Posts: 960 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Wednesday, May 24 2006 22:25
Profile
Homepage
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! -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 7002
|
written Wednesday, May 24 2006 22:34
Profile
quote: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. -------------------- Polaris Posts: 193 | Registered: Thursday, April 6 2006 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Thursday, May 25 2006 03:07
Profile
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. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7083
|
written Thursday, May 25 2006 09:44
Profile
quote: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. Posts: 19 | Registered: Friday, April 28 2006 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 6581
|
written Thursday, May 25 2006 10:19
Profile
Homepage
quote: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. :) -------------------- Download Geneforge 4: Rebellion You have 6 posts. Nobody cares what you think. - Thuryl Wikipedia may be your friend, but UBB is not. - Dikiyoba Posts: 1310 | Registered: Tuesday, December 20 2005 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 247
|
written Thursday, May 25 2006 10:27
Profile
Homepage
Sounds a bit more like NWN. It should work, actions being bigger than words and all that. -------------------- The Knight Between Posts. Posts: 2395 | Registered: Friday, November 2 2001 08:00 |
|
His Mighty Tentacle
Member # 627
|
written Thursday, May 25 2006 10:28
Profile
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. -------------------- If I could make just one wish, I would want a tasty vlish. Geneforge IV. Still no tasty vlish. Posts: 1104 | Registered: Tuesday, February 12 2002 08:00 |
|
Dollop of Whipped Cream
Member # 391
|
written Thursday, May 25 2006 10:43
Profile
Homepage
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 -------------------- "Tyranicus is about the only one that still posts in the Nethergate Forum." —Randomizer Spiderweb Chat Room Shadow Vale - My site, home of the Spiderweb Chat Database, BoA Scenario Database, & the A1 Quest List, among other things. Posts: 562 | Registered: Friday, December 14 2001 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Thursday, May 25 2006 11:10
Profile
Homepage
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! -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
|
written Thursday, May 25 2006 11:12
Profile
Homepage
quote: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: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. [ Thursday, May 25, 2006 11:23: Message edited by: Zeviz ] -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Board Administrator
Member # 1
|
written Thursday, May 25 2006 11:13
Profile
Homepage
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 -------------------- Official Board Admin spidweb@spiderwebsoftware.com Posts: 960 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 6652
|
written Thursday, May 25 2006 11:34
Profile
Perhaps there could be "moderate" conversation option? Essentially the same as just ending the conversation, but makes sense in a roleplaying context. [ Thursday, May 25, 2006 11:35: Message edited by: Little Billy Sue ] -------------------- But I don't want to ride the elevator. Posts: 420 | Registered: Sunday, January 8 2006 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 2599
|
written Thursday, May 25 2006 11:38
Profile
quote: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. [ Thursday, May 25, 2006 11:49: Message edited by: Mike Montgomery ] Posts: 201 | Registered: Thursday, February 6 2003 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Thursday, May 25 2006 12:45
Profile
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. [ Thursday, May 25, 2006 12:57: Message edited by: Student of Trinity ] -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 247
|
written Thursday, May 25 2006 12:47
Profile
Homepage
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. -------------------- The Knight Between Posts. Posts: 2395 | Registered: Friday, November 2 2001 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 4574
|
written Thursday, May 25 2006 12:51
Profile
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.) -------------------- Pass the sauerkraut and chips please. Posts: 1186 | Registered: Friday, June 18 2004 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 247
|
written Thursday, May 25 2006 13:00
Profile
Homepage
^ Massive Tool Alert ^ :rolleyes: -------------------- The Knight Between Posts. Posts: 2395 | Registered: Friday, November 2 2001 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 2599
|
written Thursday, May 25 2006 13:39
Profile
quote: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:I don't quite catch the lesser of evils here. Killing a maniac that would otherwise kill innocent people is a virtuous act. quote: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? Posts: 201 | Registered: Thursday, February 6 2003 08:00 |
|
Board Administrator
Member # 1
|
written Thursday, May 25 2006 14:15
Profile
Homepage
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 -------------------- Official Board Admin spidweb@spiderwebsoftware.com Posts: 960 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, May 25 2006 14:53
Profile
quote: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... -------------------- WWtNSD? Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Board Administrator
Member # 1
|
written Thursday, May 25 2006 14:56
Profile
Homepage
"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 -------------------- Official Board Admin spidweb@spiderwebsoftware.com Posts: 960 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
His Mighty Tentacle
Member # 627
|
written Thursday, May 25 2006 14:56
Profile
quote:**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. -------------------- If I could make just one wish, I would want a tasty vlish. Geneforge IV. Still no tasty vlish. Posts: 1104 | Registered: Tuesday, February 12 2002 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7152
|
written Thursday, May 25 2006 17:26
Profile
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. Posts: 18 | Registered: Monday, May 22 2006 07:00 |