Pie, Pi, and Carl Sagan

[ShiningRadiance]

I'm sure that many of you have seen this debate here and there.
 
  Would you prefer a sandbox game, or a more challenge-based storyline   game?
 
  Would you prefer both, if a 'sandbox mode' were added in an options tab?
 
  The 'challenge' type would include character personalities that would be   moddable, and would add in many features. The sandbox mode would be   more like it is currently, if you'd like it better that way.
 
  Normally, the development is not a democracy, according to Doc. However, Doc has created   an exception in this case, apparently.
 
  (I have spoken with Doc about this thread, and he has approved it generally as it   is)

Try to avoid any personal attacks, should you argue. We're all adults here.

[fixet]

so, what? we can't get new features and sandbox?

I'd like to think that "both" is the right answer, but I can't shake the feeling it would be the same bullshit "sandbox" slavemaker has now

[Lorde]

Another vote for both. I have zero clue as to why certain people think that the sandbox elements will go byebye if you add story elements or challenging gameplay elements.

 

[Amoeba]

Depends on what you mean by story. I suppose my ideal scenario would be a sandbox containing a bunch of different stories with varying levels of detail, difficulty, and length with some linking to others and others not. That's not really the game I expect Whoremaster to be though.

Really , I want DocClox to either do one of two things. What he wants to do, because the things he's said he wants to do interest me. Or to do the things he's most against, because then he'll likely quit Whoremaster. Not that I don't want him working on Whoremaster, but then he'll probably work more on Clonemaster, and I love the concept behind Clonemaster.

[LordShame]

I don't think I can put myself in one side on the other. On one hand, I like a game that has some meat to it, where I can look at where I am and where I was and think "this is what I've accomplished, this is what I've worked for". On the other hand, I have no idea how moving in that direction would harm the sandbox aspect. I don't see the fundamental incompatibility here.

I'm not sure there's even much of a debate. I mean, take the Grand Theft Auto games. They're textbook sandbox, but they also have a definite story progression with gameplay choices that broaden over the course of the game; that said, if you don't want to have to work to unlock the tanks and rocket launchers then there are cheat codes. WM does even better: instead of cheat codes, it has extensive customization capacities and a legitimate and detailed settings file that can alter fundamental game mechanics and essentially give you all the freedom you could ever want. Those clearly aren't going away. I have no idea what sandbox fans are afraid of.

And I don't mean that in a flippant "what the f are you complaining about?" kind of way. It's an honest question. What freedoms are the sandbox players worried would disappear for good? I just can't think of a single thing you can do now that you couldn't do if challenge/progression features were implemented. And that's why I ask, because it's not because I can't see it that it's not there. I'd like to know what the doubts and worries are.

[ShiningRadiance]

Controlling an unnecessary number of businesses to buy brothels is annoying. What's the point of that? More features like that might just make the game unnecessarily bothersome when all you want to do is see masturbation material.

But it ultimately turns back into "What do you want from this game?" Everyone's experience will undoubtedly differ.

[Lorde]

More features like that might just make the game unnecessarily bothersome when all you want to do is see masturbation material.

The logical conclusion to this train of thought is why bother with a game at all. Just grab some images and whack away. Why go through the extra step of hitting a next week button. Just dl the girl packs and view them in infranview.

[Mehzerz]

Well the only major concern I can think of that sandbox players might be worried about is the girls. I don't know how the girl archetypes will work as of yet. But from my understanding only girls with specific stats will be available in certain areas. If these archetypes don't change which girls are available when but only their starting stats. Then I see no problem with anything.


I assumed any story elements entered into the game would be side events you may run into, and you may very well never have to do or see. That sounds like it's pretty much still a sandbox game to me. Naturally this brings up the whole "Town wards" conversation. How will that work? Will it be story progressive? Or will defeating rivals simply progress you? Honestly, I don't think it matters. What do you really LOSE if there's no sandbox mode? You can still do the same things you've always done, at the same pace you always have. I'm afraid I don't see the issue between adding any sort of story, whether it's story progressive or not.


I think the issue here is more about whether the PC has a personality or not.

The 'challenge' type would include character personalities that would be moddable, and would add in many features. The sandbox mode would be   more like it is currently, if you'd like it better that way.

(I apologize ahead of time if I pulled this out where it wasn't intended but that's how it looks to me)
Now here's my thoughts on it, EVER since I saw Docs "broken girls story" I was pertty adamant about having a personalized main character, really added to the immersion imo. His PC was very neutral but not a push over, he had a strong sense of justice but he wasn't going to let someone underhand him. I thought that was really rare in a video game. I even started a whole topic about "defining the PC personality" so yeah, I can say I was all for it. HOWEVER, due to the modability of WM. Defining a clear personality is going to be impossible when everyone adds their own events and characters. I'd like to avoid that if all possible, not matter how good a writer you are, I doubt you'll be able to define the PC as clearly as the original writer. So what i'm trying to say is, I think it'd be easier to just avoid the whole personality and make the PC silent.
As for other characters, I don't see how they could be silent. Or why you wouldn't want any in the game.

[megamanx]

I am voting for both as while I like the way it is now it wouldn't hurt to have more depth to the action.

[DocClox]

I'd like to think that "both" is the right answer, but I can't shake the feeling it would be the same bullshit "sandbox" slavemaker has now

Out of curiosity, what's the problem with the slavemaker sandbox? I want to finish all the girls before I try the sandbox mode, but I don't get much time to play, so I havn't tried it yet.

Really , I want DocClox to either do one of two things. What he wants to do, because the things he's said he wants to do interest me. Or to do the things he's most against, because then he'll likely quit Whoremaster. Not that I don't want him working on Whoremaster, but then he'll probably work more on Clonemaster, and I love the concept behind Clonemaster.

True enough. I was looking forward to working on Clonemaster

Controlling an unnecessary number of businesses to buy brothels is annoying. What's the point of that? More features like that might just make the game unnecessarily bothersome when all you want to do is see masturbation material.

Well, it'll be easy enough to start with all the wards unlocked in sandbox mode. And with the wards, we can dispense with the business count requirement, since the wards will have t he same effect. If we disable the rivals and the mayor as well, then there shouldn't be anything to intrude if all you want to do is find girls and look at mucky pictures

But it ultimately turns back into "What do you want from this game?" Everyone's experience will undoubtedly differ.

Hmmm ... a list of features the "sandbox faction" want to see would be very helpful. So far, from my perspective at least, the interaction has been a bit like this:

Me: So, what do you guys want?
Sandboxer: Just, you know, do what you do. Make it better
Me: You can't be more specific than that?
Sandboxer: Dev stuff. Do dev stuff. Don't bother me with the details.
Time passes
Me: So, how about this...
Sandboxer: No! You FOOL! You're doing it WRONG! Are you STUPID or something?

So I guess what would be useful would be a list of features, framed as positives, that I could include in the game. If I know what people want, I'll do my best to include it.

The logical conclusion to this train of thought is why bother with a game at all. Just grab some images and whack away.

That's how I tend to see it.  What does the game currently offer the sandboxers that they don't get from browsing the image folders? Would a gallery mode suffice, or does there need to be some context in order to achieve the desired effect?

Well the only major concern I can think of that sandbox players might be worried about is the girls. I don't know how the girl archetypes will work as of yet. But from my understanding only girls with specific stats will be available in certain areas. If these archetypes don't change which girls are available when but only their starting stats. Then I see no problem with anything.

The archetype idea is that instead of having separate file formats for girls and random girls, we have a single format for girls, and make random/unique a flag in that format. From a player perspective, the main benefit is that you can open a girlsx file and change any unqiue girl into a random, or vice versa, just by changing one field.

Internally, it means we can tidy up a lot of the data structures, shrink the save file size, and clean up a lot of code, but that's not really relevant here.

I assumed any story elements entered into the game would be side events you may run into, and you may very well never have to do or see. That sounds like it's pretty much still a sandbox game to me.

I think there are two separate uses of the word "sandbox" here. There's the GTA sense of the word, meaning a basically open-ended game with lots of side missions, and then there's the way I belive Slave Maker uses it, to mean unrestricted access to the girls with no encumbering plot requirements.

Naturally this brings up the whole "Town wards" conversation. How will that work? Will it be story progressive?

Well, you'll need to find a way to get access. Bribery will always work, but isn't going to be cheap. Or there'll be more creative ways to unlock a ward. Once you have access, you need to overthrow the rival based there before you can fully control it.

It's a way of giving sub-goals and of letting rivals get stronger as the game progresses, and adding a bit of depth and texture to the game.

I think the issue here is more about whether the PC has a personality or not.(I apologize ahead of time if I pulled this out where it wasn't intended but that's how it looks to me)

You may well be right.

Now here's my thoughts on it, EVER since I saw Docs "broken girls story" I was pertty adamant about having a personalized main character, really added to the immersion imo. His PC was very neutral but not a push over, he had a strong sense of justice but he wasn't going to let someone underhand him. I thought that was really rare in a video game. I even started a whole topic about "defining the PC personality" so yeah, I can say I was all for it. HOWEVER, due to the modability of WM. Defining a clear personality is going to be impossible when everyone adds their own events and characters.

That's a reasonable concern, I think. It shouldn't be impossible to manage, though. If we have character guidelines about the PC, and stipulate that anything that gets included into the main distribution may get the wording tweaked a little, we can probably keep a consistent voice for the MC. And there's always the option for a zip of scripts with purely neutral menu options, or for an MC  with a completely different character.

Oh, and thanks for the kind words

I'd like to avoid that if all possible, not matter how good a writer you are, I doubt you'll be able to define the PC as clearly as the original writer. So what i'm trying to say is, I think it'd be easier to just avoid the whole personality and make the PC silent.

There is one other issue I have with that. A completely silent character is a lot harder to write than you'd think. Look closely at some of the Fallout3 dialogue, and you'll see they follow some really convoluted paths sometimes, just to avoid the MC having to say something. There's also a danger of Lassie Syndrome. "What's that girl? You say there's been a cave in at the old mine?"

So a silent PC is hard to do, and harder still to do well. It's also something I find kind of bleak and depressing. This was the issue, more than anything else that convinced me that I should start my own game.

[Nalkyr Maloth]

I'd go for both to give more options, but personally I wouldn't mind that much if the sandbox mode got left out.

[d31r3x]

It seems to me like the 'friction point' could be the silent-nonsilent MC, as Mehzerz said. I'm not going to part with silent or non-silent, as both are possible and probably enjoyable.

There   is one other issue I have with that. A completely silent character is a   lot harder to write than you'd think. Look closely at some of the   Fallout3 dialogue, and you'll see they follow some really convoluted   paths sometimes, just to avoid the MC having to say something. There's   also a danger of Lassie Syndrome. "What's that girl? You say there's   been a cave in at the old mine?"

So a silent PC is hard to   do, and harder still to do well. It's also something I find kind of   bleak and depressing. This was the issue, more than anything else that   convinced me that I should start my own game.

True, they are harder to do, but not impossible. I met that problem while writing my own tabletop RPG adventures. I had to write some flavour texts and scripts before I even knew the player's choice for name, race, gender or class (my very good friends always got it done the day before... bastards). It can be done, but you risk ending mad like Lost screenwriters. I had to use the mentioned Lassie-type dialog, the "change words for action" trick, the sign / body language route ( "nodded at him...", "smiles and...", "waved hand in disapproval"...), even had to adopt arbitrary nicknames for player characters so I can avoid the unknown gender / name issue. Yeah, sort of hell.

If you don't have time or don't feel like writing stuff, go mass effect. Instead of complex Fallout 3 type dialogue, use 'evil / neutral / good' based dialogue. Oh, my god! such complexity in dialogue choices is overwhelming and... No, no, no. The game dialogue seems to be different because it's written into three different styles (wich I reduced to evil / neutral / good), but choices end doing basically the same (lame, but cost-effective). The shorter, the better, leave most of it to player's imagination.

         -------Evil line---Evil answer-------
       /                                                     \
--->X---Neutral line---Neutral answer---X--->
       \                                                     /
         -----Good line---Good answer----

In addition or instead of that, a dialog file could be added so modders   could edit dialogue texts. Thus, anyone can change his character lines to   whatever he/she/it likes.


Having said that, I'm afraid whatever satisfies sandboxers in terms of playability could piss off devs in terms of complexity / coding. By now we all should know pissing off devs is not a good idea...
 

[DocClox]

In addition or instead of that, a dialog file could be added so modders   could edit dialogue texts. Thus, anyone can change his character lines to   whatever he/she/it likes.

A dialog file does make sense. If nothing else if means people can edit the dialog without having to understand (much) Lua

Finding keys for the entries might be a challenge though. Unless we just go with TEXT0001, TEXT0002 ... TEXT9999

[edit]

Something like this:

Code: [Select]

wm.dialog = {
 TXT001 = "Hello Little Girl",
 TXT002 = "Hello Mister",
 TXT003 = "Would you like to see some puppies?"
 TXT004 = [[
  Not only am I not interested in puppies, I have to inform you that I am
  in fact an undercover police officer, and you are under arrest for wearing
  a dirty mac whilst hiding in the bushes
 ]],
 TXT005 = "Oh, bugger!"
}

That could be included directly as lua code, so there's no problem parsing. You can put any chars in between [[ ]] string delimiters so there's no problem with quotes like in XML. The big problem is that you don't necessarily know which script TXT734 refers to

I could add nested tables that refer to the event:

Code: [Select]

wm.dialog = {
 example_encounter_1 = {
  GIRL001 = "Hello Mister",
  MAN002 = "Oh no, not you again. I remember you from the last example.",
  GIRL003 = "Aren't you going to show me your puppies?",
  MAN004 = "Look, if you're going to bust me can we just get on with it?"
 },
 example_encounter_2 = {
  -- etc, etc
 }
}

The worry here is that the more complex the file gets, the more offputting it becomes to the less technically adept.

Still, it's an interesting idea

[dalmedya]

Sandbox with missions and alignment stats that actually do something.

[fixet]

ok, since it seems people have different ideas of what the sandbox mode would be, here's what I was thinking

a story is good, but not an actual campaign
make the story a chain of quests/missions that you can do at your leisure, but do not significantly affect what is available to you
think bethesda games
you can do anything you want, with or without the story, but the story brings some changes to the world (like say, oblivion gates or enclave vertibird events)
have the story quests grant some rewards/services/a better chance to x

what I hate the most is that as the (not actual, but suggested) development progresses the game seems to constrict the player
a lot of the ideas flowing around are about making the player play the way "he's supposed to"
take for example the map thread
I really liked doc's network structure of wards
you had some requirements, in that you need to take the adjacent ward before moving on to the next, but it was very flexible and non-linear
then I go to the next page and see d31r3x's map, and the wards are split in tiers where you must take all the wards in the current tier, before moving on to the next
and there are no reactions to this
I was going to ask about that in thread, but didn't want to bitch about freedom of playing again (which is made completely pointless by this post)

about slavemaker
it has no sandbox. there is a mode called "sandbox", but it's not sandbox
I think it is best described as "skirmish"
basically, you choose any girl you want, and play without the new features
once you're finished with that girl, it's like you never trained her

a real sandbox would be exactly like the current "campaign" mode, but without the restrictions on what girls you train, and with the ability to re-train girls
that's it. that was all he needed to do to make a sandbox
now, I had to play the game from scratch every time an important update was released, and every time you do the same thing
the game makes you follow a routine and a pre-set road
sure, you could chose some other girl instead of the one you always train, but you couldn't do anything with her, because you have little time, and your skills are not high enough to make it

and that's it
I am not against a story, but why can't we have that story IN the sandbox?
not or-or, but have the game stay what it is, with the story


edit: also, who the hell faps to wm?