It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionPopulations.(27 posts)(27 posts)
(27 posts)
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Posted February 10, 2017
I found it funny how the bank represented a fifth of the human capital in Arx Fatalis.
Posted February 10, 2017
avatar
Darvond: No; but one has the assumption that there is an entire kingdom, but it is out of focus for the story.
avatar
codefenix: Exactly. Just as one has the assumption that any in-game town can have people out of focus.
Which is why I imagine the game world and cities in every Elder Scrolls game (edit: from Morrowind onwards) are really 10-100 times bigger, but I only see the parts that are relevant to the story or interesting for my character. Similarly, trips from one city to another actually take much more time (partly reflected by how time progresses faster in the game), but I only "experience" the parts where I am attacked by bandits or discover a cave along the way. Much like in a book, not every step of a journey and not every house and inhabitant of a city are described, but only those things that are important for the story. But as the Elder Scrolls games are largely about exploring, and, in a way, writing your own story, of the potentially interesting things that are there, you can decide for yourself which you want to take a closer look at.
Post edited February 10, 2017 by Pherim
Posted February 10, 2017
avatar
Darvond: Basically, of the 13 villagers, 5 are children, there are only two females of age, and the rest are men.
At least there are children...

<Thread hijacking>

What about children in games. Should they be included (for realism)? Should they be invulnerable? Or should they be "mortal" and killing them be punished by "casting out the player" (like the child-killer perk in Fallout)?
Posted February 10, 2017
avatar
Pherim: Which is why I imagine the game world and cities in every Elder Scrolls game are really 10-100 times bigger, but I only see the parts that are relevant to the story or interesting for my character.
Even the world and cities of Arena and Daggerfall? (These two games have vast (sometimes too vast) cities with tons of generic people wandering around, and are so big that fast travel is mandatory (Arena) or necessary to keep the game playable (Daggerfall).)

Anyway, I think I may prefer smaller towns, or even menu based towns like in classic Wizardry; this way I can get my town errands over with and quickly get to the action.
Posted February 10, 2017
Even if I can't interact with them, it helps to see them and hear them. It helps because if I'm running around in a vibrant city I don't want to feel like the Omega Man. Actually it's better if there is no interaction with a lot of them because I expect the average person in town to be busy and not interested in stopping to shoot the breeze with a total stranger.

I'm glad that computing power has increased to the point where it is feasible to flesh out a world with people and animals. Older games, as much as we love them, just weren't made in a world where it was possible to be realistic. Little by little.....
Post edited February 10, 2017 by Gerin
Posted February 10, 2017
avatar
toxicTom: What about children in games. Should they be included (for realism)? Should they be invulnerable? Or should they be "mortal" and killing them be punished by "casting out the player" (like the child-killer perk in Fallout)?
Or, other possible ways children could be handled:

1. The game, like most JRPGs, does not allow you to attack arbitrary NPCs; there's no option for you to start combat, and you only fight when the game decides that you should fight. Hence, you can't attack children (unless the game puts you in combat mode with a child as the enemy).

2. The game uses children as enemies. (I have encountered this in Wasteland and Paladin's Quest; the latter is a JRPG that follows point 1 as well.) In this case, you are forced to fight children as a means of self-defense.
Posted February 10, 2017
avatar
Gerin: Even if I can't interact with them, it helps to see them and hear them. It helps because if I'm running around in a vibrant city I don't want to feel like the Omega Man. Actually it's better if there is no interaction with a lot of them because I expect the average person in town to be busy and not interested in stopping to shoot the breeze with a total stranger.

I'm glad that computing power has increased to the point where it is feasible to flesh out a world with people and animals. Older games, as much as we love them, just weren't made in a world where it was possible to be realistic. Little by little.....
Yeah, I agree with this. I find it really odd that everyone is completely willing to stop and converse (often sharing quite important or sensitive information) with a complete stranger, it's different if the game sets you up as some kind of policeman or authority figure who people might be expected to talk to and ask for help, but it just seems odd that someone entrusts the safety of their loved one to a random stranger they just met.

I'd much rather have large crowds of mostly disinterested people who brush you off or ignore you if you do try to talk to them (so no need to loads of dialogue options to be written)
Posted February 10, 2017
avatar
dtgreene: Even the world and cities of Arena and Daggerfall? (These two games have vast (sometimes too vast) cities with tons of generic people wandering around, and are so big that fast travel is mandatory (Arena) or necessary to keep the game playable (Daggerfall).)
Yes, I meant the games from Morrowind onwards, but forgot to mention that.

I edited the original post to clear that up.
Post edited February 10, 2017 by Pherim
Posted February 10, 2017
I prefer everyone I meet to be meaningful.

I just assume the janitors, the farmers that don't need me to clear their barn of monsters, etc. are all out there somewhere doing their job, I just don't ever meet them because it'd be boring.
Posted February 11, 2017
avatar
codefenix: Exactly. Just as one has the assumption that any in-game town can have people out of focus.
They have to make it believable, however. Movies are shown only from one perspective. But you can explore a game however you feel.
Posted February 11, 2017
avatar
toxicTom: At least there are children...

<Thread hijacking>

What about children in games. Should they be included (for realism)? Should they be invulnerable? Or should they be "mortal" and killing them be punished by "casting out the player" (like the child-killer perk in Fallout)?
I prefer the Avernum style: Kids are there, but rare. If you attack anyone who didn't become hostile on you first, it's your fault.
Posted February 11, 2017
avatar
ZFR: No strong preference, depending on the game.

I liked the one in BG. Towns were scattered with people, many of whom were just "Commoner" or similar and had random things to say. But as long as it fits the game overall, I'm happy either way.
My thoughts went out to BG too, I'd rather have more commoners, most of whom have just a single hello phrase, than an almost almost empty town like the one mention in the OP. What I dislike though about Baldur's Gate, most of those commoners are just standing about.

The one I know of that was best done, is Drakensang, where in the main city the people are actually doing something: going from a to b, carrying goods, working, the city in Drakensang (I forgot it's name) really feels alive.
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionPopulations.(27 posts)(27 posts)
(27 posts)