cRPG...I hate to sound dumb, but c means what? I've heard it used different ways.

I think to do truth spells and such in most systems is near impossible to do effectively because you essentially have to ask questions you already know the answer to and that is not very fun for anyone.

Though with free form RPGs it's up to the player so in that type of system it's pretty useless as well.


Now with some spells. mainly dizzy and confusion types, it's a matter of simply changing input...

if we're talking a hijacking where another character takes over...that's solved very easily. You have a stat such as will and then you have a gauge that makes you do something to regain control of the character that is effected by will. So while you're taking control away you are are doing what the character would be doing in that situation...fighting the control with will power.

(cRPG = Computer RPG ie, not pen and paper)

I think Durakken raises a good point. It is OK to take control away, providing the player is still doing something. Watching your player fall over, loose control, say the wrong thing, would be very frustrating. But if the player can choose to override this then it would play like a normal game mechanic such as an enemy. For the speach, maybe the player only has a certain number of "will points" to override the characters choice of words.

Also, for drunkenness, reversing controls sounds quite amusing :P

Depends on how it's done.

What I personally hate is when, in a Diablo-style game, my character becomes uncontrollable for a time. For example, imagine each time my character gets hit, his attack animation gets canceled and I have to watch him flinch in pain instead. In the few occasions the attack actually completes, the enemy doesn't flinch and happily keeps dealing blows.

Or when you're thrown to the ground. Enemies around you butcher your character while it's lying in the mud and just when you get up again, another enemy throws you back down in perfect timing. Basically, because of some bad random number generator decisions, you can watch your character be slaughtered without being able to do anything.

Or, final example, when the game gives me direct control to deal out blows with the sword and, instead of making enemies tough, most of the battle consists of my character 'missing' an enemy that's impossible to miss. Make hit/miss depend on my own skill and let the enemy handle the hits (parrying, blocking, pure toughness) - that would be far less annoying.

-

Other than above kinds of hijacking which lead to my character being exhibited like a defenseless weakling, I don't care that much.

Those multiple choice conversation systems never hold the answers I would chose. Never. My character could as well jabber away with his own script or say nothing, it would only save me from having to make an arbitrary choice between three disagreeable options =)

Quote:

Original post by Cygon

Wow Cygon, some very interesting points you raise as a player;

Quote:

What I personally hate is when, in a Diablo-style game, my character becomes uncontrollable for a time...

If the game explained to you that it is unwise to surround yourself with enemies who can do this to you would that alleviate this issue? It seems as though you are facing enemies who require a more cautious strategy but the game has not properly trained you to deal with them (or maybe you ignored that training?).

Quote:

instead of making enemies tough, most of the battle consists of my character 'missing' an enemy that's impossible to miss

What do you mean by 'impossible to miss' exactly? I think that being hard to hit is another form of being tough. Are you confusing "Did not hit" with "Hit but did no damage"? It always seemed to me that Diablo did not really differentiate between these two ideas. It may also be the limitations of the game's engine that prevent it from communicating all the subtlety of combat to you.

Quote:

Other than above kinds of hijacking which lead to my character being exhibited like a defenseless weakling, I don't care that much.

You want to identify strongly with your character, but it offends you to be forced to identify with a character who is a weakling (in your eyes).

Quote:

Those multiple choice conversation systems never hold the answers I would chose. Never.

Again, I hear you want to identify strongly with your character, but asking you to condone their canned responses forces you to identify with something you find disagreeable. It's very interesting to me that you have such a visceral response to this. What if the choice of conversation actually affects the gameplay at a later stage? You could potentially make an ally or an enemy in simple conversation who would later on make a big difference in a fight. Is that outside the realm of interesting gameplay for you? Or is it that you don't want to identify with the idea that your relationships with other characters can materially affect the outcome of your actions?

My partner and I designed a game where the player was a soldier, taking orders from an NPC. He'd make a few decisions, and then the game would push him around on the map. The play-testers hated it.

Quote:

Original post by Symphonic Quote: What I personally hate is when, in a Diablo-style game, my character becomes uncontrollable for a time... If the game explained to you that it is unwise to surround yourself with enemies who can do this to you would that alleviate this issue?

I think I simply don't like the mechanic of "flinching".

If my character swings his sword, I expect him to finish the move. Even if, theoretically, an enemy stabs my character or otherwise badly hurts my character during that time, until the pain is felt, my character's attack would have been finished.

Or as another example, if you're playing a character with high constitution and strength value, it should be a valid move to intentionally take a hit in order to land a heavy strike of your own on the enemy.

Quote:

Original post by Symphonic Quote: instead of making enemies tough, most of the battle consists of my character 'missing' an enemy that's impossible to miss What do you mean by 'impossible to miss' exactly? I think that being hard to hit is another form of being tough. Are you confusing "Did not hit" with "Hit but did no damage"?

I have played some RPGs where my character was standing in front of an enemy with a sword two times the reach he requires - miss, miss, miss, miss, miss, miss, miss, miss, miss, miss, miss, miss, hit, won.

All because some small enemy has an insane dexterity value. The "Hit but did no damage" concept is exactly what I was referring to. If the enemy is able to block, raise a shield or has just too much armor, then I can live with that.

If he actually manages to evade by blow (and by that I don't mean I see the enemy character, precisely pull my sword through his body and am told that I missed). Yes, that's an engine thing - getting an enemy to realistically evade is quite an effort. But instead of solving it like "imagine he evaded if the game could render it" - which destroys immersion - I prefer seeing him block or use a shield.

Quote:

Original post by Symphonic Quote: Other than above kinds of hijacking which lead to my character being exhibited like a defenseless weakling, I don't care that much. You want to identify strongly with your character, but it offends you to be forced to identify with a character who is a weakling (in your eyes).

Yes, that's spot-on.

Quote:

Original post by Symphonic Quote: Those multiple choice conversation systems never hold the answers I would chose. Never. Again, I hear you want to identify strongly with your character, but asking you to condone their canned responses forces you to identify with something you find disagreeable. It's very interesting to me that you have such a visceral response to this. What if the choice of conversation actually affects the gameplay at a later stage? You could potentially make an ally or an enemy in simple conversation who would later on make a big difference in a fight. Is that outside the realm of interesting gameplay for you? Or is it that you don't want to identify with the idea that your relationships with other characters can materially affect the outcome of your actions?

Even if I can mold the future of the game by the choices I make in conversation, if I have to make a decision I would never have made myself, my avatar alienates itself from me, so to say.

Or if I know that a choice will lead to the results I wish for, but the wording indicates that this is for vastly different reasons. Happens all the time.

It is very interesting to be able to shape the world and story, to make friends and enemies, but most games force me into a character I can't identify with. I know it's hard to offer enough choices to satisfy any player's personality and you quickly have a complexity explosion if the storyline has to adjust to lots of possibilities - maybe I'm just not mainstream enough.