Considering recent increase in computing power of both CPU and GPU, we can upload more resources than ever. Not only did we increase graphics detail of our worlds but interaction and functionality have never been bigger. Havok is becoming standard physics simulator, we can use graphics for playing(thief uses shadows). However, it has become difficult to create and manage such detail in world. There is also one more thing to think about. Increasing interaction among scene objects. It has become even more difficult to make interactions between all those objects. I'll divide this problem in two categories. 1. Traditional medieval-fantasy type RPG What are demands for object interactivity. Yes, we can fill our worlds with swords, potions and scrolls but what are other types of objects. Consider one room in such RPG. What objects should be made interactive? Should bed's sheets be interactive? Can we take vase from desk? Can we move chairs? Will RPGs increase graphical detail to such level where usefull and interactive items can be found by moving mouse over screen and trying to find sillueted items, similar to todays adventure type games. We are adding all those items for graphical detail but not for functional. Why don't we make player collector? Not for some uber weapon, but for fun. Fallout(althogh post-apocaliptic sci-fi) had all those useless items like condoms, dice, cards, etc. Collect the set of rare vases! 2. Science fiction RPGs These type of games should be filled with all those useless products. Mass production at its best. In Deus Ex you could take vases, ashtrays, etc. Limited, but fun interactivity. You could add all those weapons, ammo, bottles, cans, paper blocks, decoration items, little bunnies, etc. When adding models to scene, make them at least collectable. Why not put it in you inventory? --- Yes, extra detail has disadvantages. How to find valuable items in such mess? Some players don't want to trouble with all that debris. Total interactivity. Absolutely not necessary. Limited interactivity. Yes, why not. You'll make it easier for player to immerse. For fast paced games like FPS you don't need extra detail, but with RPG, you can experiment. Any thoughts, suggestions.

When I think of something like this I can't help think of the old Ultima series, especially Ultima 7. Every NPC had a house, and every house was populated by items one would expect to find in a house. I can't even imagine the number of hairbrushes and forks there were in the game.

A classic motif of RPG's is the raiding and looting of NPC's houses. All that extra junk around the world makes sorting through all those NPC houses become less of a task and more of a treasure hunt. And plus, you can hide small jokes and miniquests amongst all the trash.

Maybe you find a secret document in the mayor's house in her bedside chest, telling you she's sold the town to the orcs for 1 MILL gold. If it's the only item you ever find, than it's like hitting you over the head when you find it. But suppose it's in there with all kinds of other junk and legal documents (yes, the mayor keeps legal documents in her bedside stand. Who doesn't?), the player may miss it entirely. This makes finding it a kind of reward for emersing themselves in the game, and exploring everything.

Not to mention the story that would come along with finding it.

But such detail is time expensive, and most game companies don't have the time to spend detailing a world like this. I think as long as technology is increasing as fast as it is, this kind of detail has become open to the hobby and small time programmers only.

Quote:

Original post by ffx I'll divide this problem in two categories.

The distinction seems non-existent even in your post. Sure, a modern or futuristic world has mass production, but just as surely there were many "useless" trinkets "back in the day".

Quote:

What objects should be made interactive? Should bed's sheets be interactive? Can we take vase from desk? Can we move chairs?

This would quickly become a UI nightmare. Just how do I have a meaningful interaction with bed sheets using my mouse? A vase is a little easier, since it's rigid, but if it's first person they tend to make you throw the vase, and in any case there's nothing you can really do with it since you typically can't put water or flowers in it.

Quote:

Will RPGs increase graphical detail to such level where usefull and interactive items can be found by moving mouse over screen and trying to find sillueted items, similar to todays adventure type games. We are adding all those items for graphical detail but not for functional.

That's because they serve no function game wise besides to add atmosphere. Maybe being able to tip over a vase makes it slightly more realistic, but unless you can meaningfully (game wise) interact with the vase, how much does it matter? Is the code vs. benefit worth it?

Quote:

Why don't we make player collector? Not for some uber weapon, but for fun. Fallout(althogh post-apocaliptic sci-fi) had all those useless items like condoms, dice, cards, etc. Collect the set of rare vases!

Hardly useless in Fallout ;) You used condoms to practice safe-sex, I think you could gamble with dice, I know you could gamble with cards (Tragic: The Garnering :/ )

Of course, "gotta catch 'em all" can be fun for some, but I don't know anyone who would enjoy just picking up the random vases lying around the game that the only reason you can pick up is because the designer thought "why not?".

Quote:

Yes, extra detail has disadvantages. How to find valuable items in such mess? Some players don't want to trouble with all that debris. Total interactivity. Absolutely not necessary. Limited interactivity. Yes, why not. You'll make it easier for player to immerse. For fast paced games like FPS you don't need extra detail, but with RPG, you can experiment.

You just gave most the reasons not to. Really the only thing in favor of it is this idea of "immersion". However, I don't see it. You mentioned Deus Ex. When I played it, at first I thought it was kind of cool all the little interactions. As I played on, though, the interactions moved down from "that's cool" to the level of "oh, that's cute", to "why did they bother?". Really, the game play, ambience, and characters added much more to the immersion than being able to pick up a vase did. And then if I wanted to set the vase down, I was forced to either drop it under my non-existent feet, or throw it across the room. In fact, this partial "realism" made the non-realistic bits stand out even more. I even put it in quotes because, mentally, those things are immovable in real life. When you're sitting in some lobby, the vases "can't" be moved because they aren't to be moved. Thus, in some ways, it's less realistic that you can pick them up and throw them.

Quote:

Any thoughts, suggestions.

Unless there's some reason to let me interact with it, don't let me interact with it. Don't get me wrong, you could interact with a lot of little things in, say, GTA3, but that was part of the glory of that game. Being able to do the same in, say, FFVI, would have only distracted from the game.

Some players actually like extra details in a game, especially if it's a CRPG. Even if the additional items have no function for the player, they can at least steal and then sell them. If playing a thief, I'd much rather leave a house carrying a sack bulging with assorted items (even if some are almost worthless) than three or four objects that I know are valuable solely because they're removable.

As Numsgil mentioned earlier, hiding valuable objects amongst others can add to the challenge. IIRC, even "worthless" objects in some of the Ultima games could at least be thrown at enemies.

If you allow the player to walk around and interact with objects within an area, then IMO you should include non-essential objects that would be there in real life. If you don't, the world seems less real, as if the background is painted on - like stage scenery.

If you have areas that you really don't want to depict in great detail, then remove the interactive aspect from those areas altogether.

The later Might and Magic games did this. If you entered a house or shop, instead of being able to walk around the interior, you were shown a conversation menu and the owner's portrait beside an animated depiction of that interior. If it was a shop, then buy, sell and repair options brought up different menues so you could directly interact with your inventory or the items on shelves.

Quote:

Original post by Wysardry As Numsgil mentioned earlier, hiding valuable objects amongst others can add to the challenge. IIRC, even "worthless" objects in some of the Ultima games could at least be thrown at enemies.

I think Fallout (II in particular) did a good job of this sort of thing. There were very few "worthless" objects that, to be honest, I'd rather they left out (like compacts and lighters and such that did nothing in the game but take up space). Instead, there were mildly useful objects sitting all over the place (few rounds of ammo, maybe a length of rope, etc.). These were useful in the game, encouraged the sort of looting and searching you describe, and suitably hid valuable objects in the clutter. The game had all sorts of bits lying around, and even bookshelves and chests with nothing in them. You can have it both ways.

Quote:

If you allow the player to walk around and interact with objects within an area, then IMO you should include non-essential objects that would be there in real life. If you don't, the world seems less real, as if the background is painted on - like stage scenery.

I'm not arguing against having vases and pens and such sitting around to provide an interesting backdrop, but if my character can't meaningfully interact with a pen (e.g. write) or a sheet (e.g. fold it? hide under it? pretend I'm superman?) then there's no reason to let me interact with it.

In fact, part of my argument is that, through various social pressures and other consequences, we typically don't interact with these background objects, so there's very little decrease in realism (even less perceived decrease in realism) from not being able to interact with these objects. During normal game play, you don't even notice that you can perform these superficial interactions. And when I do notice these interactions, the lack of being able to do anymore than harmlessly throw the pen across the room decreases the realism.

Quote:

If you have areas that you really don't want to depict in great detail, then remove the interactive aspect from those areas altogether.

I like this solution, but doesn't it, in a lot of ways, diminish the "realism" that people are trying to get through interactive scenery?

It depends on the game mechanics to a certain degree. In a skills based game, where certain actions advance your skill levels, having low value items can be a bonus.

For example, in Morrowind you're more likely to be successful at stealing a small, worthless item from someone than a larger, valuable one. Whether you can do anything useful with the item once you've stolen it doesn't matter too much (as it has increased your thieving skill tally), especially if you can sell it to someone else (and increase your bartering skill tally in the process).

I'm not sure if your definition of "interaction" is the same as mine. If I can take, drop, sell or throw an item, I consider that to be interacting with it, even if that's all I can do with it.

Having objects that cannot be moved even though they're shown and would logically be small and light enough to permit it makes a game less real for me. Whether it's socially acceptable for you to poke and prod at personal possessions whilst the owner is watching is another matter. If said owner shouted at you for trying, that would be an acceptable compromise.

If I'm a low level character wandering around trying to gain money, experience and/or some idea of what I'm supposed to be doing, if I see a pen I pick it up because I hope to be able to sell it, not because I expect to be able to write with it.

Yes, in some ways preventing the player walking around shops does detract from the realism to some degree, but it also makes repetitive tasks quicker. If your goal is to buy or sell items, physically walking up to the counter and clicking on the shopkeeper wastes time, especially if that's all you can do there.

If all the shelves, items etc. are merely textures, there's little need to allow the player to get close to them and find that out.

Quote:

Original post by Wysardry It depends on the game mechanics to a certain degree. In a skills based game, where certain actions advance your skill levels, having low value items can be a bonus. For example, in Morrowind you're more likely to be successful at stealing a small, worthless item from someone than a larger, valuable one. Whether you can do anything useful with the item once you've stolen it doesn't matter too much (as it has increased your thieving skill tally), especially if you can sell it to someone else (and increase your bartering skill tally in the process).

Fallout did this, but with useful items. Take his clip of ammo, or some stimpacks, etc. The items are useful in game, and can be sold, and can add to your skill, and add to the atmosphere.

Quote:

I'm not sure if your definition of "interaction" is the same as mine. If I can take, drop, sell or throw an item, I consider that to be interacting with it, even if that's all I can do with it.

I tried to distinguish between superficial interactions (such as being able to throw a pen across the room, which is only useful if I'm throwing a temper tantrum) and meaningful interactions (such as being able to write with a pen).

Quote:

Having objects that cannot be moved even though they're shown and would logically be small and light enough to permit it makes a game less real for me. Whether it's socially acceptable for you to poke and prod at personal possessions whilst the owner is watching is another matter. If said owner shouted at you for trying, that would be an acceptable compromise.

Basically, when was the last time you could go into some random person's house and start throwing their vases around? Sure, you could go do it right now, but there are various consequences (legal, social, and conscience) that prevent you from doing it. I'd say it'd be an acceptable compromise if these were in the game. It's the half-realism that I find more distracting than not-even-pretending-this-aspect-is-realistic.

Quote:

Yes, in some ways preventing the player walking around shops does detract from the realism to some degree, but it also makes repetitive tasks quicker. If your goal is to buy or sell items, physically walking up to the counter and clicking on the shopkeeper wastes time, especially if that's all you can do there. If all the shelves, items etc. are merely textures, there's little need to allow the player to get close to them and find that out.

I guess I'm just curious why this doesn't bother you, but not being able to take someone's pen does. They seem, to me, to be equally unrealistic and equally "let's get to the point".

Quote:

Original post by ffx What are demands for object interactivity. Yes, we can fill our worlds with swords, potions and scrolls but what are other types of objects. Consider one room in such RPG. What objects should be made interactive? Should bed's sheets be interactive?

What if bed sheets could arbitrarily be turned into a rope, particularly after you've just stolen the Scepter of Power or whatever, have been chased by guards and have managed to barricade yourself in the princess' chambers on the 3rd floor?

If you did something like this, I'd favor a pie menu approach via a right click which arbitrarily maps objects into other objects, doesn't bother with detailed animations, and simply presents you with the new object.

Quote:

Can we take vase from desk? Can we move chairs? Will RPGs increase graphical detail to such level where usefull and interactive items can be found by moving mouse over screen and trying to find sillueted items, similar to todays adventure type games. We are adding all those items for graphical detail but not for functional.

FPS games have been allowing us to nudge boxes for years; taking objects has been a mainstay of RPGs for even longer; and the ray based approach for highlighting whatever you're looking at and using the intersection test to allow you to interact with objects has been around since at least Thief. So I think we're well on the way.

Quote:

Why don't we make player collector? Not for some uber weapon, but for fun. Fallout(althogh post-apocaliptic sci-fi) had all those useless items like condoms, dice, cards, etc. Collect the set of rare vases!

With any game system, as long as you give rewards-based feedback I think you can do anything. In an RPG, I think that what players care about is the story and their character growth. If you can modify stats, reputation, trigger plotlines etc. with items, or at the very least allow them to be sold or improve skills, you've done a great job. If you include something like a chunk of non-interactive garbage for veracity's sake, I think it detracts from the possibilities of the game.

Quote:

These type of games should be filled with all those useless products. Mass production at its best. In Deus Ex you could take vases, ashtrays, etc. Limited, but fun interactivity. You could add all those weapons, ammo, bottles, cans, paper blocks, decoration items, little bunnies, etc. When adding models to scene, make them at least collectable. Why not put it in you inventory?

I like the idea that all items, no matter what, can be melted down into nanotech goo for reuse elsewhere. :)

Quote:

Original post by Way Walker I think Fallout (II in particular) did a good job of this sort of thing. There were very few "worthless" objects that, to be honest, I'd rather they left out (like compacts and lighters and such that did nothing in the game but take up space). Instead, there were mildly useful objects sitting all over the place (few rounds of ammo, maybe a length of rope, etc.). These were useful in the game, encouraged the sort of looting and searching you describe, and suitably hid valuable objects in the clutter. The game had all sorts of bits lying around, and even bookshelves and chests with nothing in them. You can have it both ways.

The trouble I had with all this detail involved a bit of mental exhaustion in searching. What I would have wished for was an understanding imbedded somewhere in the game that there were items that were frills and items that I needed. Then I could leave the extra detail for when I wasn't interested in solving quests. With limited inventory and unknown challenges, I sometimes didn't know what to carry.

I do like that the extra detail sent me off in directions I never would have thought of. Collecting the Cats Paw girlie mags found fluttering out in the desert, for instance, opened up a plot line in one of the towns.

Quote:

I'm not arguing against having vases and pens and such sitting around to provide an interesting backdrop, but if my character can't meaningfully interact with a pen (e.g. write) or a sheet (e.g. fold it? hide under it? pretend I'm superman?) then there's no reason to let me interact with it.

Agreed. And the interactions are only meaningful if they get you further along in your goals. In an extreme example, you can have an interaction that's as silly as the need to use a restroom (as in the Sims) if it has a meaningful interaction in the game (affecting your hygiene, which affects your ability to socialize, which ultimately affects your morale).

Quote:

Original post by Way Walker I tried to distinguish between superficial interactions (such as being able to throw a pen across the room, which is only useful if I'm throwing a temper tantrum) and meaningful interactions (such as being able to write with a pen).

Whether being able to throw a pen is "meaningful" interaction would depend on the player's personal preferences and if the action triggered another event.

For example, it might be possible to taunt or distract an NPC, knock another object off a high shelf or set off a trap from a distance.

Lateral thinking doesn't have to be restricted to text adventures.

Quote:

Basically, when was the last time you could go into some random person's house and start throwing their vases around? Sure, you could go do it right now, but there are various consequences (legal, social, and conscience) that prevent you from doing it. I'd say it'd be an acceptable compromise if these were in the game. It's the half-realism that I find more distracting than not-even-pretending-this-aspect-is-realistic.

What I can do in real life in the 21st Century has little bearing on what I expect to be able to do in a fictional game world in a completely different time period. In real life I've never been given the option to roast an orc with a fireball and then loot his charred corpse, but that's a common feature in many fantasy CRPGs.

Staying with the vase example, even in real life I would likely be able to pick up that vase to admire it (possibly complimenting the owner on his/her taste at the same time), examine the base to check for a manufacturer's mark and/or change the water in it without upsetting the owner.

When was the last time you went into some random person's house and found that all their seemingly movable items were in fact glued or nailed to the shelves?

Quote:

I guess I'm just curious why this doesn't bother you, but not being able to take someone's pen does. They seem, to me, to be equally unrealistic and equally "let's get to the point".

A game is an interactive experience. If you can't interact with something, there is little point in it being included. Even walls and furniture are interactive in that they prevent movement through the space they occupy.

If a pen is included merely because the owner of the building the player is in would logically own one, then it should either be movable or out of reach. Not everyone wants to play the role of a law-abiding citizen, and may not visit shops and houses whilst the owner is around.

Members of a thieves' guild rarely tell apprentices, "We have a job for you. A rich merchant has a valuable jewel we'd like you to... obtain for us. Oh, by the way, even though you might sneak in whilst the owner is away or asleep, be sure not to try and steal anything else because all the other objects are cardboard cutouts." [smile]