Randomness in videogames | Forums

[GiveMeTactical]

GRFS has one good saying that I believe we should all adhere, more so when it comes to interfering with the locals... "Kid... we ain't even here" LOL

It is human nature to try to help and I wouldn't mind helping a local in distress but I don't want the game to turn into a rinse and repeat every few minutes or in every mission..

[MauiMisfit]

My opinion is we shouldn't have RPG elements in GR. Different type of game.

See, I disagree. Video game RPGs mean stat progression for the most part.

The original Rainbow Six has progression. As your operators completed missions - they gained skill in different areas.

I think Wildlands should have that too. Although, much like the original Rainbow Six, it shouldn't make or break an operator. It should just make me a bit better.

[GiveMeTactical]

I also disagree with the gaining of experience and I did not like it even back when OGR had it. To me, these guys are the Elite, the best of the best and not some QRF grunts.

I don't believe we are going to have the 2 or 3 squads that we had back in OGR times so making your teammates gain skill is really not a big thing, more so when I want to be the one racking on them kills and not my ai teammates. Heck, if I need to use them fine, but I like to be the one doing most of the killings and not let them do that for me.

Now, being said that I do understand why most of the new shooters have these and that is in order to appease or attract the casual gamer to play the game... ok, fine but I would rather not cross genres.

[AI BLUEFOX]

See, I disagree. Video game RPGs mean stat progression for the most part.

The original Rainbow Six has progression. As your operators completed missions - they gained skill in different areas.

I think Wildlands should have that too. Although, much like the original Rainbow Six, it shouldn't make or break an operator. It should just make me a bit better.

I agree with that, actually. By "RPG" I was referring to the endless progression and differentials created by ever increasing power. Stat progression is ok as long as new players can compete with more established players. The Division has been an antisocial experience for me as friends have ranked up at different rates and it makes no sense to play co-op when you are more than 2 or 3 ranks apart.

[SuperBiscotCOT]

I have a friend who bought the game two weeks after me but we never realy played together because our ranks were too separated ... and it's one of the things I don't want to see in GRW. A new player should be able to join a squad where people have played 100 hours or 1 hour.

[Dieinthedark]

I would like to see random encounters like a cartel controlled check point or a band of six cartel members trying to kill a civilian and you have to stop them.

Noooo, I'd rather have the same scenario but you can choose whether you save them or not. That could go to improve your standing with the locals if you aren't quite 100% Ghost. Maybe they would become more willing to pick up arms against the cartel, maybe they come to you when they can with little pieces of intelligence that they get. Maybe not all the intelligence is factual though, its not just someone comes to you and gives you a mission but rather civilians come to you saying they overheard some cartel members talking about a specific area that you can go check out if you like, optionally.

GRFS has one good saying that I believe we should all adhere, more so when it comes to interfering with the locals... "Kid... we ain't even here" LOL

It is human nature to try to help and I wouldn't mind helping a local in distress but I don't want the game to turn into a rinse and repeat every few minutes or in every mission..

Another good point. Interfering with the locals should be a choice. Modern military forces, say in the middle east, always try to improve their standing with the locals but if you want to only rely on your team of four Ghosts, then I believe that should be a viable option as well. Though I know I sound demanding, oh just make this an option. Programmatically that'd be a nightmare but I can dream right?


The further you break away from the person A gives you mission at place X is what will make the game feel more "alive". And even one step further, the more you make it feel like we get to pick how we want to dismantle the cartel the better feeling the game will have. I don't want to just have a series of objectives in an open world game to go here kill this person. If there's a loop of intelligence gathering, planning, allowing not all the intelligence to be necessary or correct (ie, letting our plans fail occasionally due to poor/lacking intel), that will breathe life into this game. I think the keyword is "dismantle", not just silent strike on everyone we see. Let us understand how the cartel operates, plan how it will fall apart if this piece is taken out, or this one.

Or in one sentence, let us play jenga with the cartel members' lives so we choose how to let the cartel fall to pieces.

[SuperBiscotCOT]

Love your one sentence
Yeah they realy have to try to make the game "alive" like you said. I'm still favorable to a reputation system with local population and for example doctors help you without asking you something in return (if you have a good reputation).

[Dieinthedark]

Haha, just seemed like the fitting analogy! I think what's difficult to balance is even if they succeed in making the game feel alive with the civilians going about their business, going to their jobs and work places, back to their homes etc, it comes down how the game is presented. I'm thinking to AC (which I know GR and AC have their differences), but AC games generally feel like the world is pretty well put together, even though civilians don't have jobs and such. Generally they seem fairly believable just to wander around the cities. But, the mission structure and the way we are presented objectives never captures that same feeling. Maybe its just the limited number of ways you can say, go here and A) listen B) kill C) follow this person. That could be it.

I guess what i'm trying to get to is that if the missions unfold and are presented in a manner that seems on par with the way the world is presented, that's the ideal.

And I agree, that does seem like a fitting feature. The only thing I hope is that the reputation system doesn't boil down to a graph or meter or something. I'd rather it be demonstrated in the way civilians act towards you/your team. Not so much, "You saved the civilian, +10 reputation"

[SuperBiscotCOT]

And I agree, that does seem like a fitting feature. The only thing I hope is that the reputation system doesn't boil down to a graph or meter or something. I'd rather it be demonstrated in the way civilians act towards you/your team. Not so much, "You saved the civilian, +10 reputation"

Yes. I don't want to see like in WD a meter. You have to feel if civilians "love" or "hate" you.

[Sp--pyBrown]

As long as they don't **** that mechanic up like they did in The Division, all is good. They promised a moral choice but in essence it's just a "trade water bottle (which btw only gives a marginal buff) for XP". I chuckled to myself when I saw that happen and it clarified my decision not to buy the game.

Immersion is where it's at.


EDIT.

In other words, if civilian interactions are in the game, please make them deeper than this:
http://kotaku.com/the-divisions-toug...yet-1763652958