Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160279522A1/
Abstraction: "Methods for managing non-player characters and power centers in a computer game are based on character hierarchies and individualized correspondences between each character's traits or rank and events that involve other non-player characters or objects. Players may share power centers, character hierarchies, non-player characters, and related quests involving the shared objects with other players playing separate and unrelated game instances over a computer network, with the outcome of the quests reflected in different the games. Various configurations of game machines are used to implement the methods."
The patent is pretty broad and prevents anything even remotely similar unfortunately.
I'm not sure how a nemesis system would work in this context. The power scaling just isn't there. Nobles are already hyper-equipped/skilled and much more dangerous for it. Compared to that, what would a nemesis even be in Bannerlord? Assassins? Commandos? Disgraced noble scions bent on bloody revenge however they can get it? Random bandits that gained super powers from being repeatedly stabbing by players instead of dying?
As I said, the patent is extremely broad, and is 37 pages long, a good chuck of which is describing numerous ways in which NPCs can interact with each other and the player that are now patented. Just from skimming through it, I wouldn't be surprised if Bannerlord + True Relations and True Noble Opinion mods would be a violation of the patent. ( As a side note, I do hope those mods are updated soon. Those two, True Villagers, and True Brigands are so fun for me. )
Their patent application got rejected multiple times, unfortunately it just takes persistence and the right combination of wording tweaks and the right patent clerk reviewing it.
And, the same reason it'd probably not hold up if it was contested... "Ghandi" in CivIV liked me, at one time. Then, I backed out of a trade deal and he nuked me into the Stone Age. That's a dynamic change reflecting a player's actions.
To be fair, though, the "Nemesis System" was very much beloved in that game. But, it was how it was incorporated into the gameplay and the all the other supporting bits that went into it that really matters. (Narrative, story, dynamic events, etc..)
Simply having a mechanic that allows an NPC to change dynamically relative to the player's actions wouldn't seem to be restricted to anyone and has been a feature in game development since "NPCs" were introduced, or... even earlier. And, including such NPCs as a narrative/story element based on the character's actions wouldn't appear to be in violation, but... that IS a bit trickier due to the wording in the patent (from what brief summaries I read of it.)
I don't think it would survive challenge based on "looks like" though. That'd be introducing a draconian restriction on creativity and innovation based upon an overly broad interpretation. (I am not an attorney and am not offering legal advice. :))
PS: Thanks so very much for including that reference so that all may see exactly what's being discussed! +100 Internet Points for "Sauce." :)
Yay.
But, Taleworlds seems to be doing all they possibly can to limit the player's engagement with NPC Lords and Leaders. In fact, it's such a pervasive design intent that I'm surprised they allow the player to actually have a dialogue exchange with enemies before a Field Battle.
Surprised..
Because TW has stripped away the game experience that players had with AI Lords/Kings in Warband.
There is very nearly no reason at all to care one bit about "who" an enemy Lord is or even "who" allied Lords are in the sense of how they are represented on the Campaign map. It's nearly meaningless who is leading what party and why. In Warband, there were plenty of times when I learned, through direct interactions with Allied and/or Enemy Lords, how these Lords viewed my character. In terms of Allies, I actively learned who liked me, what their relationship was to other Lords, what their "personalities" were like by interacting with them directly in bids to raise my chances to receive a recently won fief or when I interacted with them during Feasts. Even when trying to locate another Lord I'd often have to talk to Lords or their Family members and would at least be able to develop a sort of "political scenery" in my roleplaying head...
In Bannerlord, all I care about is how many units they're bringing to my Army and I'm not encouraged at all to get to "know them better" because there's literally nothing there to "know." Traits? Don't see 'em nor their "effects" if any. "Relationship Meaning?" Nope - Not evident at all. Does it matter if they love me? No. Hate me? No. Does it matter if I married their daughter and have brought wealth and prestige to their Clan? No. Do they love their own grandchildren? No. Do they come to defend their own daughter when my home is besieged? No. And, this is supposed to be "Warband II ."
I feel I can say with confidence that they wanted to reduce the impact of something some players of Warband didn't like - Having to run around the map talking to Lords in order to improve one's chances of gaining a Fief. OK, I get it - BUT, that ADDED "roleplaying opportunities" to the gameplay. It forced the player to see these other Lords as potential rivals as well as "individuals." The player learned who those NPCs felt loyalty to, who they favored, who they "liked" and quite a bit about their general dispositions based on their Traits. Now? In "Warband II?"
Digesting this engagement with NPCs down to a spreadsheet experience and then squirting that mechanic out as a "Vote" screen with nothing but a generic pool of "Influence" being indicated as being significant at all was a "Bad Decision" and a lost opportunity to improve the player's engagement with the game.
/sigh
Anyway, I'm in favor of ANYTHING AT ALL that acts to increase roleplaying opportunities and to develop NPC "personalities" in the player's interpretation of their character's experiences with NPCs. Anything... Anything at all except what we have, which is largely a meaningless collecction of "names" slapped on singe units with some behind-the-scenes AI mechanics the player never actually gets to directly engage with...
So, Upvotes for you, OP! Add whatever else you'd like to see as far as making the player's interactions with NPCs in the game more memorable, more significant, more... than flavorless and robotic.
It seems the game industry in the last decade has fallen ill to what most of society suffers from, a decrease in quality of all, mediocrity seeping through our games, our food(Have you noticed everything is getting smaller), our movies, media, comics etc... it's everywhere and I don't mean to speak so vaguely and off topic lol.
Bannerlord is a direct product of that very same mediocrity.
Actually for example phantom brigade devs are currently developing their own nemesis system.
That doesn't change the fact that WB patented their Nemesis system, which I am against personally, and because of that they will have to be extremely careful proceeding unless they pay to license the system. Especially since they specifically said their system is based on/inspired by WB's Shadow of Mordor Nemesis system. Saying that in a interview will likely come back to bite them if WB decides to do something about it.