09.02.2013 @ 23:46 #1
Imagine if a stores inventory was partially based on some supply routes that were continually being raided by, for example, drowners. What if there was a quest to remove the drowners and thus in the long term would cause the prices at the store to gradually decrease when purchasing items? On the contrary, if you let the drowners live, then the prices for items you sell would increase because the supply would be limited. Perhaps there could even be a potion that hatches new drowners along the supply route to help boost prices when you feel your inventory is starting to get full and you need to offload some stuff. Perhaps you could even build relationships with the storeowners that would give you some clout in their business decisions such as which products to order in (thus helping lower the price for you or make an item available that otherwise wouldn't be). Maybe even make it possible to become a partner and thus receive a portion of the stores profits from future sales. Or imagine if you had a massive city 10x the size of anything seen in an RPG before. Imagine if this city had numerous stores of similar type. Think competition. What if you could raid/burn down/burglarize these other stores in order for more business to come to the store you are a partial owner in? What if getting caught in one of these actions hurt the reputation of your partnered business and caused not only customers to stop shopping, but suppliers to stop providing. Maybe you could make black market deals to import illegal "supergoods" that you could attempt to sell to the citizens, but always risk that the person could be a snitch and your business would be suspended while it's reputation would drop.
I know this would take a lot of development time and probably would be hard on resources based on all the calculations required. But a dynamic economic system, if done properly, could essentially make a complete side game in itself.
10.02.2013 @ 00:10 #3
The hatching drowners to raise prices idea seems totally out of character for Geralt. He fights monsters and he wouldn't intentionally create more monsters or lure monsters into killing innocent people.
I do like the idea of completing monster-hunting quests to get more items in a shop and lower prices though That definitely seems fitting from a story point of view and it would provide a nice bonus for completing those side quests.
10.02.2013 @ 00:13 #4
Somehow I don't see Geralt doing this.
10.02.2013 @ 00:34 #5
10.02.2013 @ 00:39 #7
That is a good point. I seem to remember in the first one (never got very far in the second one as I got sidetracked, but I plan on resuming it tonight), there was one point where you had the option to either save the "witch" or let the townspeople burn her. Is the decision to let the townspeople kill her not something that is considered shady and perhaps even a bit "evil?"
10.02.2013 @ 00:42 #9
No, all of their accusations were true. She really was using magic to manipulate everyone into killing each other. But the townspeople were guilty too (her magic wouldn't have worked if they weren't already inclined to behave that way). There was no good or evil choice in that situation since both sides were guilty, so it's up to you which is the least bad option to take.
10.02.2013 @ 00:47 #10
I don't know. I think the farming idea would be interesting as well so long as it was another optional thing and not a requirement. I'm opening to making games as big as can be. I considering things such as farming and shop owning to be larger forms of mini games. They should be optional, but definitely not required. The biggest issue with this is whether or not the systems could handle it. Though, since graphics aren't going to improve a whole ton in the future, that should mean there is more room to add more features. Say the XBox720 and PS4 are four times as powerful as the 360 and PS3 (and the computer upgrades from the Witcher 2 til the 3rd are released are similar). Say the upgrades to graphics would require the same game to use 1.5x instead of 1x that four times power. That would allow you to nearly triple the game content. In other words, you could create a game that essentially merges a game like Witcher 2 with the major elements of say Harvest Moon (farming) and Fable (economics as another mentioned). If it can be done, why not?
10.02.2013 @ 00:51 #11
I wouldn't object to it being there, but I don't think it would add that much to the game so I'd rather they focus on developing other things. For example I'm excited about how they're apparently going to bring back more monster-hunting quests and improve alchemy and crafting. Those things are much more in line with what a Witcher would do, so I want those systems to be fully developed and improved upon instead of having a little bit of everything (usually when there's a little bit of everything, nothing is developed with as much depth as it could have had).
10.02.2013 @ 00:55 #12
I haven't gotten to that point, so I can't answer this. But I can say that people, in-game or not, define moral boundaries for one purpose only: to ensure the survival and propagation of their offspring. Historically, men agreed on a system of societal conduct, and our moralities are an extension of that system which serve to ensure the propagation of that system in a predictable manner. This way the passing generation ensures the survival of the next generation. The concepts of good, bad or evil then only matters in the context of propagation and survival.
10.02.2013 @ 01:07 #13
I think that the point that ReptilePZ is trying to make has nothing to do with morality, but to do with the idea of Geralt running stores/businesses. He's a nomadic Witcher, so this type of activity is out of place. (Correct me if I'm wrong, ReptilePZ)
10.02.2013 @ 01:16 #14
I think that the point that ReptilePZ is trying to make has nothing to do with morality, but to do with the idea of Geralt running stores/businesses. He's a nomadic Witcher, so this type of activity is out of place. (Correct me if I'm wrong, ReptilePZ) ›››
That's pretty much how I feel about it.
10.02.2013 @ 01:51 #15
I'm almost annoyed by myself for how often I'm forced to namedrop them at this point, but games that handled economy mostly right were the Gothic and Risen sagas in my opinion.
While the player had more than few chances to get a bit more rich over time, costs were balanced in a way that didn't inflate money value too much.
Just as an example, try to play Risen or Risen 2, and take 500 gold coins as value of reference: in those games 500 were quite a sum but not impossible to gather when you started the game and... they were still a quite valuable sum dozens of hours later, even when the player was far better equipped and more leveled up.
of course, you could afford to spend that much more easily, but not by a big degree, not without thinking about what you were exactly doing.
That's how I like it.
10.02.2013 @ 05:30 #16
Sorry for off-topic but I couldn't resist laughing at this.
Here is how I imagined this:
Farmer: Hey Geralt!
Geralt: Hmm... *continues working in the field*
Farmer: What are you doing?
Geralt: *annoyed* Ploughing! ....the field.