"Dynamic events"

[Vincent101]

The truer title of this was "'Dynamic events' vs 'a list of events that just happen from time to time'".

I always fear hearing things like "dynamic events" because, in the past, this has simply meant things like
-opposing mobs fighting each other
-traders magically appearing in different towns
-timed events going on when you walk near them
-townsfolk chatting when you're near them,

so therefore it seems that, rather than a truly dynamic environment, it's more like a list of events that just happen.

When I hear the term "dynamic events", I expect a world that lives and dies whether or not I'm around when it does. I'm sure that there will be fantastic events and stories that will play out in the world of Sui Generis, and my hope is that it will really be quite a task to see all of them. It should really be a trial-and-error experience in being at the right place at the right time to see what transpires.

I understand Bare Mettle's choices for the dynamic environment and interactions, but I would love to see interesting reactions to, say, traders entering the town. A quick example may be a fishmonger/trader bringing his harvest to town in a small caravan. Once he arrives in town, a stall vendor immediately unloads all his fish, refreshing the stall's fish supplies and removing the fish from the trader's inventory. Simple, elegant and the potential to change the event, making it dynamic.

I just wanted to bring this up as a point of conversation. Discuss.

 

[Caiphas Cain]

I think that's kind of what they're going for.

 

[Pilluminati]

I agree. I don't want to hear anything like "dynamic events". It shouldn't be a separate thing awkwardly forced into the world. It should naturally be a part of it.

 

[Vincent101]

Mmm. They're heavily stressing that everything is made dynamically and should interact dynamically. This is what I'm looking forwards to.

 

[BigT2themax]

The really small details might be nice, but BM would probably have to implement some way of only making small, unnecessary details actually happen if the player is nearby, as I dont think any computer could simulate every little thing that happens in the world all at once. Still, I like the idea of having NPCs and such react to goings-on in the world or at a local level, it would make the world seem much more alive and immersive, I'm sure.

Although I have to disagree with your "trial-and-error" idea with being present for important story events. I don't think most players would have the force of will to complete the story if they kept failing because they weren't in the right place at the right time when they had no idea what that time was or even the place. Although, it would be really cool to have some fairly "hidden" events happen (as in, it would be a case of trial-and-error to see these events, or maybe it'd be very hard to find out when and where they take place).

I think perhaps it might be best for players to have to search out answers (that aren't that hard to find) and have the chance to go to these events. That way, the player isn't simply being told where to go, AND it's not impossible to complete the story.

 

[Vincent101]

I understand completely about the complications of not being able to simulate every tiny detail about any particular event, I'm just mentioning that I hope BM get in to more detail other than meaningless NPC conversations and incredible appearing traders. Each of these characters needs to have life, too.

I believe that being thrown in to a situation where you only know what you need to know, but that you must discover the rest, is the best experience. I'm not saying that it should be too vague, or the story too shallow, but you get a real roleplaying experience when you feel compelled to go somewhere, not led there will obvious cues.


#edit: I need to make it clear, though, that I understand that this is simply my opinion. I know that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but what are forums for if not expressing and discussing your opinions?

 

[BigT2themax]

Hey, I'm mostly just agreeing with you, mate. I was just saying scale it back a little, you know?