Lionhead's imminent announcement...

[ThunderPeel2001]

I'm already annoyed with myself for buying this when it comes out, as it'll inevitably end up failing to deliver on all these grand promises.

To be fair, the things Nevsky list don't seem all that grand to me...

[toblix]

To be fair, the things Nevsky list don't seem all that grand to me...

Well, I guess it's something all RPGs promise, which is decisions that AFFECT THE WORLD, but ultimately only affects some specific thing later on, and the connection is obvious, like giving the beggar a gold piece makes him appear to open a secret entrance later on, stuff like that.

To be honest, I think I'm more comfortable with that stuff being like it is in current games. I have this need to experience everything in games, and if there's an almost chaotic system where everything affects everything else, I'll never be able to replay with the goal of making all the opposite choices to see the other set of results.

That reminds me, I have to replay GTA IV while I still remember who I chose to kill on the park bench.

[Garple]

Personally, I'm pleased to hear this. I wasn't sure if they were going to continue with the Fable games. Yes...it almost certainly won't include everything they promise for it, but it will still be a big leap forward, and a lot of quirky fun. I'd rather play Molyneux's ambitious "failures" then another mediocre FPS.

[ThunderPeel2001]

That reminds me, I have to replay GTA IV while I still remember who I chose to kill on the park bench.

Did anyone try firing a missile at them to try and take them both out? (Just wondered what would happen )

[toblix]

Or running them over with an ice-cream truck?

[ThunderPeel2001]

Or running them over with an ice-cream truck?

I don't think you're allowed to get within a certain distance of them... I think a missile launcher is your only hope. (I guess no-one tried it?)

[Patters]

I don't think you're allowed to get within a certain distance of them... I think a missile launcher is your only hope. (I guess no-one tried it?)

I seem to remember that in the game it was before the rocket launcher was able to be bought (maybe by cheats you could do it though).

[Roderick]

Personally, if I am not playing in one of the extremes (and have horns or ethereal glow, or the golden retriever or the hyena that go along with either) I feel like I am doing a middling job of playing the game.

If I play without paying attention to the sliders, I tend to end up smack in the middle, because I like compensation for services rendered, but am not a psychopath.

That's another great example of what's wrong with the game judging your actions in any shape or form. It will almost always push you into going to the extreme, either for the sense of accomplishment, the achievement or just because it's 'there', because it's a mountain to climb, a bar to max out.

I think the best argument Chris has given so far for keeping the bars is so the player can check on his progress because it will eventually give him more dialogue options. But Mass Effect already had a way better system for this: the skill bars that you could distribute points to.

As I review this thread, a slight majority hinges towards 'remove them', whereas the broad opposite side doesn't see the bars as a big problem, but won't necessarily miss them either, provided their small benefits get funnelled through some other system. Man, this is a great discussion though, including the tangent of how attractive achievements are (or rather, irresistible). It made me decide that I'm going to try to find a way to deactivate them on my 360. Is that even possible? I want to regain the ability to simply enjoy games for what they are and offer, because I notice I fall into the achievement trap almost every single time. And as long as it's there (and in my face), I won't be able to resist.

(Tangentially, I brought up the point of the binary judgement system this morning on the Gamescom while interviewing a producer on Mass Effect 2. There wasn't really time to delve into it properly, but he did mention it wasn't a point that he had heard often in discussing the series. That might mean that I am completely off track with my ideas, or perhaps that most people have already accepted it as an unquestionable trope of the genre. In any case, I was happy to have been able to bring it up.

[Thrik]

I'm very glad I never got the 'achievement bug'. I feel absolutely no compulsion whatsoever to achieve them, but I can very easily see how having such temptation would adversely affect my enjoyment of the game.

[Roderick]

Yeah, I mean, basically my argument is that I'm incredibly weak.

[wegten]

I don't think the terribleness of achievements is inherent in their design - it's just that most games have them implemented terribly.

The only games that have achievements that I've been impressed by are Civilization Revolution and Left 4 Dead. A decent number of the achievements for those games are there to get players to try new tactics, versus just hitting some arbitrary bar.

I guess the real problem is that achievements are required across the board.

[Chris]

I think the best argument Chris has given so far for keeping the bars is so the player can check on his progress because it will eventually give him more dialogue options. But Mass Effect already had a way better system for this: the skill bars that you could distribute points to.

As I review this thread, a slight majority hinges towards 'remove them', whereas the broad opposite side doesn't see the bars as a big problem, but won't necessarily miss them either, provided their small benefits get funnelled through some other system.

First off, I'm not arguing for keeping the bars. I'm just explaining why I think Mass Effect's system works pretty well. I'm not saying future games shouldn't try other things, or anything like that. Ideally, somebody would make a genuinely transparent system that is also still meaningful enough that it doesn't just become pointless.

Anyway, yes you can allocate points to those skills. But the whole point of the Paragon/Renegade system is that your maximum skill points in those skills are capped by how much Paragon or Renegade stuff you've done. This makes a lot more sense than the generic skill system, where the vague accrual of "experience" is equally valid for use in a gun-related skill or a healing-related skill, for example. In the case of the conversation system, you only have the ability to tangibly improve your conversation skill if you "practice" that form of conversation. But unlike Oblivion or other games with similar "learning" mechanics, you still do have more RPG-like direct control over the rate of those skills. That is to say, you could be "practicing" Renegade or Paragon constantly simply by the choices you make, but if you as a player don't actually care about that aspect of the game, you don't have to use your skill points to boost them, even though your "practice" has raised your potential cap.

[Roderick]

That's a good point. I understand this system works quite well in that respect. It doesn't take away my own gripes with it, but then this has always been a matter of preferences. In any case, I for one also welcome new systems and experimentation. I think we fully agree on that. Let's see how it pans out in future games that feature these kinds of things, and review the situation from there.