How would you do it?
Pages
| Author | Topic: How would you do it? |
|---|---|
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Sunday, September 10 2006 19:28
Profile
Homepage
I've noticed that bashing the plots of Spiderweb games is sort of the national pass-time around here. You all seem to hate the plots that involve plagues of monsters led by an evil overlord. While I disagree with your views, I am curious to know, how would you do it better? The plagues of monsters plot is the ideal plot for the style in which Jeff does his games. Let’s assume that any good game has a variety of enemies culminating in an epic boss battle in the end, with few exceptions. Does it not make sense then to use the plagues of monsters script? You get to fight all kinds of monsters, each with their own bosses or puzzles that must be conquered in order to beat them. And then, in the end, it finishes you off with a battle against a boss worthy of legends. Few games can pull of using the same end boss twice in a row, but Avernum 3 and 4 did it. Rentar is up there with Diablo and Ganondorf as one of the greatest bosses of all time. But this is just my own humble, Imperial opinion. For those of you that really don't like the setup, how would you do it differently? What plot would you create that has both a variety of different monsters and an epic final battle at the end? -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 5576
|
written Sunday, September 10 2006 19:46
Profile
Homepage
I don't think that people specifically dislike the plagues of monsters idea; I don't, but rather they dislike what they see as repetition of the same old plot. One issue with plagues of monsters as I see it is that if there's a world threatening horde of monsters, there'd also better be a darn good explanation. A3 was ok, if not stellar in this regard, but A4's justification gets too weak for my liking. A complication of this problem is that if you have and use a good explanation for a monster plague. Then if you want another plague, you probably shouldn't just give the same explanation over. My answer to 'how would I do it better' with regards to A4 specifically would pretty simply be: no A4. The Avernum trilogy + blades was comfortable the way it was plot wise. However, my motivations are very different from Jeff's; he gets money for every new game he makes, while I just play them because I feel like it. -------------------- Überraschung des Dosenöffners! "On guard, you musty sofa!" Posts: 627 | Registered: Monday, March 7 2005 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Sunday, September 10 2006 20:01
Profile
quote:Actually have real living breathing characters rather than 1D caricatures resembling people. quote:One could make a good game with this, but there can be a lot more. Sure, you will usually have the henchmen leading up to a boss, but this does not make it a good game in and of itself. You can always add a lot of storyline along the way. Make the people outside of the player's control alive and actually do things that influence the plot in more than trivial ways. [ Sunday, September 10, 2006 20:04: Message edited by: *i ] -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Sunday, September 10 2006 20:26
Profile
Homepage
quote:Nethergate is a community favorite, especially among those who complain about A3/A4. I really liked A3, and I sorta liked A4, but purely on the level of plot and atmosphere, Nethergate beats the stuffing out of the last two Avernums. (A3 and A4 do other things well, but not, as far as I'm concerned, main plot.) Nethergate doesn't have monster plagues. A2 also fares pretty well without much in the way of the monster plague motif. quote:Rentar isn't even that good a character. I mean, what do we actually know about her? She's powerful and angry. That's about as 1-D as it comes. R-I coming back was my single biggest plot gripe about A4. However, I feel compelled to remind myself, having plot gripes about A4 means that I kind of missed the point. A4 was designed to have good combat and a passable plot that wouldn't get in the way of the hacking. It certainly accomplished that. [ Sunday, September 10, 2006 20:29: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- 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 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Sunday, September 10 2006 20:31
Profile
Homepage
quote:Wow. You think that Avernum 4 was so bad that you would rather it didn't exist? Ouch. Come on, it had new monsters, it took place in Avernum, even Rentar was a little different. quote:My question was more plot related but... ah, I see what you mean! I think Avernum 4 did have such characters! Look at Rentar. When she first finds out about you, she doesn't think much of you. Later, she is annoyed to see how far you make it. You can feel her pain and frustration as she loses battle after battle against you. You chase her across the world, taking on everything she can throw at you. She becomes your nemesis, and you become hers. By the time you have the final confrontation, she is practically a member of the party. That, my friend, is a living, breathing character. Edit: To respond to Kelandon without double posting. Rentar was too deep character. I am sorry you seem to have missed out on that whole element of the plot. Rentar was constantly struggling with the values of her people versus the actual consensus of them. She felt she had a duty to avenge the crystal souls, but when she realized she had gone to far, her honor would not allow her to turn back. She had to constantly deal with her new crusade, which was all she had left, while at the same time be torn up inside by the fact that her own people did not support her. What character in Nethergate is so deep, may I ask? [ Sunday, September 10, 2006 20:37: Message edited by: Emperor Tullegolar ] -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
|
written Sunday, September 10 2006 21:07
Profile
A4 should have used the Darkside Loyalists as the main villians. The monster plagues should have been the out of control result of hiring allies to disrupt Avernum and separate it into regions that could be taken over piece meal instead of at once. The main plot would have been to identify the Darkside forces and disrupt their plans in each city area. I suggested that a later Avernum game could be in Nethergate style with the Darkside Loyalists trying to take over areas and the Avernum or Emipire agents trying to prevent them. You could have different missions in each area and an emphasis on different types of characters: stealth versus combat. Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Sunday, September 10 2006 21:32
Profile
Homepage
So you like the plagues of monsters plot, how refreshing. But how would it be like Nethergate? More Darkside Loyalists would be a good idea, but if you meet and defeat them in a single game, they wouldn't be so interesting. That's why I like Rentar, she evolved a little each game. I don't like mysterious enemies so much, as I like to feel what my enemies are going through rather than not even know who they are until the end. I guess that's what made Nethergate so special: the fact that you could play from both sides of the board. As for stealth versus combat situations, very Geneforge, I like it. It wouldn't hurt to merge that aspect into the next Avernum game. -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Monday, September 11 2006 03:48
Profile
Homepage
I would have actually developed the water monster angle. The fear that the shades brought was new and intriguing. But yes, I would have made those secondary to the Darkside Loyalists. Basically it would be like this: Rentar's revenge creates chaos in Avernum. Darkside Loyalists seize the opportunity to finally reveal themselves. Party goes after Rentar, thinks everything will be done, and then finds out that the darkside loyalists are still there and threatening. Then needs to deal with them. -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy Encyclopedia Ermariana - Trapped in the Closet ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Monday, September 11 2006 04:13
Profile
Homepage
Good points. I did half expect to fight a water monster at some point in Avernum 4 and was a bit disappointed when it didn't happen. Time restrictions, you suppose? Do you really think Rentar should have been made a sub-boss? This seems a bit demeaning for a villain as great as her. How could these Darkside Loyalists stack up against the greatest mage the caves have ever known? I wonder who their leader is... Probably just some Empire jerk we’ve never even met before. If it turned out to be Prazac double-crossing Avernum, then I would be intrigued! I suppose it matters not, as the plot you described will most likely come to fruition in the next game anyway. -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Monday, September 11 2006 05:02
Profile
quote:No, it's not. She actually has to do things and interact with the player in more than trivial ways. You seem to ascribe a lot more to Rentar than Jeff actually did. Rentar was a barely passable villain. I understand her motivations and all that, and it's good she had that -- that's what makes her passable. Beyond having basic motivation, she doesn't really do a whole lot. She pretty much sits in a place until the player comes and finds her, fights her, and flees. Repeat again twice in A4 except that she dies/leaves in the second encounter. You could have replaced her with Snidely Whiplash and his monster making machines for the same effect. The problem is Rentar (and most other villains in Avernum) are passive villains. They pretty much sit in their towers and antagonize the party. They don't move around and shake the plot personally, they have thousands of minions do it for them. The interactions with the player are fairly minimal. As for Nethergate, the point was not well developed characters, but an example of a good game that did not use monster plagues. The "villain" in the story could be the rival party that the player can use as well. That was fairly creative. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Monday, September 11 2006 06:10
Profile
Homepage
quote:This is something that Geneforge gets (mostly) right. -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy Encyclopedia Ermariana - Trapped in the Closet ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, September 11 2006 06:24
Profile
Homepage
quote:Where does this appear in the game? One character tells us this. That's it. Our only glimpses into Rentar's motivations were a couple of characters talking about her (and it's only a "couple" when you add one in A3 and one in A4). They say these things, but they're under-emphasized (mentioned once and never elaborated). We need more to care. In games as large as A2, A3, and A4, if Rentar is going to be the major, defining character, I'd expect a lot more information than we actually got: why does she feel stronger about crystal souls than everyone else? Why were so many of the vahnatai in apparent agreement with her at the end of A3 (disappearing), yet so few agree with her in A4? Why did it take her so darn long to start to take her revenge in A3, and why didn't she show any signs of being so angry in A2? What happened in that intervening time? At least some additional information needs to be given in order for Rentar not to appear to be a completely unsympathic and uncomplicated lunatic. And in no way does her "struggle" over values affect the party or the plotline: in A3, the whole point was that the game would have been 95% the same if Erika, the dragons, or some other interchangeable villain had done it. In A4, surprisingly, much the same is true: very little of A4 would have to change if suddenly Garzahd was behind it instead of Rentar. -------------------- 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 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Monday, September 11 2006 07:01
Profile
Or Snidely Whiplash for that matter. :P  [ Monday, September 11, 2006 07:02: Message edited by: *i ] -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Monday, September 11 2006 07:37
Profile
Geneforge 1 through 3 involve mostly passive villains, too. This doesn't hurt G1 so much because there are good reasons why everything is static until the player messes it up. It's a weakness in G2. In G3 the villains are only really non-static in the same way as Rentar-Ihrno is in A4: they run away, and live to fight another day. They may have acted aggressively in the immediate past, but during the game their only purposeful actions are to accost the PC and deliver cut-scene harangues. You never return to a once-friendly town to discover Master Hoge in the act of trashing it with a pack of Gazers, or anything like that. This actually worked not too badly, as far as I am concerned. Even a modest level of scripted activity can give an impression of active allies and enemies, and develop relationships with NPCs. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Monday, September 11 2006 10:31
Profile
Homepage
So, what you all seem to be asking for is an intricate plot where every detail is spelled out for you from the beginning to the end? What games do you play that give you this disposition? I suppose I must be taking my imagination for granted. I saw Rentar as something more than a common villain. She was once your ally: did you forget how she helped you out with a phoenix egg that one time? If it were not for her, Gazahd probably would have been the boss of Avernum 4. Poor Rentar had all the power in the world and yet could not garner the support of her own people, for whom she believed she was fighting. You guys don't feel for her at all? I am truly sorry you all missed out on that. I didn't realize you couldn't read between the lines. -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Monday, September 11 2006 10:42
Profile
Homepage
I think there are a few things that work well for maintaining a good plot, and I use plot very loosely. An active antagonist is good, a complicated antagonist is good, and both together are very good. The easiest way to manage that is to have the player encounter the villain regularly, especially in settings other than open combat. You only really sit down and chat with Rentar once in A3, and that's before you know she's guilty. After that, A3 and A4 involve only combat encounters with Rentar-Ihrno. To go along with that, factions work well. Having the Romans and the Celts in Nethergate succeeds in part because neither is the bad guys. You play as one side against the other, but your immediate antagonists are always other problems and direct confrontation only appears at the end. The final "villains" aren't even recognizable unless you've played though the other side of the story. Geneforge's sects do this too, but I'm not a Geneforge expert. The other solution is to give friendly characters more personality. A plague of monsters is fine if it's not the focus of everything. Rampaging mindless evil isn't very interesting, but society crumbling and a few people trying to hold everything together in the face of rampaging mindless evil can be interesting. —Alorael, who can summarize by saying that predicating a plot on killing things is a bad idea. Predicating a plot on diplomacy and dialogue is much better. Nethergate does this quite a bit, and A2 does it more than any other Avernum. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Monday, September 11 2006 11:59
Profile
Homepage
Again I must ask, what games are you playing where the main villain sits down with you, tells their life story, spells out their motive for you, and then proceeds to meet up with you on a regular basis to catch up on things? Alorael, your description of a perfect villain brings to mind Gary from Pokemon, not a very good villain or plot, in my opinion. I agree that Nethergate's Roman/Celts set up was most interesting, but it doesn't even follow your own guidelines as the two groups never really meet each other. Finally, as for giving friendly NPCs more personality: were you not excited to meet up with your old friends X, Solberg, Rone, and Kelner? Those guys have all kinds of back stories and airs of mystery and whatnot. Do you want each one of the little farmers that gives you side quests to have a back story as well? I would say this is an unreasonable request, but then I realized that most of them actually do have back stories. The mayor's wife in Mertis comes to mind. Does she meet your standards for a character with personality? -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Monday, September 11 2006 12:10
Profile
Homepage
Geneforge, I think. The enemy doesn't have to be a single person. Being able to talk to the other side and its sympathizers makes it less one-dimensional. A2 doesn't do this, but Nethergate does: you play as the other side and you also meet plenty of people who having leanings or just vocal ambivalence. Look at all the wizards you've named. How many have taken an active role at any time during the Avernum series? X never does anything, Solberg hangs around to give out plot advice and rewards, and Rone does the same with more senility. Only Kelner has changed at all, and even he doesn't really do anything. Yes, you are the heroic adventurers who save the world, but it would be nice to see other people doing something once in a while. —Alorael, who probably shouldn't have said personality. Jeff is good at personality. Development and activity in the context of a single game is a better criterion. Erika is the only one to act, and it's always in conjunction with the party. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Monday, September 11 2006 12:32
Profile
Homepage
So you expect NPCs to actually go out and do things. Not totally unreasonable. Erika is a good example of this, but then you say she should do more than just aid the party? You want the environment to evolve around you without the assistance of the players? That seems to most closely describe Avernum 3, not Geneforge. Also Nethergate, which I think we can conclude now had the most clever and unique story out of the whole lot. You say Geneforge is a good example of in-depth characters that do things. Who? Not anyone from Geneforge 1 or 2, they all just stay where they are and wait to be killed, they don't even run away to fight you again later. As for Litalia and Hodge, they really change little from the begining to the end. The seem to exist more for showcasing the development of your own character rather than themselves. Are you saying the plot should not be driven by the players? If you want to simply observe the story rather than drive it, perhaps you would be more suited to reading books than playing games. -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7452
|
written Monday, September 11 2006 13:37
Profile
Why, Avernum 1 had many different enemies (Sss-Thsss, the Nephilim, the Nephar, the Bandits, Brigands, Grah-Hoth, etc etc) And the final ¿epic? battle is against Emperor Hawthorne, of course. There you are :D Posts: 39 | Registered: Saturday, September 2 2006 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, September 11 2006 13:43
Profile
Homepage
quote:This is a silly argument. One might as well say that if you want to direct the course of a story yourself, you would be more suited to writing books than playing games. Everyone gets different things out of a game. I am reminded of a famous quote from Graham Nelson's excellent series of essays, The Craft of Adventure: "An adventure game is a crossword at war with a narrative". My preference is for a relatively tightly-structured narrative (which, given the constraints of the medium, implies a degree of linearity), but sometimes I prefer my narrative presented in the form of a game for the aspect of tactical challenge which that form brings. This, in fact, is the only reason I can tolerate Avernum 4: I can ignore the narrative and focus on the crossword. If its plot were presented in the form of a book (and there's no reason it couldn't be: the player's illusion of control over events is mostly just that), I wouldn't bother with it. [ Monday, September 11, 2006 14:05: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Monday, September 11 2006 13:51
Profile
quote:There should be a mixture. The player should not be responsible for every major thing that goes on. The antagonists or other factions (with interests different than either the party or the antagonist) should do things in response to the party's actions. This puts the party into a reactive rather than a proactive role. The Avernum series typically involved the player as a completely proactive entity. This doesn't mean the party should be completely reactive, but there should be a balance. quote:No, they shouldn't sit down and tell you everything through idle chats; that is too bland. However, the actions of the villain and his/her allies and adversaries can illustrate their motives and background. Nethergate is good because of its uniqueness. I don't think duplicating it would bode well. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Monday, September 11 2006 13:52
Profile
Homepage
I loved Trajkov and Goettsch from GF1 - both tried to use the party for their own ends and gain control of the island. They may not have literally moved, but they tried to woo you and trick you and then kill you. Geneforge 2 had the birth of drakons and then the eventual dark descent into GF3 and rebellion, which is in full force in GF4. Avernum goes a different route - there is a clear hero and a clear enemy. Avernum needs a savior, and here you are. You have a motive to kill Hawthorne. You need to free and then banish Grah-Hoth. All while exploring this new setting. Great! Avernum 2 is a great successor. There's the appropriate response to Hawthorne's assassination - war! And this theft of the crystal souls is brilliant! In come the Vahnatai - more exploration of foreign lands and you can bring peace to the caves. Avernum 3 sees the triumphant return to the surface. A lot of people don't like the A3 plot for some reason, but I love it! The whole new surface world, people are suspicious of your pale skin, and the ultimate goal to bring your people back to the surface. But Avernum 4 doesn't really do it for me with Rentar. I would have loved to see it go purely down the Darkside Loyalist road. There is a secret group of people in Avernum who want to take it down and you, as a member of Unspecified Services, need to find these people, discover their plots, foil them, and then destroy them. That would have been an awesome game! -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy Encyclopedia Ermariana - Trapped in the Closet ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, September 11 2006 14:01
Profile
Homepage
quote:And, importantly, a less predictable one. One of my main complaints about Avernum 4 is that it's by and large completely lacking in any element of mystery or suspense -- once we started to see Vahnatai showing up as antagonists near the start of the game, it became almost a foregone conclusion that Rentar would be behind all that was wrong with Avernum. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 247
|
written Monday, September 11 2006 14:56
Profile
Homepage
Hmm without reading through the thread. I would do it with a hockey stick in the parlour at 3:00am. Clue anyone? -------------------- The Knight Between Posts. Posts: 2395 | Registered: Friday, November 2 2001 08:00 |