First impressions

[JohnDoe60]

[I played around in the sandbox for 99 hrs in Dec. 2015, then jumped right into Wintermute last week. gotten as far as some survival school quests]

Looks good and plays well (no glitches, one crash when I fired the rifle just as a wolf attacked), only a few object terrain misalignments in out of the way places. Not enough story though, so it feels like mostly just fetch quests.

All stories are a linear series of fetch quests for information or items. The information and item objectives are key to the narrative, but the story is actually in the quest and not in the objectives. Without the details of the quests you are left with just the outline of a story presented as a series of objectives.
 
More story in a few places would be of benefit by turning fetches into adventures. e.g.: Getting wood for grandma's 10 min fire, and when fetching better meds for the trapper's wounds.
 
Both of those quests are presumably time sensitive, so it seems natural to turn them into cut scenes and semi-random scripted events which spotlight aspects of the environment and game play. The cut scenes could replace potentially random wanderings with a setup for whatever is in the spotlight.
 
`Need to fetch wood.'
 
...could become...
 
`Run into wolves fighting a bear and have to fight/run/hide or die, while fetching wood out in a blizzard so bad that best is a 50% chance of building the fire necessary to keep from freezing - may not be able to get back before she's frozen!'

The semi-random bit comes into play in selecting which hazards and events are presented each play-though. Difficulty can be controlled by things like requiring the wood bin be filled before what has been collected so far can be burnt, general weather conditions, or scarcity.
 
The trip for meds would make for a nice cut scene tour of one of the paths between the two locations, with some semi-random stuff based time pressure 'cause the trapper's condition is getting steadily worse. The player isn't really missing anything that can't be made up later on, when there isn't any time pressure, and the sequence can be a teaser for what's ahead.
 
I'll even go so far as to suggest leaning story mode in the direction of a teaser/trainer/tutorial for survival mode. The player should be eager to start wandering around and looking for some of the places and experiences they only got to see a piece of earlier because it was cut scene only (e.g., Forlorn Muskeg and most of Broken Railway when going to fix the rifle and returning) or there just wasn't enough time to fully explore.
 

[Fuarian]

I find it funny, because in one of the old teasers for missions, one of the objectives was to heal Jeremiah and there was a time limit. Meaning that he COULD DIE. I wonder what the implications of that would be? If the NPC's could die! 

[JAFO]

19 hours ago, JohnDoe60 said:

Both of those quests are presumably time sensitive

You'd think so, wouldn't you? Except that they're not. You can wander away for months if you want, and when you come back, they'll still be patiently waiting for you as if it were the day after you set out.

Totally immersion killing.

[JohnDoe60]

On 10/31/2017 at 7:18 AM, Fuarian said:

I find it funny, because in one of the old teasers for missions, one of the objectives was to heal Jeremiah and there was a time limit. Meaning that he COULD DIE. I wonder what the implications of that would be? If the NPC's could die! 

Shouldn't be any different from the player dying  - story unable to continue, load up the last save/checkpoint.

 

9 hours ago, JAFO said:

You'd think so, wouldn't you? Except that they're not. You can wander away for months if you want, and when you come back, they'll still be patiently waiting for you as if it were the day after you set out.

Totally immersion killing.

Ya, bits like that are asking for some game directed adventure to enforce a time limit. Taking wanderability away from the player when fetching the meds would also get rid of the blocked tunnel to the muskeg.

[Fuarian]

2 hours ago, JohnDoe60 said:

Shouldn't be any different from the player dying  - story unable to continue, load up the last save/checkpoint.

 

Ya, bits like that are asking for some game directed adventure to enforce a time limit. Taking wanderability away from the player when fetching the meds would also get rid of the blocked tunnel to the muskeg.

Ending the game saying "Mission Failed" because you ran out of time is ridiculous. That would piss people off. 

 

[selfless]

1 hour ago, Fuarian said:

Ending the game saying "Mission Failed" because you ran out of time is ridiculous. That would piss people off. 

 

Either its an "open world" adventure or its not.  Can't have both limitless freedom and constraints.  Its paradoxical.

[JohnDoe60]

5 hours ago, Fuarian said:

Ending the game saying "Mission Failed" because you ran out of time is ridiculous. That would piss people off. 

 

I don't know what game you are playing, but I've yet to see a "Mission Failed" message from dying - I've been starved, burnt, mauled, froze to death, slowly bled out, and have always been able to load up the last save or the last checkpoint. Also, getting pissed off because of failure to complete a task the game presents as having a time limit is a silly thing to be pissed about. It could be frustrating if the game was being unfair, but what I've suggested is wrapped by cut scenes so it would be easy to have the PC nag the player about how important it is to stick to the mission.

[JohnDoe60]

4 hours ago, selfless said:

Either its an "open world" adventure or its not.  Can't have both limitless freedom and constraints.  Its paradoxical.

That's what I thought when I ran into a tunnel and the game told me I can't go there yet.

Sending the player straight to the area they need to be in for the story to continue when there is supposed to be a time pressure will move the story along, remove the paradox of the old lady/trapper needing fuel/meds as urgently as you happen get around to it, and eliminate the need for blocking movement in what is supposed to be an open world game.

[Pillock]

The obvious solution to this is to make much more and much better use of the Trust mechanic.

The Trust system is pretty naff in its current form, to be frank: it's just a way of 'buying' extra stuff off the NPC that you don't really need. It feels pretty redundant to the overall flow of the game if you ask me.

If certain appropriate missions - like the wood and food gathering for Old Lady Misery or the meds collection for Jeremiah - were time limited, failing to complete them could result in a loss of Trust. Then you'd have to build your Trust level up again in order to move on with the main story.

There's so much more they could make of the Trust system. It's a really good idea in principle but what we've seen of it thus far is woefully underdeveloped and unsatisfying. Difficult moral choices are what I was expecting from Story mode - and there are none (rob/don't rob the gas station is utterly feeble in that regard).

[JAFO]

Well, Hinterland have stated that there's a lot about the episodes 1&2 gameplay that they want to re-work, so hopefully these kinds of concerns will be addressed.. we'll just have to wait and see.

[JohnDoe60]

18 hours ago, Pillock said:

If certain appropriate missions - like the wood and food gathering for Old Lady Misery or the meds collection for Jeremiah - were time limited, failing to complete them could result in a loss of Trust. Then you'd have to build your Trust level up again in order to move on with the main story.

Tying  the completing of Trust tasks to the story's progress would kinda force the PC into being "good".

[JohnDoe60]

11 hours ago, JAFO said:

Well, Hinterland have stated that there's a lot about the episodes 1&2 gameplay that they want to re-work, so hopefully these kinds of concerns will be addressed.. we'll just have to wait and see.

Ya, that's what prompted me to post.

[Pillock]

2 hours ago, JohnDoe60 said:

Tying  the completing of Trust tasks to the story's progress would kinda force the PC into being "good".

It already does, though.

You have to complete the missions that the NPCs give you otherwise you can't progress - and that means you already have to be "good". I was just suggesting that utilizing the Trust mechanic in the NPCs' willingness to give you the important story-progress tasks would allow things like time-limiting or otherwise failing of missions to come into play with the existing quests without the need to quit>reload>try again if you mess one up or choose to abandon it.

I would favour an approach where there were more missions than necessary, and you wouldn't always need to complete all of them in order to progress. They could be tiered so that at low a Trust-level you get 'Tier 1' missions; completion of one of them would allow you to get a 'Tier 2', while failure reduces your Trust and forces you to do more lower-level tasks or give them gifts to win it back; completion of a 'Tier 2 mission' would allow you to go to the next stage, and so on. That way it wouldn't get too repetitive with the same missions until you succeeded.

I'd also favour, as I think you were suggesting, a way of getting past an area of the game without being "good", or without succeeding in completing the missions you're given by the NPC. Your aim as Will seems primarily to be to find Astrid (Astrid seems to be doing all she can to avoid him, so far as I can tell, but maybe that's not true!): you need the NPCs, and you need to help them, because they know better than you do where she might have gone. But what if you were allowed to take a dislike to them, or if you lost their Trust to such an extent that they refused to talk to you any more? If there were a way to figure out how to move on from your location based on environmental clues (or tasks that derived from environmental clues that Will gave himself), so that you could follow Astrid's trail more independently, it would make the game feel much more interactive, I think. The current way the player interacts with the plot is so constrained and linear that I barely felt as though my actions or decisions were making any difference whatsoever. I felt like a passive observer to proceedings, not like an active participant.

[Fuarian]

On 11/1/2017 at 7:30 PM, JohnDoe60 said:

I don't know what game you are playing, but I've yet to see a "Mission Failed" message from dying - I've been starved, burnt, mauled, froze to death, slowly bled out, and have always been able to load up the last save or the last checkpoint. Also, getting pissed off because of failure to complete a task the game presents as having a time limit is a silly thing to be pissed about. It could be frustrating if the game was being unfair, but what I've suggested is wrapped by cut scenes so it would be easy to have the PC nag the player about how important it is to stick to the mission.

If an objective has a time limit and it runs out forcing you to load your previous save would be really frustrating if you can't complete it in time because of the environment. For example, there are wolves outside, you are low condition, it's bad weather. If you go out you die, if you wait you can survive. But if you wait the game gives "Mission Failed" and loads your previous save. It can cause you to get stuck.

[JAFO]

2 hours ago, Pillock said:

I would favour an approach where there were more missions than necessary, and you wouldn't always need to complete all of them in order to progress. They could be tiered so that at low a Trust-level you get 'Tier 1' missions; completion of one of them would allow you to get a 'Tier 2', while failure reduces your Trust and forces you to do more lower-level tasks or give them gifts to win it back; completion of a 'Tier 2 mission' would allow you to go to the next stage, and so on. That way it wouldn't get too repetitive with the same missions until you succeeded.

Heh.. in my second attempt at Wintermute, I arrived in Milton with enough rabbit pelts to max-out GM's trust right off the bat. Simplified things tremendously.

It wouldn't be hard to ensure leaving Milton with enough deer skins to do the same for Jeremiah. (almost makes me wish I'd thought of that sooner!)

[JohnDoe60]

8 hours ago, Pillock said:

It already does, though.

You have to complete the missions that the NPCs give you otherwise you can't progress - and that means you already have to be "good". I was just suggesting that utilizing the Trust mechanic in the NPCs' willingness to give you the important story-progress tasks would allow things like time-limiting or otherwise failing of missions to come into play with the existing quests without the need to quit>reload>try again if you mess one up or choose to abandon it.

The Trust missions are not required, afaict. You get blackmailed into helping the NPCs (to move the story along),  but it doesn't look like you need their trust for anything story related (yet).

 

8 hours ago, Pillock said:

..But what if you were allowed to take a dislike to them, or if you lost their Trust to such an extent that they refused to talk to you any more? If there were a way to figure out how to move on from your location based on environmental clues (or tasks that derived from environmental clues that Will gave himself), so that you could follow Astrid's trail more independently, it would make the game feel much more interactive, I think. The current way the player interacts with the plot is so constrained and linear that I barely felt as though my actions or decisions were making any difference whatsoever. I felt like a passive observer to proceedings, not like an active participant.

I expected to be told a story, if I could survive the environment long enough.

[JohnDoe60]

6 hours ago, Fuarian said:

If an objective has a time limit and it runs out forcing you to load your previous save would be really frustrating if you can't complete it in time because of the environment. For example, there are wolves outside, you are low condition, it's bad weather. If you go out you die, if you wait you can survive. But if you wait the game gives "Mission Failed" and loads your previous save. It can cause you to get stuck.

The main character always survives these kinds of things in stories.

It would be a little easier to set up situations if the PC actually had a backpack that could be dropped, because it wouldn't be fair to drop it in a cut scene but not allow the action in game. I just want backpacks though. The game would need to ensure the situation is winnable, maybe even adjust the difficulty on retries .

 

[cekivi]

Welcome to the forums @JohnDoe60

On ‎2017‎-‎11‎-‎02 at 6:48 PM, Pillock said:

I'd also favour, as I think you were suggesting, a way of getting past an area of the game without being "good", or without succeeding in completing the missions you're given by the NPC. Your aim as Will seems primarily to be to find Astrid (Astrid seems to be doing all she can to avoid him, so far as I can tell, but maybe that's not true!): you need the NPCs, and you need to help them, because they know better than you do where she might have gone. But what if you were allowed to take a dislike to them, or if you lost their Trust to such an extent that they refused to talk to you any more? If there were a way to figure out how to move on from your location based on environmental clues (or tasks that derived from environmental clues that Will gave himself), so that you could follow Astrid's trail more independently, it would make the game feel much more interactive, I think. The current way the player interacts with the plot is so constrained and linear that I barely felt as though my actions or decisions were making any difference whatsoever. I felt like a passive observer to proceedings, not like an active participant.

I'd be hugely in favour of this. Anything that increases player choice and game interaction always gets a +1 from me. 

I know it's a lot of work but for classic RPGs (like Fallout) the dev team tried to always give the player at least three ways to complete a quest (talk, fight, use a skill/item, etc.). It'd be great if @Raphael van Lierop can introduce some of that philosophy into the game's episodes going forward. A linear plot is fine provided that it's a broad line  

[hozz1235]

Beat the old woman into submission and take her rifle?