Wolfire Games Forums

I haven't decided how to handle situations where the player is trying to do something that is out of character for Turner, such as attacking random people. All that I know for sure is that it should be enforced somehow. Turner is not a psychopath, and would not just go through towns killing everyone in sight like you could in Fallout or GTA. There are a couple options I am thinking about:

1) Turner's actions have to correspond somewhat to how he feels about a given character. 'Attacking' would be a negative action that makes some kind of sense in context. For example, alienating a friend, insulting a stranger, or striking an enemy.

2) Turner will do whatever you tell him to do but he will suffer mentally from actions that clash with his character, such as killing innocent people. He could start to have nightmares and have health problems until he redeems himself somehow.

There is no possibility that Turner will rape anyone... there is no 'rape' button. I don't know what role children will play. They may just be characters like anyone else. It would be out of character for Turner to attack children in most cases, so they would be protected to some extent by one of the mechanics above.

I was considering adding some kind of imagination mode. I.e. it would save the current state and then you could basically do whatever you want, and then revert to the saved state. It is kind of redundant to 'imagine' doing something inside of an already fictional game, but it could be an interesting way to maintain freedom to experiment without destroying the feeling of reality.

Another option would be building a social network tree.
X likes (L,Y)
Y likes (K,X)
K likes (Y,L)
L likes (M,K)
M likes (X,Y,K,L).

Now if Turner kills X, Y, K or L, his reputation for the other rabbits changes if their subtree contains the killed rabbit. But there should be a chill factor.

Let's say Turner kills L. Who likes L directly? X, K and M. So X, K and M won't give Turner a job anymore or trade with him.
Who likes L indirectly? Y. So Y will still give Turner a job or trade with him, but he pays less or holds certain items back. The next time Turner kills someone who is indirectly liked by L, he won't do anymore business with Turner.

To give the player an idea that such a system is there, you just have to tell him that his actions have consequences and let him try it out in the tutorial level.

That way, the player can slay the whole world while skipping the key characters, but he won't be able to go on with the storyline or trade his loot.

Where Did turners Inspiration of Character come from?

As for custom Campaigns, would it be posable to (if the mechanics above are implemented) to change the players Characters personality/Alignment?
I never Realized there would be nightmares in L2 (I CANT WAIT!)

David wrote:There is no possibility that Turner will rape anyone... there is no 'rape' button.

I commend you for your wise decision. We don't want an 18+ game here, otherwise I wouldn't be legally allowed to play

David wrote:I don't know what role children will play. They may just be characters like anyone else. It would be out of character for Turner to attack children in most cases, so they would be protected to some extent by one of the mechanics above.

Perhaps children should be Untargetable (if there's a targeting system). Or perhaps if Turner attempted to attack a child, an NPC could come in and attack Turner in defense. The child would remain unharmed but would run away in fear of Turner.

(silly idea) or children could be completely invincible and unharmed by Turner's attacks. They could still ragdoll and run away, but they would never be able to get killed. *Suddenly remembers South Park, and the "Kick the baby" game Kyle played with Ike XD* (end of silly idea)

Humans are humans, Creatures are Creatures, Regardless of age, sex, race, or name, Kill the FILTHY HUMANS!

ChazFox wrote:I'd imagine you'd die pretty quickly from a shot to the gut

Faint, more like. And then die.

There seems to be quite a lot of irony in this statement, especially when compared to a shot to the head.

BunnyWithStick wrote:

ChazFox wrote:I'd imagine you'd die pretty quickly from a shot to the gut

Faint, more like. And then die.

There seems to be quite a lot of irony in this statement, especially when compared to a shot to the head.

I know a headshot is instant, but a gut shot would be quicker than the whole writhing and dying thing as portrayed on SOF. Although saying that, you are right, it takes longer to die from a shot to the gut than a shot to the head. Of course, we have to take into account the time it takes to die from a *sword* to the gut, as compared to a shotgun blast.

I haven't played SOF, but if "Writhing and Dying" takes more than 1.5 seconds, I suppose that's unrealistic. At least when considering the fainting factor.

You could also implement a mother's instinct. If a child is attacked, all other inhabitants that are related to it get superstrong and attack you.

BunnyWithStick wrote:I haven't played SOF, but if "Writhing and Dying" takes more than 1.5 seconds, I suppose that's unrealistic. At least when considering the fainting factor.

It takes roughly 3 seconds for them to writhe and die. It's that overdramatic. Still, that doesn't mean SOF isn't fun. Shotgun to the nadgers, anyone?

rudel_ic wrote:If a child is attacked, all other inhabitants that are related to it get superstrong and attack you.

Like what happens if you beat up on a chicken in the Zelda games! But I don't imagine this will be resettable by leaving and re-entering. That could create permanent gameplay problems, such as if you kill a child near the entrance to a place you must visit later on.

BunnyWithStick wrote:I haven't played SOF, but if "Writhing and Dying" takes more than 1.5 seconds, I suppose that's unrealistic. At least when considering the fainting factor.

Not very many people will faint after taking a gut shot, I've never even heard of that. You won't get shot and then 1.5 seconds later faint or die, it could take several minutes or hours to die from a gut shot, even if they're spilling out, and you would not faint from that adrenaline, you would only faint if you are anticipating pain like a gun pointed at your head or if you're a very weak child, a needle, you will not faint after you get shot like that, you will be screaming. The reason it looks unrealistic is because no matter what he's doing, running, crouching, he'll just stop and start crawling around on the floor for a while, being all dramatic and completely ignoring what you're doing, it's pretty funny and entertaining to watch. You can really mess people up in that game.

Zantalos wrote:

GaGrin wrote:Oh - and while we're on the subject - why is killing children worse than killing adults? Because the adults can fight back I assume. Except of course that often they can't.

Meh. Ethics need to be consistent imo and these just aren't

I'm going to bring this back up. Maybe you feel that since you are a child you think it is fair to judge yourself equal to adults, and thus be killed like them. However in a democratic society, adults/grown citizens, are to be the first that should die in a war. There is no point in going in and killing all the children in a war, that is sadistic. There may however, be a point to going in and firebombing a major city (Tokyo), or nuking two others (IE: Nagasaki and Hiroshima). Even soldiers are not the main thing you should be killing in a war, just because they have the ability to defend themselves better than unarmed civilians, killing them is not very important because they do not make the decisions. They are not an independent branch off the government where they decide when to go to war and then just go off and attack a country, it's the citizens, the adults that cause all this, they vote, or they let things happen with the power to stop it all. Soldiers do not start wars, they can help wars escalate but it's the people that vote for what happens of not. You can easily justify why killing children is so much worse than killing adults, because they do not cause any of this, they do not vote, they are just kids, you shouldn't kill them because they are innocent and don't have the power to start any of this or prevent it.

Um, I'm 22...

And honestly I think treating children as significantly different from adults is akin to its own form of abuse so please don't get me started on that. Sure, the death of a child is tragic. My point is that death in general is tragic and the death of a child is no more or less in comparison to that of an adult.

Personally I think war deserves its own topic, but I don't see how its acceptable to kill the civilian population in anycase. Sure some of them are responsible for the government and its actions, but given that with a 3 party split in a democratic nation you need only convince 34% of the voting public to secure a win and you can see that "Government sympathy" just isn't going to sit well with me.

Ontop of that take into account that the number of voters turning out (and least in britain) is about 30% of the total and you can see that the current government is actually only a vague representation of about 15% of the total VOTING population.

Democratically elected governments are a farce. And even they are probably better than the mess we've have with a genuine democractic social order.

Perhaps I worded my query poorly.

I should have said "Why is killing adults better than killing children?".

Also Colicedus reitterates a point that was at the heart of the rest of the issue for me:

"...don't we use many of media to feel a mood or have an experience that we would not wish to play out in real life?"

Anyway I suppose the point is moot and I'm arguing for arguements sake. I'm not trying to get anything like this into the game (and I dare-say David has shown himself to be tasteful in his approach to this subject matter anyway).

Editted spelling (thankyou Ultimatum).

Zantalos wrote:You won't get shot and then 1.5 seconds later faint or die, it could take several minutes or hours to die from a gut shot…

*thinks*

Fark. Why is my brain melting so much lately? I even forgot the "/" in and/or earlier!

Tragic, GaGrin. Your math's a bit fuzzy, but otherwise your points are valid.

BwS, I didn't see that, if you were referring to a post in this forum.