Theme-based campaigns?

[Tels]

Because they hate them. They break immersion for them and feel illogical because *they* *are* the player character. To suddenly hear a disembodied voice just doesn't work for some players.

 

Beta testers will be instructed that they *must* have voice enabled. Where appropriate, the FM should be issued with "voice clues" or "voice clues but not critical." Anyone who turns them off has to accept they might miss a clue.

 

A voice clue must be defined as an absolute clue that the player could not know otherwise. A hint such as "I need to get up there." might not be enough (depending on situation) because many players would prefer to figure that out for themselves.Strong but vague hints should be included such as "must be something around here to open that door." where there is a hidden lever and there is no way the player could know that. This is a grey area and suggests there should be a cvar strength so the player can set player voice to either: atmosphere, weak hints, strong hints, critical clues. The last would be very rare so there may be a view that they should not be turn-offable. "If I jump down into that water there is no way back. I must find a rope arrow first." Bad example because an FM author should never create such a situation.

 

This is yet another example of why I have emphasised over and over that we should have mapper created options on the difficulty screen. If they were already in place we would not need to implement anything new. They are general purpose spawnargs that at its simplest just determine whether something is spawned or not. That gives massive power and flexibility to both mapper and player. In this case you could play on expert yet still have all player voice speeches. Or you could play on Easy and have all player voices off. Lots of combinations. Diluting the possibilities to make things easier for beta testing is not good imo.

 

There is no need for this. Simply add a volume slider vor "player voice overs" in the menu, and let the player decide how loud or not he wants to hear them. Then simply mark all audio clues as "player voice over" in the map (easy add a new spawnarg to the speaker like "s_voiceover") and let the menu slider affect all these speakers. It already works for the ambient music and is easiy to replicate.

[STiFU]

Triplepost tzzz!

 

Well, we won't have to kill them, if somebody impartial opened a thread like that as a general discussion with no link to TDM whatsoever. But then again, your volumelever option seems fine to me.

 

Edit: Quadruple post even!!

Edited January 30, 2010 by STiFU

[Fidcal]

A volume lever is the minimum but why force players to listen to all the sounds they don't want just for a single important clue?

 

Just found I can create cvars in script that the user can include in their config. So I can implement this in ten minutes given the voice files because it is basically the same as my secrets script but instead of triggers triggering "Found a Secret" and playing a trill sound, it just needs to play a voice.

[Ishtvan]

(If your mapper mentions the name of the main character and it is male, well, I consider that bad mission design

That was the case in all the Thief OMs, T2X (replace male with female), probably 90% of FMs. Are those all badly designed? Beyond that, how can someone tell a good story with a completely gender-neutral protagonist? I have read novels where the main character is female, and those where they are male. A main characer that's a different gender from me is not nearly so disturbing as a main character so poorly defined that they don't even have a gender.

 

In an ideal world, we would have vocals for both male and female parts, and let the player choose. If we can't have that, then I trust the author of the story to pick a gender and record vocals for that, to tell a good story with their player-character. That is better than playing a completely mute character.

 

Besides, our player grunts are decidedly male. We would have to have to provide an option to silence all those (and lose all that feedback) for your gender-neutral protagonist as well.

[Springheel]

I might turn to the wiki to find answers to some further questions. Who gets to vote? "aldermen" Ok, cool. How many aldermen are there? What's the difference between an alderman and a regular councilman?

 

That's why we're sticking closely to a historical model. If you don't know the difference between aldermen and council members, you can research it by reading up on our own history.

 

Being someone who specifically intends for my mission to align with the teams vision from the start, I might be a little put off by this. Wah, wah, tough cookies, right? Eh, I believe it is a legitimate concern.

 

Someone who is really concerned about matching TDM canon (which I'm certainly in favour of) just needs to ask in advance. I consider myself very informed about our canon, as I'm responsible for the universe section of the wiki, and I'm happy to answer any questions. In your scenario above, if the first person explains the situation and asks about it, then we'll clarify how the aldermen are elected, and add it to the wiki. If the second mapper does something different, that's fine, but we wouldn't change what's already established.

 

This way, I think, current non-team mappers/storytellers have an outlet to ask the questions they believe are pertinent to their missions as they crop up, get some answers,

 

The outlet is right here. Mappers should ask as things come up, however, rather than creating a list of every single thing they might want to know about the setting. That just leads to overload. Also, you should be aware that setting discussions like this have a high potential for causing disagreements. Establishing what is already on the wiki came at the cost of many heated arguments.

[kaldor]

Don´t call me a bureaucrat, but there are two discussions paralled here. Voiceovers and informations in the wiki.

 

OK kaldor, got me, but that's also out of context.

Hey, take it with humor. I got your point, but just couldn´t resist viewing your "contradiction".

But I still feel different, and if I ever have the time to make a map, I will insert such voiceover - and if I have to record it on my own

 

Does this mean that you have a lot of details already nailed down that you just have to decide how or when to add to the wiki? [...] I don't think it would actually require a campaign or even a small series to accomplish this.

Well, I guess that is the central question here. How many details do we (community and team) want to be nailed down. This is a general question that NEEDS to be answered.

 

Take 'Star Wars' for example: There are a lot of details defined and writers can only create stories inside that narrow borders. You cannot write a story that kills the main protagonists or changes the empire´s status.

 

In the 'Dungeons and Dragons' ruleset it is different: Monsters and items are described, but a game master can imagine any fantasy world he/she wants with it.

 

In my opinion, TDM should be a compromise of both. With SOME defined details that all have to agree, but with the freedom to create a campaign that has a relevant impact on his/her world.

 

 

Linking clues to the difficulty imho sucks. [...] Fidcal's suggestion is ok for me, but I do think, that making it optional creates more problems than it actually solves.

Linking to difficulty was not my idea, but having an optional toggle stands in contrast to the current difficulty system. You would have to completely change the menu. Maybe the current settings "Easy, Expert, Ghost" could be pre-defined suggestions, and a player can customize all the options. You could add a "Custom" button with checkboxes for the detailed stuff (voiceovers, opened windows, etc).

[Fidcal]

Roughly what I've been saying for a long time. You still have difficulty levels Easy, Hard, Expert or whatever names and the mapper varies the objectives, loot required etc. All else, styles, etc go in a mapper-declared list of checkboxes. The mapper declares the names and implements what he wants or none. There functionality is all defined by a single cvar for each which determines if something is spawned or not. Here are some examples:

 

Show Static Doors

AI speed

AI strength & acuity

AI randomness

No spiders

No undead

No Kills

No KOs

No Alerts

Performance v Visual Quality: sky, lighting, AI, rain, extra AI

Nametags

Popup Screen help

Inventory notes

Print readables

Stealthy or Warrior

 

Suppose a mapper wants to give the player a choice of guards patrolling unpredictably or not.: He creates a guard on a random path and one on a static path and depending on the setting, one or the other is not spawned. It is possible to implement this today if you know how - although it would be controlled by the player having to put a cvar in his config. If no cvar then it defaults to whatever the mapper wants.

 

Normally No Ko's, no alerts would go on Expert but they do not need to. Maybe you like to play on Expert but hate no KO's. With the above there can be a huge variety of combinations: Easy death match on low end machine so no rain or dynamic sky and less lighting. Ghosting with no alerts but set easy with more shadows and plenty of AI but no spiders.

[stumpy]

No spider's,

 

So where do all the cobwebs come from.

[Baddcog]

@Fidcal, OK, you're the only person I have ever heard of that disliked a few voiceovers. I guess if you think we need a toggle... To me it's just part of the atmoshpere.

 

But I see no reason NOT to have one way paths, obviously it would be good to have another way up out of the sewers. But in all my previous maps the one way paths were quite obviously one way.

 

But why should the *player* be forced to be play as male, when the mission could easily have both? It is just like the ambient music, why should the player be forced to listen to the ambient music *if the player doesn't want to*? Easy, we let him disable it. Same with voiceovers. Player is in control.

 

(If your mapper mentions the name of the main character and it is male, well, I consider that bad mission design

 

I don't buy this at all. Female players have been playing thief for years and I never heard any complaints that Garrett was a male. T2X had a female lead and nobody complained as far as I know. I think players are generally pretty excepting of an authors mission design whatever it may entail (voice overs, male lead, zombies, dracula...)

 

I played mopst of the Tomb Raider games and loved them. Honestly I didn't care if she was female, or a male. It's a game. The character is a female, I except that.

In Cosas the main character was Dante, Thief it was Garrett, T2X it was a girl, Dues X it was an android.

 

That is why a _mapper_ should be able to disable them. If you say "he should be able to selectively enable them", thats fine, that is the same just in reverse (e.g. "he can just not enable them, hence disable").

 

NO, it is NOT the same. Having voices available to use is just that, we have some voice overs available.

A mapper doesn't have to disable them because they are not forced, they are just files in a package. They are not standard, they are not required...

 

That's why a mapper doesn't 'need to be able to diable them'. They were never enabled to begin with. They are only used IF the mapper wants to.

That's like saying we should make it so mappers can disable builders. If they don't include them builders were never enabled, thus the mapper doesn't need a choice to diable.

But why should the *player* be forced to be play as male, when the mission could easily have both?

Honestly some of your arguments just puzzle the hell out of me. Because this is thief? Because everyone wants a strong sense of who the character is? Because there are notes with names on them, or a briefing that says who the player is. Typically it's a male.

Instead of arguing that we shouldn't 'force' a male character on players, why not complicate things and ask for the same exact voice overs and a male/female voice toggle instead.

 

Sometimes the arguments from team members are rediculous. I mentioned it would be nice to have some standard voice overs (just like in Thief which this whole mod is based off of) that mappers can add to their maps if they so feel enclined (just like in Dromed) (without having to source voice actors for a few generic lines) and it turns into a discussion of toggles, voice sliders, forcing a male character on players.

Up to this point I thought everyone basically was in agreement that the main character probably was a male anyway with a good chance his name could be Farrell.

So when NH said his actor could do some mission specific voice overs I thought it would be a good time to request some simple lines, for nothing more than ease of use for authors.

 

Fine, maybe a voice toggle would be good. But remember, we're asking programmers to do this for what MIGHT be a total of 5 simple lines on a per mission basis IF the author decides to use it. What's easier, a toggle or a slider? Do we need a slider? Or can we just find a decent volume so it's either on (easy to hear but not annoyingly loud) or off.

A good reason to have ambient music slider is sound can be too much, it can cover up footfalls,etc...

I don't see why we'd need a slider to make a simple voice over 'whisper' or not. They wouldn't be loud, and they wouldn't be constant, and most likely they wouldn't be frequent. If they were even used.

[Springheel]

OK, you're the only person I have ever heard of that disliked a few voiceovers

 

I don't especially like them either, though they don't bother me enough to worry about it.

[Baddcog]

If no cvar then it defaults to whatever the mapper wants.

 

 

 

I think this is the point where open source/let the player decide goes to far.

 

Who wants to spend all the time to make a map, doing specific things like setting patrols in specific areas specific ways so specific timing happens, and then have a toggle where the player could just change it.

 

I'm all for letting the player adjust volumes, difficulties, etc... But when they get a chance to change the map and how it plays it's just too much.

[kaldor]

Someone who is really concerned about matching TDM canon (which I'm certainly in favour of) just needs to ask in advance.

The longer I am thinking about it, the more I like it. It creates a dynamic community and setting. But there is one thing: You already said, there can be heated arguments about nearly everything. So who does the mapper ask? The team? The community? Who can decide, if discussions tend to become endless? I would prefer the team to have that "authority". Not because of the definition of the universe, but because those discussions are tedious..

 

I also think you TDM-people created two different things:

 

- A toolset to create thief-like games, with game dynamics, models and so on.

 

and additionally

 

- A "ruleset" for one specific steam-fantasy world. With Bridgeport, Menoa, the Builders..

 

So why the separation? Because there will be mappers who don´t care about canon at all. They will have a Garrett, or something completely different. You can not prevent that.

 

That´s also the reason why I said we need an official campaign. But maybe that is not necessary. Maybe we just need a name for that universe. Like "Bridgeport Shadows" (or whatever), to state the difference. Any mapper who wants to use the setting of this specific universe, has to keep to the canon in the wiki or forum - or not to use the name and logo of it and create his own universe. What do you think?

[Baddcog]

Question: Does this mean that you have a lot of details already nailed down that you just have to decide how or when to add to the wiki? Or that this is stuff you are deciding what topics next to better flesh out in order to add it to the wiki?

 

 

Well, simply the topic I started was

 

"authors adding characters to the Wiki, should they?"

 

And my question was:

 

To fill out the canon should we ask authors to add their 'main' characters to the wiki.

 

For example, if you have a Duke Windsor who owns a mansion in the country hillside and runs the docks. SHould his name and a brief description be added to the Wiki so if I make a map I could say that my Lady Montigue' was having an affair with Duke Windsor.

 

On the Wiki:

 

Duke Windsor - owns mansion in country side, runs docks, likes to bribe - appeared in Forje's mission 'The Dukes Gems'

 

Lady Montigue - Lives in Bridgeport, was widowed by so and so, had an affair with Duke and blackmailed him... -Appeared in Baddcog's mission ' The Ho's of Bridgeport'

 

Basically just a simple list of main characters that could be tied together throughout anyones FM's with respect to the laid out description. ie: I shouldn't make the Duke a werewolf because that could screw up your mission. Having an affair with another character isn't that far out though, it could happen and doesn't really stretch your character too thin or make your story unbelieveable.

Only main characters would be used, they should be fairly standard, and if you don't want someone to use your character as a reference you just don't add it to the Wiki.

You also don't need to go in depth about how he likes pickles on his sandviches. Just basic details.

 

----------------

But that really doesn't have much to do with how election are won, or briberies. In fact I feel those details are almost too much for a mission.

 

It's one thing to say the character won the election by bribing officials, it's another thing to have the player read a 5 page text on how many people voted, how the blacks were oppressed in the election, etc...

---------------

Basically authors can do whatever they want and we're OK with that.

 

If they use Garrett, fine, but as we've said it cannot be hosted by us, and most likely we'll not even link to it. We cannot promote use of ANY copyright materials.

 

If they don't want to stick to the canon that's also fine. That happened alot with Thief missions.

 

If they do want canon that's what the Wiki is for and if they want to add to canon that's what the wiki is for. They just need to try and respect the established canon, and try to not destroy it or other peoples characters.

[Fidcal]

Who wants to spend all the time to make a map, doing specific things like setting patrols in specific areas specific ways so specific timing happens, and then have a toggle where the player could just change it

The beauty is that you don't have to. You don't have to set difficulty levels. You don't have to put readables in. You don't have to take extra care over texture alignment. You don't have to add player voice. You do whatever you want.

 

@Fidcal, OK, you're the only person I have ever heard of that disliked a few voiceovers. I guess if you think we need a toggle... To me it's just part of the atmoshpere.

Are you kidding? I like the player voice. My T2 campaign was full of them. I even created news ones from combos of Garrett's speeches. When I make an FM I don't make it for me.

 

That's why a mapper doesn't 'need to be able to disable them'. They were never enabled to begin with. They are only used IF the mapper wants to. That's like saying we should make it so mappers can disable builders. If they don't include them builders were never enabled, thus the mapper doesn't need a choice to disable.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here. It's not about the mapper disabling anything. It's about the mapper providing his own custom options for the player to disable them.

 

The point I would like to emphasise is that we - do - not - have - any - choice. It's not a matter of deciding what we'll do about options, player voices etc. Any mapper can do it today and we cannot stop them (nor do I want to.) If a mapper wants to put in a girly player voice how can you stop him? And if he also wants to put in an option to disable that girly voice - again, how can you stop him? Why would you want to? The options are optional - you don't have to use them. But to me it's simple arithmetic. If 50% of players like player voice and 50% hate it then who you gonna please? The answer is 100% - with options.

[Baddcog]

Because they hate them. They break immersion for them and feel illogical because *they* *are* the player character. To suddenly hear a disembodied voice just doesn't work for some players.

Oh, you said THEY hate them, I misread it as 'I' hate them.

 

But still, do players REALLY HATE them? I've never heard complaints. The fact is that just adding things because someone out there might not like them doesn't make sense.

 

I'll state the point again, I have NEVER heard anyone complain about voice overs. You're not even complaining about them, you complaining about them for some fictional 50% of players who hate them.

A 50% of players who I have never heard voice this opinion.

 

---------

The beauty is that you don't have to. You don't have to set difficulty levels. You don't have to put readables in. You don't have to take extra care over texture alignment. You don't have to add player voice. You do whatever you want.

 

Pointless arguments again. Nobody has to make maps at all, that's not the point. Would we have a toggle for readables now because some people don't like to read?

I think half the arguments in these discussions are just to argue invalid points.

Why do we need player choices for everything a mapper decides they want in their map?

Sure you build maps for players, but players DO want to play YOUR map like you designed it.

We don't need to turn TDM into a 'choose your own adventure module'.

 

Things like ambient sliders are nice, things like changing patrol routes mess up the maps design.

 

Stick to the point you made, that we should have player toggles for patrols, that's what I quoted.

Then that gets put into 'you don't have to add readables?

If I make an AI patrol this way or that depending on designated difficulties I don't want the player to toggle that off. That changes my vision for the map. Ambient slider DOES NOT.

 

 

If we have a toggle for readables why would authors bother. Because if they can be toggled off then the mission loses half it's flavor.

 

Giving players options JUST to give them options is pointless. This isn't Oblivion. Do we now want to have male AND femal voice over toggle just so the player has the 'option' of their prefered gender. Then we need to include female grunts, we need to figure out how to make readables change due to gender.

We might as well include a new menu where players can choose the leads facial features and hair colors.

Those are player options.

 

There has to be a line drawn between giving players options (ambient vlume, Ai fighting difficulty) and map breaking toggles.

 

Again, all this because I asked NH to make some stock voice overs. How does such a simple request always get turned into a mod wide changeing discussion.

 

All I want is a few voice overs authors can choose to use if they want, that's all, plain and simple.

[Forje]

@STiFU I know! Sorry, lol. I honestly tried to make it as concise as possible, but I have a tendency to ramble in print.

 

 

That's why we're sticking closely to a historical model. If you don't know the difference between aldermen and council members, you can research it by reading up on our own history.

 

Ah! Ok, excellent! I had noticed at least one historical analogue already, but I couldn't tell if it was really just coincidence or if intentional. Now it seems it must be intentional, and I'm speaking of the state of the Empire being in collapse and in conflict with invading "barbarians" from the north. Oh, well that's the fall of the Roman Empire, I thought. So it may be.

 

 

Someone who is really concerned about matching TDM canon (which I'm certainly in favour of) just needs to ask in advance. I consider myself very informed about our canon, as I'm responsible for the universe section of the wiki, and I'm happy to answer any questions. In your scenario above, if the first person explains the situation and asks about it, then we'll clarify how the aldermen are elected, and add it to the wiki. If the second mapper does something different, that's fine, but we wouldn't change what's already established.

 

The outlet is right here. Mappers should ask as things come up, however, rather than creating a list of every single thing they might want to know about the setting. That just leads to overload. Also, you should be aware that setting discussions like this have a high potential for causing disagreements. Establishing what is already on the wiki came at the cost of many heated arguments.

 

Ok, very good. Yeah, I didn't want to have a whole complete list at once, per se, just a specific thread to go to, for instance, but perhaps that is not needed. I have several things I'd like a little clarification on as well as a few things I may want to offer some suggestions for clarity on. Question: If we would like to use you as an interface for this kind of thing, do you think it would be better to post a thread? Or just send a PM?

[Fidcal]

@Baddcog; You're missing the point entirely. Let me try to clarify.

 

Firstly, I am not trying to 'arrange' anything or 'enable' anything, or get anybody to agree to something so we can do it. This is not a Dark Mod feature I am trying to get approved. This is already done. It's a done deal. It's not up for discussion. It already is possible. Any mapper with the knowledge can now do it. There is nothing I can do to enable it because it is already enabled. I am simply pointing out what already exists.

 

Second, the examples I gave are irrelevant. That is not a giant list that anyone is obliged to use. Why discuss whether it is 'right' or not to disable readables? (in this context.) I am simply pointing out that just as mappers can include readables or not include readables just as they wish - they are also empowered to offer their own custom player option to enable or disable readables. I'm not interested in readables particularly in this topic. I am interested in mapper-created custom player options of any kind. Whether I like a particular one or not is irrelevant. Even if it is 'wrong' for mappers to provide custom player options, the fact is - they can.

 

In my next FM I am providing secrets. Some players don't like them; some do. So I am providing my own option to turn them off. Disputing whether there should be secrets or not is irrelevant in this context. If you want a player voice and set it up in your FM you are not obliged to provide a player option to turn them off.

 

You might recall I think it was Yandros who created an undead Thief FM where you had three difficulty levels plus I think it was three levers in a start room to enable other options so you could replay that FM in 9 different ways. Same principle but using cvars instead of levers.

[Springheel]

You already said, there can be heated arguments about nearly everything. So who does the mapper ask? The team? The community? Who can decide, if discussions tend to become endless?

 

I suppose the team has the ultimate say over what is considered "canon", but obviously that canon has to be something the community likes, otherwise they won't bother using it.

 

Maybe we just need a name for that universe. Like "Bridgeport Shadows" (or whatever), to state the difference. Any mapper who wants to use the setting of this specific universe, has to keep to the canon in the wiki or forum - or not to use the name and logo of it and create his own universe. What do you think?

 

This will be handled by labeling missions as "canon" if they fit the TDM setting. Obviously there is no requirement for mappers to make canon missions, but it will help other mappers to know which ones are supposed to be part of the setting and which aren't.

[Forje]

Well, I guess that is the central question here. How many details do we (community and team) want to be nailed down. This is a general question that NEEDS to be answered.

 

Hmm... I would say a better question is: What kind of details to we want nailed down. How many? Well, lots, a bunch... or perhaps "enough." What kind? I'm thinking details that neither limit people's creativity nor dictate people's stories, more structural and cultural details like "how the Empire was formed" or "how the Empire expanded from a small city-state into the mass that it is," historical details that can be distant and unchanging.

 

Take 'Star Wars' for example: There are a lot of details defined and writers can only create stories inside that narrow borders. You cannot write a story that kills the main protagonists or changes the empire´s status.

 

In the 'Dungeons and Dragons' ruleset it is different: Monsters and items are described, but a game master can imagine any fantasy world he/she wants with it.

 

Actually... That's a good way of putting it. I'm sort of picturing the Dark Mod universe in terms of an rpg like D&D at this point. Not so much as you described, but from the perspective of a storyteller, I like to have a pretty clear vision of the set I'm dropping my characters into. The DM wiki is already sort of like a D&D campaign manual; it's there to give details about political systems, power structures, economy, for example, things that really do have an impact on the daily lives of the denizens of this universe, for the players and the "GMs" alike. There's a lot of freedom in there, but it gives the universe an identity.

 

I also think you TDM-people created two different things:

 

- A toolset to create thief-like games, with game dynamics, models and so on.

 

and additionally

 

- A "ruleset" for one specific steam-fantasy world. With Bridgeport, Menoa, the Builders..

 

Yes, as above.

 

Maybe we just need a name for that universe...What do you think?

 

Hmm... you may have something there too. Not so much a name for the universe itself; I think we are still ok just calling it The Dark Mod universe, but a name for the Empire would be good, for example. Or how about, say, the name of the continent(s) it takes place on? Stuff like that.

 

***

 

I think, to get back to the spirit of the OP perhaps, that some players that have commented on a lack of something for TDM missions due to an issue with FMs overall. It may have something to do with the player having a sort of rapport (or not) with the player-character, which is what that other conversation bit is about, so it's not completely unrelated.

 

But I feel that it is equally important, if not moreso, that the quality of a mission depends on creating the feeling that the player is being dropped right into the middle of a full living breathing world setting, rather than being dropped into the middle of X mansion with robot guards and nobles that do nothing but count their money, with no hint of what goes on outside the castle walls. (And that is just an example: I'm not even referring to any TDM missions) With Thief, we had an easy default world to assume was in motion. Here, that's not as easy to do.

 

This will, of course, improve as more and more missions are released. And there are already mentions of upcoming missions that sound promising to that end. I just believe this is something that authors, especially at this early stage, should keep in mind.

[aidakeeley]

You... do see... what I was saying? There will never be any agreement on canon. There is already right here (amongst all this!) an escalating argument about voiceovers -- and this is between the few, the proud, the rare-breed: the TDM team.

 

You think the community is going to be able to forge a consistent universe? ......

 

...

 

The best option of all IS options. So who ever is arguing for that, IMO, wins. Some think tying the VOs to difficulty sucks, some think they suck period, some like the opposite. Choice and flexibility is always the best... if you can (pragmatically) program it...

 

I for instance, would usually like to but DON'T always play expert. You know why? Because "no kills" or " no knockouts" is often tied to these and I think that sucks.

 

So there!

[stumpy]

With the fact that the hud and menus are controled by editable gui's adding options for the player to play a mission beyond the scope on how the builder of the mission actually wants the player to play the mission, would mean that the mission author could in fact include code with his/her mission release which would cancel mission breaking player options. then players would have to go back to using god and noclip to cheat.

[Tels]

I don't buy this at all. Female players have been playing thief for years and I never heard any complaints that Garrett was a male.

 

Because you haven't heard any complains means not that the current situation is good. Placing "Garrett" in the game was obviously a design choice back then for the original games, but then 90% of FPS players are male, games are designed mostly by males etc etc. (Your "typical a thief is male" already shows your male bias btw

 

Things have been changings slowly in the past, and we now have games where you can play *yourself*, not the lead character (of whatever gender) the designer did choose. So TDM should support this, too.

 

T2X had a female lead and nobody complained as far as I know.

 

I would have complained if I played it A first-person game means for me playing as myself, not directing a "character" around. That's what third-person is for

 

I think players are generally pretty excepting of an authors mission design whatever it may entail (voice overs, male lead, zombies, dracula...)

 

I played mopst of the Tomb Raider games and loved them. Honestly I didn't care if she was female, or a male. It's a game. The character is a female, I except that.

In Cosas the main character was Dante, Thief it was Garrett, T2X it was a girl, Dues X it was an android.

 

You should not speak for others, only for yourself Sure, I'd enjoy a Lara Croft game, but it would break the immersion (that I am sneaking around) rather badly for me.

 

Snip a bit:

 

Honestly some of your arguments just puzzle the hell out of me. Because this is thief? Because everyone wants a strong sense of who the character is? Because there are notes with names on them, or a briefing that says who the player is. Typically it's a male.

Instead of arguing that we shouldn't 'force' a male character on players, why not complicate things and ask for the same exact voice overs and a male/female voice toggle instead.

 

Sometimes the arguments from team members are rediculous. I mentioned it would be nice to have some standard voice overs (just like in Thief which this whole mod is based off of) that mappers can add to their maps if they so feel enclined (just like in Dromed) (without having to source voice actors for a few generic lines) and it turns into a discussion of toggles, voice sliders, forcing a male character on players.

Up to this point I thought everyone basically was in agreement that the main character probably was a male anyway with a good chance his name could be Farrell.

So when NH said his actor could do some mission specific voice overs I thought it would be a good time to request some simple lines, for nothing more than ease of use for authors.

 

Fine, maybe a voice toggle would be good. But remember, we're asking programmers to do this for what MIGHT be a total of 5 simple lines on a per mission basis IF the author decides to use it. What's easier, a toggle or a slider? Do we need a slider? Or can we just find a decent volume so it's either on (easy to hear but not annoyingly loud) or off.

A good reason to have ambient music slider is sound can be too much, it can cover up footfalls,etc...

I don't see why we'd need a slider to make a simple voice over 'whisper' or not. They wouldn't be loud, and they wouldn't be constant, and most likely they wouldn't be frequent. If they were even used.

 

It is already implemented now, see here:

 

http://forums.thedarkmod.com/topic/10626-support-for-voice-overs/page__view__findpost__p__208937

[7upMan]

The best option of all IS options. So who ever is arguing for that, IMO, wins. Some think tying the VOs to difficulty sucks, some think they suck period, some like the opposite. Choice and flexibility is always the best... if you can (pragmatically) program it...

But if the player has the option of turning off something that the FM maker intended to (say a vioce over that points to or explicitly FORBIDS a specific direction), this could often result in broken gameplay. The result of this would be whining in the forum by th players who did ("I can't finish the FM! Your FM sucks! You suck!") and the FM maker and other players responding in their way ("Don't turn voice overs off! Sucker!"), and within a few posts we'd have a heated, pointless and damaging dispute in the forums that would in the end damage TDM as a whole.

 

So I agree to the idea to let the FM maker provide an option to turn voice overs off (just like Fidcal said).

 

In my next FM I am providing secrets. Some players don't like them; some do. So I am providing my own option to turn them off. Disputing whether there should be secrets or not is irrelevant in this context. If you want a player voice and set it up in your FM you are not obliged to provide a player option to turn them off.

[Springheel]

Giving players options JUST to give them options is pointless.

...

There has to be a line drawn between giving players options (ambient vlume, Ai fighting difficulty) and map breaking toggles.

 

I agree with this 100%. However, I think Fidcal is talking about what the MAPPER can do, not what we as a team should do. Mappers can do all kinds of stupid things if they want to.

 

we now have games where you can play *yourself*, not the lead character

 

Other than Roleplaying games (which TDM is not) what is an example?

 

A first-person game means for me playing as myself, not directing a "character" around. That's what third-person is for

 

Every FPS I can think of involves you playing a "character".

 

It is already implemented now, see here:

 

See message in private forums.

[greebo]

Because you haven't heard any complains means not that the current situation is good.

Well, yes, it means exactly that. If the situation was really that bad, there would be complaints, I would have thought?

 

Anyway, for me personally, I never have cared less for what the player character is called. I play female characters here and there in other FPS or role-playing games, too. Doesn't change the gameplay a bit.

 

I would have complained if I played it A first-person game means for me playing as myself, not directing a "character" around. That's what third-person is for

What! What about the player grunts? Do they sound exactly like your own voice? And the player model seen in the mirror? Does it look like you? And the readables are not referring to your given name? Are you actually being serious here?