Opinion about using Facesets for NPCs

[Tai_MT]

Now I'm just confused.  You like the story, you like to read, but you don't want to read NPCs?  The things that add flavor and depth and immersion to the story?  You even skip vital information in the story as well, but you love the stories?

Seriously.  Are you sure you even like the story and not just all the systems in place?  You should maybe give games like Diablo a chance and see if you like that much better.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

What, I can't like a story just because I only know the base/main story and not the super deep details? 0.0


I'm not the kind of person to read on NPCs for storyline information unless it's a game that really needs that kind of thing. I'm mostly just follow the storyline (quests if there are any). Most cutscenes give you enough information anyway and they normally only have a few NPC in them, it's mostly your player characters talking.


I do give it a try when starting a game though, but if it has no method of easily showing me which NPC is worth talking to, then I'd mostly skip NPCs after a little time.


Or sometimes, if the vanilla story is good I replay the game then that's when I try to dwelve deeper.


And oh, I do play Diablo II, Torchlight I/II, Titan quest etc. And no, I easily grow tired of playing those games.

 

[Tai_MT]

You just described what I was talking about with NPCs done wrong and poorly and needing not to exist if that's the role they're filling in an RPG.

Which is why I suggested you play games like Diablo as 99% of all dialogue can be skipped entirely and you don't miss a thing.

 

[HumanNinjaToo]

I have to say, I'm like Engr. Adiktuzmiko when it comes to NPCs. I avoid talking to most of them unless there is some way they are marked as one that has important/relevant information to a quest. I don't think you need deep, immersive NPC storylines (aside from those involved in the main story line) in order to have a great story. A good story doesn't have to involve everybody under the sun, just the ones directly related to the story. I prefer the NPC style that the Dark Souls games have: few and far between = more interesting and memorable when they are found.

 

[Tai_MT]

If they are "few and far between", then why not just have your NPCs be signposts?  If you're not using them all to be at least interesting to talk to, then what is the point of the NPC to exist in the first place?  If you're just skipping them/ignoring them, then they don't even need to exist in order to provide "realism" to an area.

If you're going to ignore pretty much every NPC in a game...  Then why not just stick to games like Diablo in which you don't have to talk to anyone that doesn't have a ! above their head?

 

[Sharm]

Tai, time to back off.  Engr. Adiktuzmiko doesn't have to defend his reasoning about why he plays RPGs the way he likes and it isn't adding anything to the conversation.  Move on to something else.

 

[Death's Assistant]

I am like Engr. Adiktuzmiko and HumanNinjaToo.

When it comes to NPCs I don't really talk with them unless they're majorly important within the storyline. Its sort of like Pokémon in a way, you don't talk to anybody unless you think you'll get a move from them! So yeah in my opinion NPCs are unimportant unless they're a part of the story.

 

[Tai_MT]

@Sharm

I didn't ask him to defend his reasoning at all.  In fact, when he explained his stance on NPCs more clearly and mentioned he didn't enjoy games like Diablo, I simply accepted it and moved on.  I threw in a little blurb in reference to the reason why he skips NPCs despite trying to talk to them when he starts a new game saying that yeah, he's basically defining every bad NPC ever created in an RPG and that's what I was talking about.  His answer is a good one.  It makes perfect sense to me.

Now, if my follow up post to HumanNinjaToo seems rude, I apologize because I did not intend it that way.  Which, is probably a fault with my wording.  You can't convey tone in a text box, and sometimes people infer things you never meant them to.  When I read about games, I go into "designer mode".  As in, I start asking a lot of questions like "why?".  If NPCs are "few and far between" in a game, why would they need to exist at all?  It's a legitimate design question.  If they are part of the narrative, why aren't there more of them?  If they're just interesting to talk to or read... why aren't they just books or sign posts in the game?  If they're there merely to point you to the next objective why not fill that role some other way?  Likewise, if a player is skipping every NPC they run across, then the NPCs are little more than mobile obstacles to be maneuvered around and avoided, so they're adding zero to the "realism" or "immersion" of a game.  Likewise, if your NPCs have just become mobile objects to a player because of their lack of interest in them...  Then why wouldn't a game (or genre) of game that lets you ignore all NPCs (or already has very few of them to begin with) be a much better fit than a traditional RPG?  There are games for everyone out there!  Every style of play and narrative!

So, you'll have to forgive me if I seemed rude.  Or, if it seemed like I was trying to pick a fight.  I was not trying to pick a fight and it was not my intention to be rude.  I posted my reply during my noon lunch hour and I was slightly in a hurry, so I didn't really worry about my word choice or how it might read to someone else.  I simply typed like I usually type and thought I'd get an answer from HumanNinjaToo that was very much in line with Adiktuzmiko's response.  If not a response like that, maybe a response as to whether or not he/she had played games of that nature before and either liked/didn't like them.

Sometimes, there are people who play one kind of game a lot and hate features in it because they haven't discovered a game like it that's removed all the features they don't like in it.  It happens!

Anyway, I have no intention of starting a fight or being rude here.  I'm sorry if I seem that way.  Sorry I threw a bunch of text up here to try to explain what I was thinking and why I responded the way I did.  I can certainly see now why it might seem pretty rude or like I was being a jerk.  I'm sorry, but you'll just have to trust that I didn't mean it that way and I honestly thought I was being friendly and inquisitive.  The limitations of my brain and of text, I guess.  If it helps, I can delete the offending post... or I could edit it to be more in line with what I was thinking at the time.

Or, if you think it's better, I could just leave this topic entirely and move on to something else.

 

[Matseb2611]

I was wondering, but for those who absolutely must make it clear in their games of which NPCs are important and which aren't, why not use another method? There are so many better ways of doing this than sacrificing consistency. You can make their names appear in different colour, or give them a symbol above their heads (as many games have an ! mark).

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

Important NPCs being the only ones that has faces is still a form of consistency. It's just as consistent as having important NPCs have a ! mark overhead or having their name use a different color.

 

[captainproton]

But how does the player know who's important unless he talks to them? And what qualifies as important?

NPCs can give clues to the location of treasure or a hidden boss. "Ships tend to avoid this area because it's too easy to hit the reefs and lose their cargo." "Vampires hate wolfsbane. They'd never live in an area with so much of growing there." They can mention things which hint at combat strategies. "More than anything, faeries hate iron." NPCs can give out alchemy formulas, issue quests, sell items or just be entertaining. Their purpose is to add richness and depth to a game environment. In that respect, they're ALL important.

 

[Matseb2611]

^Couldn't have said it better myself. The line where we draw as to how important an NPC is will be different for all of us. As a developer you might think of certain NPCs as important, but a player might not share your opinion and to them it will just look weird as to why some trivial NPCs have a face whilst some others they think are important do not. Importance of an NPC is down to opinion, not fact.

At least with stuff like name colour you can make distinctions. For example all NPCs relating to the main quest could have their name in red, whilst the ones responsible for sidequests in yellow, everyone else perhaps green, and so on.

 

[Indrah]

When I spoke of "important" npcs I referred more to IMPORTANT TO THE STORY rather thanjsut giving one time imporatn information. That would cover recurrent npcs suchs as vilains, allies (non aporty members) and so on rather than one time people.

In a way that makes sense, since chances are you will speak a lot with your "advisor/informant" npc friend or the baddies, but speak to people on towns or twice. I'd WANT to get to know them better and know their emotion sets since they're a big part of the story. I could not care less about minor npcs. If you want to make them unique their primary player interface is the sprite, you don't need to double your work by giving them a face too.