4: Sith Inquisitor: Jedi in love in alderaan. Is you are LS you can talk the Jedi master to give you the key without fight.. latter you must kill him anyway in other place. But still a change in what you fight and when. A DS Sith must kill both lovers to get the key.
i think the problem you will have with this post is that you'll need someone that played the same class twice up to level cap making the oppose choices to get any answers.
Youtube and conversations with guildies/other people who are online can bring those answers.
I have to add one - SPOILER - at the end of the BH line you can choose to kill the chancellor or the sith lord who sent you to kill him. BUT other than fighting one or the other, it does not mark you as a traitor to the empire or anything. You just go along your way again. No lasting effect.
Then it doesn't affect events beyond the cutscene.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
3: Sith Warrior; you must kill one of your masters. You can kill him or let him escape. Later his daughter confronts you if you killed him you should kill her also. But if you let him go you can tell to her and she left.
We can debate how effective this kind of change is, but it is the kind of choice that did change later events.
The question I have it - can you kill him and then just lie to her about it? Does she ever come back arfter never finding him alive? Why not just lie to her about it. The question is - is it illusion again? She will always come and talk to you and even if you killed him can you get away with it by being a sith and using deception? If so. Then it is again just window-dressing.
Is this an attempt to create the illusion that it's a free and open-ended game? Why not just call a spade a spade, would be a lot easier and honest that way. Creating a story-based MMO that is open-ended choice wise would take years and years to create, it's just not feasible.
"Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky
@baritone3k: but make a quest again is not a aesthetic consequence its a bad consequence but its a consequence for your decisions. Its the perfect example of taking a decision and suffer a consequence.
It's exaclty consequences done right. There are also a lot of quest that give you different rewards based on your decisions.
Creating a story-based MMO that is open-ended choice wise would take years and years to create, it's just not feasible.
Years and hundreds of millions of dollars? Pretty sure BW had those two things.
Not enough years, you just can't create an open-ended story-driven game without many years of work. Especially when you spend a good portion of that cash on video and voice-overs.
"Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky
Creating a story-based MMO that is open-ended choice wise would take years and years to create, it's just not feasible.
Years and hundreds of millions of dollars? Pretty sure BW had those two things.
Not enough years, you just can't create an open-ended story-driven game without many years of work. Especially when you spend a good portion of that cash on video and voice-overs.
I won't use years to do this. I will take about 10 minutes to type this out:
Quest: Kil Jedi X.
Options upon meeting Jedi X: 1. Kill Jedi X, 2. Convince jedi X to switch sides; 3. Join jedi X.
Branch from option 1: Return to sith turd who asked you to kill jedi X, get agreed upon reward or a twist "pray I don't alter the deal further".
Branch from option 2: Return to sith turd who asked you to kill jedi X. Explain jedi X is now on your side. Turd sith gives you same or better reward or attacks you for being an idiot and tricked by jedi X.
Branch from option 3: Having joined Jedi X, you now look for ways to help the republic through sabotage, etc. You go to the empire places and do the opposite of what you are suppsed to for the empire. You can then double-cross the jedi after getting the reward and get both rewards. It took longer and you got more XP and more rewards.
Add in betray turd sith to any of there options and fight him or have to flee him if he is more powerful than you are.
Fun option would be - you are blackisted from questing on Balmorra! So you have to do your questing on the parallel worlds that are there which were just an option before. Now you have only 2 of the 3 planets to choose from. THIS of course would require less linearity.
Creating a story-based MMO that is open-ended choice wise would take years and years to create, it's just not feasible.
Years and hundreds of millions of dollars? Pretty sure BW had those two things.
Not enough years, you just can't create an open-ended story-driven game without many years of work. Especially when you spend a good portion of that cash on video and voice-overs.
I won't use years to do this. I will take about 10 minutes to type this out:
Quest: Kil Jedi X.
Options upon meeting Jedi X: 1. Kill Jedi X, 2. Convince jedi X to switch sides; 3. Join jedi X.
Branch from option 1: Return to sith turd who asked you to kill jedi X, get agreed upon reward or a twist "pray I don't alter the deal further".
Branch from option 2: Return to sith turd who asked you to kill jedi X. Explain jedi X is now on your side. Turd sith gives you same or better reward or attacks you for being an idiot and tricked by jedi X.
Branch from option 3: Having joined Jedi X, you now look for ways to help the republic through sabotage, etc. You go to the empire places and do the opposite of what you are suppsed to for the empire. You can then double-cross the jedi after getting the reward and get both rewards. It took longer and you got more XP and more rewards.
Add in betray turd sith to any of there options and fight him or have to flee him if he is more powerful than you are.
Fun option would be - you are blackisted from questing on Balmorra! So you have to do your questing on the parallel worlds that are there which were just an option before. Now you have only 2 of the 3 planets to choose from. THIS of course would require less linearity.
Are you being sarcastic or is this an actual proposal ? Banning people from doing quests on a planet based on one quest choice? Damn the SWTOR developers for not thinking that one first .
I mean it would be so succesfull ....
/facepalm
PS.
Even better , if you make 3 wrong choices you get to not level at ANY planet.
Creating a story-based MMO that is open-ended choice wise would take years and years to create, it's just not feasible.
Years and hundreds of millions of dollars? Pretty sure BW had those two things.
Not enough years, you just can't create an open-ended story-driven game without many years of work. Especially when you spend a good portion of that cash on video and voice-overs.
I won't use years to do this. I will take about 10 minutes to type this out:
Quest: Kil Jedi X.
Options upon meeting Jedi X: 1. Kill Jedi X, 2. Convince jedi X to switch sides; 3. Join jedi X.
Branch from option 1: Return to sith turd who asked you to kill jedi X, get agreed upon reward or a twist "pray I don't alter the deal further".
Branch from option 2: Return to sith turd who asked you to kill jedi X. Explain jedi X is now on your side. Turd sith gives you same or better reward or attacks you for being an idiot and tricked by jedi X.
Branch from option 3: Having joined Jedi X, you now look for ways to help the republic through sabotage, etc. You go to the empire places and do the opposite of what you are suppsed to for the empire. You can then double-cross the jedi after getting the reward and get both rewards. It took longer and you got more XP and more rewards.
Add in betray turd sith to any of there options and fight him or have to flee him if he is more powerful than you are.
Fun option would be - you are blackisted from questing on Balmorra! So you have to do your questing on the parallel worlds that are there which were just an option before. Now you have only 2 of the 3 planets to choose from. THIS of course would require less linearity.
Are you being sarcastic or is this an actual proposal ? Banning people from doing quests on a planet based on one quest choice? Damn the SWTOR developers for not thinking that one first .
I mean it would be so succesfull ....
/facepalm
PS.
Even better , if you make 3 wrong choices you get to not level at ANY planet.
ROFL
I am 100 legit in this.
That is choice and consequence without destroying your ability to progress but feeling real. You have to gtfo of the planetbecause this sith ord has labeled you a traitor. You then have to alter documentation to try to erase record of you on that planet. It coud use slicing.
But YES. THIS is the type of cool decision, I personally and a lot of people I know woud find DYNAMIC. It doesn't have to be every planet and all the time, but it truly branches your leveling.
Think about how much more fun alts would be if you could take very different routes. And not just for alts. But your main. Yeah, "I skipped that awful planet Taris by kiling my 5th quest giver and then I went to PLanet Y instead". Tell me half the pop wouldn't want this option on Taris
Even if in the end you end up on that generic wheel space station and Malgus has betrayed the emprie, at least you got there your way.
THAT would also encourage replay. Not the 1/10th of your quests will be different they have now.
We can debate how effective this kind of change is, but it is the kind of choice that did change later events.
The question I have it - can you kill him and then just lie to her about it? Does she ever come back arfter never finding him alive? Why not just lie to her about it. The question is - is it illusion again? She will always come and talk to you and even if you killed him can you get away with it by being a sith and using deception? If so. Then it is again just window-dressing.
that's a good question, though I suspect "no" in most cases. The most significant choice consequences, from what I've seen, can determine the nature of the quest objectives. On Voss, for example, you can choose between cleansing some Jedi Shrines, or killing some critters to acheive the mission objective.
I DO know that I've been confronted as a BH for killing certain NPC's much earlier. But I don't recall if I had the option to spare that NPC's life, and thus, change that encounter.
Either way, long lasting consequences are impractical in a traditional MMO. You don't get a save game, so the consequences of your choices wouldn't be very clear. AND you'd miss content, as no one is going to redo 100 hours of gameplay to see how making a different decision would effect the story; let alone having MANY different outcomes. This has been debated on countless earlier threads.
Are you being sarcastic or is this an actual proposal ? Banning people from doing quests on a planet based on one quest choice? Damn the SWTOR developers for not thinking that one first .
I mean it would be so succesfull ....
/facepalm
PS.
Even better , if you make 3 wrong choices you get to not level at ANY planet.
ROFL
I remember, for a long time in earlier RPG's that they quite often had false choices. And what I mean by that is, like you said, acting a certain way pretty much blacklisted you from getting things done, EVEN IN MAIN QUESTLINES!!!
And yep. It was absurd then(with load and save buttons), and it would be just beyond silly now, in a game where you may have played 80 hours to get to that choice, and there's no reloading your last save.
Are you being sarcastic or is this an actual proposal ? Banning people from doing quests on a planet based on one quest choice? Damn the SWTOR developers for not thinking that one first .
I mean it would be so succesfull ....
/facepalm
PS.
Even better , if you make 3 wrong choices you get to not level at ANY planet.
ROFL
I remember, for a long time in earlier RPG's that they quite often had false choices. And what I mean by that is, like you said, acting a certain way pretty much blacklisted you from getting things done, EVEN IN MAIN QUESTLINES!!!
And yep. It was absurd then(with load and save buttons), and it would be just beyond silly now, in a game where you may have played 80 hours to get to that choice, and there's no reloading your last save.
Instead of following suit with the person who you quoted to a reductio ad absurdum version, check out my actual version of a branching storyline with options.
In my off the cuff version, the choice could shut you off from a portion of the game. It doesn't have to be extreme, but it should change the course of your journey.
Let's say the game gives you 2 or 3 planets to quest on between 20 and 25. You make this choice on one planet (it could even tell you, this will block you from future quests on this planet - like it does when you make the advanced class choice). Either way, you have 1 or 2 other planets to go to with the same level reqs.
If the choice is only available on one of the planets, then this crushing, terrible, debiliatating inability to quest on planet X doesn't even mean you can't pack up with your friends who didn't make the choice and proceed leveling elsewhere.
I am not sure why this would be such a big deal? It would be "dynamic" and influence your story. It would't have to be like losing age or statistics like if a lich touched you in D&D.
You choose to be a certain race. You are stuck with it. Permanent (except in WoW you can buy a change). You are stuck with a class and then at level 10 make the IRREVOCABLE decision to choose an advanced class. There are already fundamental decisions that shape your path.
Are you being sarcastic or is this an actual proposal ? Banning people from doing quests on a planet based on one quest choice? Damn the SWTOR developers for not thinking that one first .
I mean it would be so succesfull ....
/facepalm
PS.
Even better , if you make 3 wrong choices you get to not level at ANY planet.
ROFL
I remember, for a long time in earlier RPG's that they quite often had false choices. And what I mean by that is, like you said, acting a certain way pretty much blacklisted you from getting things done, EVEN IN MAIN QUESTLINES!!!
And yep. It was absurd then(with load and save buttons), and it would be just beyond silly now, in a game where you may have played 80 hours to get to that choice, and there's no reloading your last save.
Instead of following suit with the person who you quoted to a reductio ad absurdum version, check out my actual version of a branching storyline with options.
In my off the cuff version, the choice could shut you off from a portion of the game. It doesn't have to be extreme, but it should change the course of your journey.
Let's say the game gives you 2 or 3 planets to quest on between 20 and 25. You make this choice on one planet (it could even tell you, this will block you from future quests on this planet - like it does when you make the advanced class choice). Either way, you have 1 or 2 other planets to go to with the same level reqs.
If the choice is only available on one of the planets, then this crushing, terrible, debiliatating inability to quest on planet X doesn't even mean you can't pack up with your friends who didn't make the choice and proceed leveling elsewhere.
I am not sure why this would be such a big deal? It would be "dynamic" and influence your story. It would't have to be like losing age or statistics like if a lich touched you in D&D.
You choose to be a certain race. You are stuck with it. Permanent (except in WoW you can buy a change). You are stuck with a class and then at level 10 make the IRREVOCABLE decision to choose an advanced class. There are already fundamental decisions that shape your path.
Why not have some more dynamic ones as you go?
Thats a bit topsy turvy, much better approach is that you have 20 - 25 planets and at say level 1-10 there are 2-3 planets that have level 1-10 quests, etc. That would be your dynamic open universe right there potentially. Cutting you off from a zone is removing choice not adding it, just like only having restricted corridors to choose from is reducing choice and the sense of freedom. Another angle - your sense of immersion is much greater where there are not invisible barriers or annoying logic prevent you from going where you decide to go.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
I am not sure why this would be such a big deal? It would be "dynamic" and influence your story. It would't have to be like losing age or statistics like if a lich touched you in D&D.
You choose to be a certain race. You are stuck with it. Permanent (except in WoW you can buy a change). You are stuck with a class and then at level 10 make the IRREVOCABLE decision to choose an advanced class. There are already fundamental decisions that shape your path.
Why not have some more dynamic ones as you go?
You know that is a very good way of looking at it. You pick a class and if you play for 30 hours and end up not liking your adv class, you don't get a free redo class change button. I can't see the big issue with having choices ingame that you can not take back, that change the course of your characters story. Even if you make a choice you later regret you can try to make up for it with your later actions..... Just think about that. Instead of a story on rails you just sit and enjoy the ride, you have an active enaging story where you as the player actually feel responsible for your actions. In the end it will always remain the players therefore not trapping them in any way simply giving them a choice.
Thats a bit topsy turvy, much better approach is that you have 20 - 25 planets and at say level 1-10 there are 2-3 planets that have level 1-10 quests, etc. That would be your dynamic open universe right there potentially. Cutting you off from a zone is removing choice not adding it, just like only having restricted corridors to choose from is reducing choice and the sense of freedom. Another angle - your sense of immersion is much greater where there are not invisible barriers or annoying logic prevent you from going where you decide to go.
How would you then handle the thing that I find most immursive (Spelling) The story?
There are already four zones (Or so) a planet that you can level on. You're not cut off from it and you can do it anytime.
Thats a bit topsy turvy, much better approach is that you have 20 - 25 planets and at say level 1-10 there are 2-3 planets that have level 1-10 quests, etc. That would be your dynamic open universe right there potentially. Cutting you off from a zone is removing choice not adding it, just like only having restricted corridors to choose from is reducing choice and the sense of freedom. Another angle - your sense of immersion is much greater where there are not invisible barriers or annoying logic prevent you from going where you decide to go.
How would you then handle the thing that I find most immursive (Spelling) The story?
There are already four zones (Or so) a planet that you can level on. You're not cut off from it and you can do it anytime.
With one character?
I mean as for story just have it scale that way you can go to the other zones if you choose to level at other places.
Would be a solution IMO.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
They said early on in development that choices you make will have long term effects.
Then later on they recanted saying that they didn't like gameplay choices that made you feel stuck that you couldn't take back later.
Thats why they went with dark side and light side not having much difference... Only cosmetic and thats it...
Kinda disapointing.
I've been told that most of the Bioware ideas that didn't make it to launch were changed due to feedback from their testing community. IE companion leaving or death, light/dark side choices dictating what powers you received, etc. Not sure if that is entirely accurate. Any long time testers around that could shed some light on that?
And on the choices not mattering, (I'm leaving out operations as I've only played the first one for each side) while I didn't buy the game I did still play every class up to around 11th (Gunslinger and Marauder up to high 20s) to see what the story was like. Like the others complaining here I found my choices were almost entirely meaningless. As a dark side jedi or consular I was never in jepardy of getting discovered and thrown out of the order. With the exception of one or two sharp tongued one sentece retorts from my quest gver it was just business as usual. Same on sith side. My warrior could take all light side choices and still be the chosen one. My Imperial Agent could do likewise and still be thought of as the ruthless space pirate the was pretending to be. In all of this the only real effect these choices had was how much or how little affection I received from my companions. At first this did impact how I decided to make my choices. But then sadly I found out those choices turned out to be meaningless as you can just shower them with gifts and buy their loyalty that way.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
Are you being sarcastic or is this an actual proposal ? Banning people from doing quests on a planet based on one quest choice? Damn the SWTOR developers for not thinking that one first .
I mean it would be so succesfull ....
/facepalm
PS.
Even better , if you make 3 wrong choices you get to not level at ANY planet.
ROFL
I remember, for a long time in earlier RPG's that they quite often had false choices. And what I mean by that is, like you said, acting a certain way pretty much blacklisted you from getting things done, EVEN IN MAIN QUESTLINES!!!
And yep. It was absurd then(with load and save buttons), and it would be just beyond silly now, in a game where you may have played 80 hours to get to that choice, and there's no reloading your last save.
Instead of following suit with the person who you quoted to a reductio ad absurdum version, check out my actual version of a branching storyline with options.
In my off the cuff version, the choice could shut you off from a portion of the game. It doesn't have to be extreme, but it should change the course of your journey.
Let's say the game gives you 2 or 3 planets to quest on between 20 and 25. You make this choice on one planet (it could even tell you, this will block you from future quests on this planet - like it does when you make the advanced class choice). Either way, you have 1 or 2 other planets to go to with the same level reqs.
If the choice is only available on one of the planets, then this crushing, terrible, debiliatating inability to quest on planet X doesn't even mean you can't pack up with your friends who didn't make the choice and proceed leveling elsewhere.
I am not sure why this would be such a big deal? It would be "dynamic" and influence your story. It would't have to be like losing age or statistics like if a lich touched you in D&D.
You choose to be a certain race. You are stuck with it. Permanent (except in WoW you can buy a change). You are stuck with a class and then at level 10 make the IRREVOCABLE decision to choose an advanced class. There are already fundamental decisions that shape your path.
Why not have some more dynamic ones as you go?
Well... what Bladestorm said regarding that it REMOVES choice from a game, resulting in less freedom, but also...
Players will generally choose the dialogue and decisions which do NOT cut them off from content. Which, as in the examples I mentioned, makes those NON-choices and thus limits role and gameplay. the only way to do it is to create full content for each different option, which I think is what you're getting at.
Different planet options... that WOULD work if you do basically a non-faction character roll in the beginning because you're NOT going to have the resources to have 3 separate advancement paths for each and every class in a game.
So you start off as some neutral Joe who, through his decisions(let's use TOR) gets kicked off of neutral-world and ends up on Korriban training as a Sith. And so the story branches on.
Thing is though... though I DO like the idea of building my character without a premade beginner story and having that play out through my actions, you're either not going to get any more replayability out of it, or, each playthrough will be much shorter.
There's only ever a finite amount of content.
To illustrate my point... say you DID roll your character and enter TOR completely classless, on a neutral world. Say your actions then led you on the path to a class and everything was set up as it is now, EXCEPT you can choose to go to Dromund Kaas OR your could choose to go to Coruscant. And so on it went; each time you get to choose between the 2 factions. Now I'm not saying the content would be EXACTLY the same; it would be made in a way which makes sense for good/evil to be able to do missions there and have it make sense. But it would STILL be the same amount of content.
Would that offer more replay value than you have now?
What if we were to cut it from 2 sides to 3, adding a nuetral side, which would make each playthrough 2/3 as long. Would that offer more replay value? Maybe. But you're still only getting X hours out of the game til' you've done everything.
See, I LIKE the freedom idea. But replayability... hmmm... not so sure that would be enhanced by choice. And I'd hesitate to consider it "dynamic".
Originally posted by TardcoreSame on sith side. My warrior could take all light side choices and still be the chosen one. My Imperial Agent could do likewise and still be thought of as the ruthless space pirate the was pretending to be.
Worse yet, the dialogs still tell me how the dark side is strong in me, as a Light Side rank V Assassin. That seems like something glaring that could have been fixed with moderate effort. Just change that dialog part accounting for different degrees of light side/dark side characters: full on light/dark, somewhat ls/ds and still undecided.
I do remember a few times where I could choose different ways to accomplish an objective on my IA. Go in and shoot or blow the place up, or... Well, I never tried the other option, but the strong indication in the dialog was that the other choice would have let me finish the mission in a different way. But these choice-of-method missions were few and far between.
I also let the bad guy at the end of my IA's Act 1 get away. During the dialog it was mentioned that my choice would probably have that outcome and that another choice would have resulted in his demise, though it would have also had other bad consequences. I wonder if the bad guy would have made his escape in either case because he is needed later in the plot line, or if I could have really killed him off and now that he is still alive I will run into him again.
Probable reasons for lack of branching :
BW would have had to create a lot more content, and a part of it would have been wasted in that you wouldn't get to see it. The more meaningful choices, the more you would have missed.
Part of the meaningful choice would have been different rewards, which would have caused a lot of QQing about the lack of fairness. Similar to the manner to how a few patches ago we ended up with Biochem and Slicing being the only intelligent choices, we would have ended up with the perfect path through your story to grab the best rewards. Making a choice means having to live wit the consequences.
They said early on in development that choices you make will have long term effects.
Then later on they recanted saying that they didn't like gameplay choices that made you feel stuck that you couldn't take back later.
Thats why they went with dark side and light side not having much difference... Only cosmetic and thats it...
Kinda disapointing.
I've been told that most of the Bioware ideas that didn't make it to launch were changed due to feedback from their testing community. IE companion leaving or death, light/dark side choices dictating what powers you received, etc. Not sure if that is entirely accurate. Any long time testers around that could shed some light on that?
I wasn't there in the beginning but I could take a swipe at it.
By giving someone something of even remotely high significance, OR of taking it away, you are forcing players(thoruhg their nature) to make decisions which grant/preserve that thing, rather than choosing what they want to say.
Say you have X force power and you like it alot, but it's designated light side only. This would force you to avoid DS decisions to keep from losing it.
"Then just create a DS power which does pretty much the same thing!", someone might say.
Well... then where'd the significance, the consequence of your action go, again?
People will pretty much always gravitate toward doing whatever it is that makes their character as powerful as they can be. This is why many players will raid/grind/borrow/steal for weeks to get gear that makes them .2% more powerful than they were.
So, by promising anything like that in dialogue options, you're pretty much guiding people to make the "most profitable" dialogue choice, instead of having their character say what they want them to say.
Like I'd said before, this was the way alot of early RPG's did things. Being a total kiss-ass to NPC's who in turn would often treat you like day-old mop water is what got you the biggest rewards. Or at best, they'd just cut you off if you were a jerk.
Example Spoiler! I did not bow to a Sith Lord as Imperial Agent, I was given the option again, and I refused again and the bastard killed me. That is right, he shocked me with lightning and I freakin died and had to rez. More annoying than game changing.
Comments
A DS Sith must kill both lovers to get the key.
Then it doesn't affect events beyond the cutscene.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
We can debate how effective this kind of change is, but it is the kind of choice that did change later events.
The question I have it - can you kill him and then just lie to her about it? Does she ever come back arfter never finding him alive? Why not just lie to her about it. The question is - is it illusion again? She will always come and talk to you and even if you killed him can you get away with it by being a sith and using deception? If so. Then it is again just window-dressing.
Someone please make a good MMO.
Is this an attempt to create the illusion that it's a free and open-ended game? Why not just call a spade a spade, would be a lot easier and honest that way. Creating a story-based MMO that is open-ended choice wise would take years and years to create, it's just not feasible.
"Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky
It's exaclty consequences done right. There are also a lot of quest that give you different rewards based on your decisions.
Years and hundreds of millions of dollars? Pretty sure BW had those two things.
Everything creates huge amounts of negativity on the internet, that's what the internet is for: Negativity, porn and lolcats.
Not enough years, you just can't create an open-ended story-driven game without many years of work. Especially when you spend a good portion of that cash on video and voice-overs.
"Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky
Romance, Choices in certain companion missions and flashpoints, gear if you want to get technical.
Keep in mind the more it affects you the more they have to work adding content to show said affects.
I don't care about innovation I care about fun.
Wrong genre my friend
Unless Bentheda release The Elder Scrolls online in the last few seconds I am unaware of any sandbox that give you choices.
I don't care about innovation I care about fun.
I won't use years to do this. I will take about 10 minutes to type this out:
Quest: Kil Jedi X.
Options upon meeting Jedi X: 1. Kill Jedi X, 2. Convince jedi X to switch sides; 3. Join jedi X.
Branch from option 1: Return to sith turd who asked you to kill jedi X, get agreed upon reward or a twist "pray I don't alter the deal further".
Branch from option 2: Return to sith turd who asked you to kill jedi X. Explain jedi X is now on your side. Turd sith gives you same or better reward or attacks you for being an idiot and tricked by jedi X.
Branch from option 3: Having joined Jedi X, you now look for ways to help the republic through sabotage, etc. You go to the empire places and do the opposite of what you are suppsed to for the empire. You can then double-cross the jedi after getting the reward and get both rewards. It took longer and you got more XP and more rewards.
Add in betray turd sith to any of there options and fight him or have to flee him if he is more powerful than you are.
Fun option would be - you are blackisted from questing on Balmorra! So you have to do your questing on the parallel worlds that are there which were just an option before. Now you have only 2 of the 3 planets to choose from. THIS of course would require less linearity.
Someone please make a good MMO.
Are you being sarcastic or is this an actual proposal ? Banning people from doing quests on a planet based on one quest choice? Damn the SWTOR developers for not thinking that one first .
I mean it would be so succesfull ....
/facepalm
PS.
Even better , if you make 3 wrong choices you get to not level at ANY planet.
ROFL
I am 100 legit in this.
That is choice and consequence without destroying your ability to progress but feeling real. You have to gtfo of the planetbecause this sith ord has labeled you a traitor. You then have to alter documentation to try to erase record of you on that planet. It coud use slicing.
But YES. THIS is the type of cool decision, I personally and a lot of people I know woud find DYNAMIC. It doesn't have to be every planet and all the time, but it truly branches your leveling.
Think about how much more fun alts would be if you could take very different routes. And not just for alts. But your main. Yeah, "I skipped that awful planet Taris by kiling my 5th quest giver and then I went to PLanet Y instead". Tell me half the pop wouldn't want this option on Taris
Even if in the end you end up on that generic wheel space station and Malgus has betrayed the emprie, at least you got there your way.
THAT would also encourage replay. Not the 1/10th of your quests will be different they have now.
Someone please make a good MMO.
that's a good question, though I suspect "no" in most cases. The most significant choice consequences, from what I've seen, can determine the nature of the quest objectives. On Voss, for example, you can choose between cleansing some Jedi Shrines, or killing some critters to acheive the mission objective.
I DO know that I've been confronted as a BH for killing certain NPC's much earlier. But I don't recall if I had the option to spare that NPC's life, and thus, change that encounter.
Either way, long lasting consequences are impractical in a traditional MMO. You don't get a save game, so the consequences of your choices wouldn't be very clear. AND you'd miss content, as no one is going to redo 100 hours of gameplay to see how making a different decision would effect the story; let alone having MANY different outcomes. This has been debated on countless earlier threads.
I remember, for a long time in earlier RPG's that they quite often had false choices. And what I mean by that is, like you said, acting a certain way pretty much blacklisted you from getting things done, EVEN IN MAIN QUESTLINES!!!
And yep. It was absurd then(with load and save buttons), and it would be just beyond silly now, in a game where you may have played 80 hours to get to that choice, and there's no reloading your last save.
Instead of following suit with the person who you quoted to a reductio ad absurdum version, check out my actual version of a branching storyline with options.
In my off the cuff version, the choice could shut you off from a portion of the game. It doesn't have to be extreme, but it should change the course of your journey.
Let's say the game gives you 2 or 3 planets to quest on between 20 and 25. You make this choice on one planet (it could even tell you, this will block you from future quests on this planet - like it does when you make the advanced class choice). Either way, you have 1 or 2 other planets to go to with the same level reqs.
If the choice is only available on one of the planets, then this crushing, terrible, debiliatating inability to quest on planet X doesn't even mean you can't pack up with your friends who didn't make the choice and proceed leveling elsewhere.
I am not sure why this would be such a big deal? It would be "dynamic" and influence your story. It would't have to be like losing age or statistics like if a lich touched you in D&D.
You choose to be a certain race. You are stuck with it. Permanent (except in WoW you can buy a change). You are stuck with a class and then at level 10 make the IRREVOCABLE decision to choose an advanced class. There are already fundamental decisions that shape your path.
Why not have some more dynamic ones as you go?
Someone please make a good MMO.
Thats a bit topsy turvy, much better approach is that you have 20 - 25 planets and at say level 1-10 there are 2-3 planets that have level 1-10 quests, etc. That would be your dynamic open universe right there potentially. Cutting you off from a zone is removing choice not adding it, just like only having restricted corridors to choose from is reducing choice and the sense of freedom. Another angle - your sense of immersion is much greater where there are not invisible barriers or annoying logic prevent you from going where you decide to go.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
You know that is a very good way of looking at it. You pick a class and if you play for 30 hours and end up not liking your adv class, you don't get a free redo class change button. I can't see the big issue with having choices ingame that you can not take back, that change the course of your characters story. Even if you make a choice you later regret you can try to make up for it with your later actions..... Just think about that. Instead of a story on rails you just sit and enjoy the ride, you have an active enaging story where you as the player actually feel responsible for your actions. In the end it will always remain the players therefore not trapping them in any way simply giving them a choice.
How would you then handle the thing that I find most immursive (Spelling) The story?
There are already four zones (Or so) a planet that you can level on. You're not cut off from it and you can do it anytime.
I don't care about innovation I care about fun.
With one character?
I mean as for story just have it scale that way you can go to the other zones if you choose to level at other places.
Would be a solution IMO.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
I've been told that most of the Bioware ideas that didn't make it to launch were changed due to feedback from their testing community. IE companion leaving or death, light/dark side choices dictating what powers you received, etc. Not sure if that is entirely accurate. Any long time testers around that could shed some light on that?
And on the choices not mattering, (I'm leaving out operations as I've only played the first one for each side) while I didn't buy the game I did still play every class up to around 11th (Gunslinger and Marauder up to high 20s) to see what the story was like. Like the others complaining here I found my choices were almost entirely meaningless. As a dark side jedi or consular I was never in jepardy of getting discovered and thrown out of the order. With the exception of one or two sharp tongued one sentece retorts from my quest gver it was just business as usual. Same on sith side. My warrior could take all light side choices and still be the chosen one. My Imperial Agent could do likewise and still be thought of as the ruthless space pirate the was pretending to be. In all of this the only real effect these choices had was how much or how little affection I received from my companions. At first this did impact how I decided to make my choices. But then sadly I found out those choices turned out to be meaningless as you can just shower them with gifts and buy their loyalty that way.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
Well... what Bladestorm said regarding that it REMOVES choice from a game, resulting in less freedom, but also...
Players will generally choose the dialogue and decisions which do NOT cut them off from content. Which, as in the examples I mentioned, makes those NON-choices and thus limits role and gameplay. the only way to do it is to create full content for each different option, which I think is what you're getting at.
Different planet options... that WOULD work if you do basically a non-faction character roll in the beginning because you're NOT going to have the resources to have 3 separate advancement paths for each and every class in a game.
So you start off as some neutral Joe who, through his decisions(let's use TOR) gets kicked off of neutral-world and ends up on Korriban training as a Sith. And so the story branches on.
Thing is though... though I DO like the idea of building my character without a premade beginner story and having that play out through my actions, you're either not going to get any more replayability out of it, or, each playthrough will be much shorter.
There's only ever a finite amount of content.
To illustrate my point... say you DID roll your character and enter TOR completely classless, on a neutral world. Say your actions then led you on the path to a class and everything was set up as it is now, EXCEPT you can choose to go to Dromund Kaas OR your could choose to go to Coruscant. And so on it went; each time you get to choose between the 2 factions. Now I'm not saying the content would be EXACTLY the same; it would be made in a way which makes sense for good/evil to be able to do missions there and have it make sense. But it would STILL be the same amount of content.
Would that offer more replay value than you have now?
What if we were to cut it from 2 sides to 3, adding a nuetral side, which would make each playthrough 2/3 as long. Would that offer more replay value? Maybe. But you're still only getting X hours out of the game til' you've done everything.
See, I LIKE the freedom idea. But replayability... hmmm... not so sure that would be enhanced by choice. And I'd hesitate to consider it "dynamic".
Worse yet, the dialogs still tell me how the dark side is strong in me, as a Light Side rank V Assassin. That seems like something glaring that could have been fixed with moderate effort. Just change that dialog part accounting for different degrees of light side/dark side characters: full on light/dark, somewhat ls/ds and still undecided.
I do remember a few times where I could choose different ways to accomplish an objective on my IA. Go in and shoot or blow the place up, or... Well, I never tried the other option, but the strong indication in the dialog was that the other choice would have let me finish the mission in a different way. But these choice-of-method missions were few and far between.
I also let the bad guy at the end of my IA's Act 1 get away. During the dialog it was mentioned that my choice would probably have that outcome and that another choice would have resulted in his demise, though it would have also had other bad consequences. I wonder if the bad guy would have made his escape in either case because he is needed later in the plot line, or if I could have really killed him off and now that he is still alive I will run into him again.
Probable reasons for lack of branching :
BW would have had to create a lot more content, and a part of it would have been wasted in that you wouldn't get to see it. The more meaningful choices, the more you would have missed.
Part of the meaningful choice would have been different rewards, which would have caused a lot of QQing about the lack of fairness. Similar to the manner to how a few patches ago we ended up with Biochem and Slicing being the only intelligent choices, we would have ended up with the perfect path through your story to grab the best rewards. Making a choice means having to live wit the consequences.
I wasn't there in the beginning but I could take a swipe at it.
By giving someone something of even remotely high significance, OR of taking it away, you are forcing players(thoruhg their nature) to make decisions which grant/preserve that thing, rather than choosing what they want to say.
Say you have X force power and you like it alot, but it's designated light side only. This would force you to avoid DS decisions to keep from losing it.
"Then just create a DS power which does pretty much the same thing!", someone might say.
Well... then where'd the significance, the consequence of your action go, again?
People will pretty much always gravitate toward doing whatever it is that makes their character as powerful as they can be. This is why many players will raid/grind/borrow/steal for weeks to get gear that makes them .2% more powerful than they were.
So, by promising anything like that in dialogue options, you're pretty much guiding people to make the "most profitable" dialogue choice, instead of having their character say what they want them to say.
Like I'd said before, this was the way alot of early RPG's did things. Being a total kiss-ass to NPC's who in turn would often treat you like day-old mop water is what got you the biggest rewards. Or at best, they'd just cut you off if you were a jerk.
Example Spoiler! I did not bow to a Sith Lord as Imperial Agent, I was given the option again, and I refused again and the bastard killed me. That is right, he shocked me with lightning and I freakin died and had to rez. More annoying than game changing.