Wavinator, I really think their is a whole new way of creating "objectives" in game that is linked to to your thread of Politics in game.

What do most objectives in game involve? Either stopping someone from breaking a code of conduct, breaking a code of conduct yourself, handling the aftermath of a code being broken, or following a code of conduct.

I'll give you an example of a current game objective, and then how I see it being done in a better system (one that utilizes what I said in your politics thread).

Objective:
Someone(s) has been kidnapped and forced into slavery, some group of people want you to free them.

How it plays out:
They give you a set of steps which you usually have to do in order, to ultimately reach your goal of freeing the slave(s). Usually, there is only 1 way to do this, limiting your freedom. The rewards are usually only given out on completing this objective in the way the game designer intended.


Using a politics system you could have a far better (yet similar) objective:

You stumble upon the small town of X, they live close to the larger city of Y. The city of Y believes in slavery and has taken prisoner many of town X's people. They've asked you to help.

How it plays out:

You really have any option at this point. Do you try to change the code of conduct, killing the higher up people in the city until slavery is abolished? Do you free any slaves taken until it becomes too much of a hassle for the town to enslave people?

None of this has to be "scripted" like a standard objective and here's how. As I discussed in the politics thread, everything is based on code's of conduct, conflicting codes create conflict between people.

How you solve those conflicts can be open ended, yet still have a definable goal. Everytime you free a slave you lose standing with town Y, and raise your standing with town X. After a while the people of town Y will start to persue you, hunt you down, this opens up a whole new story withen the game. Maybe you decide to attack it from a different angle? Kill off the leaders of town Y, and over time each new leader will have a chance of inheriting a new code of conduct (From the parent group), instead of that cities code.

Maybe you can get the people of the town (a subset group), to rise up? After a while, if a subset's code becomes powerful enough, maybe the town's leaders will change their own code?

Maybe the player decides they want to be a part of town Y, and so they do a 180 and give the town information, or bring them more slaves? This would still have its own reward, increasing your faction with one town while lowering it with another.

This may seem like its impossible to impliment, but I really do think its doable.

Break it down to a number of possible conflict situations, based on codes of conduct, allow various groups with different codes to create situations which the player can get involved in. Then give the player a number of open options for solving the problem.
The consequences of each action (Through the political system discussed in the other thread), will create the sub-plots/quests.

I think a certain amount of structure is a good idea. Missions are not bad in themselves, but it would be nice to give the player time to do his own thing - maybe even do his own self-motivated missions - as well as completed whatever scripted/generated missions might be available.

You could implement this by including some kind of organization(s) in the game that the player can offer his services to. Perhaps he could even choose the level of commitment to the organization - from a part time helper who'll do a mission when it's convenient for him to do so, to a full time recruit in a military force for a certain period of time. The latter option would give the player heavily structured environment, possibly also access to some cool toys, but not much freedom The former would give the player all the freedom he likes, but not much structure.

Star Control II. The right way to do a free-form RPG. You don't get *quests* - you get information. There's tons to do, much of it optional, and very rarely does anyone ever *tell* you to do it.

I think your problem isn't with objectives, but with side quests. Yes, mandatory side-quests are annoying little things added on to make the game longer. Xenogears is the worlds worst offender.

I wholeheartedly agree that objectives or quests need to presented as an integral part of the world, as information, not as 'PING, you've gotten a quest! Go find the magical foo of the stars!'. A game should have some kind of objective, freedom is nice but if you have no clue where you are going the whole thing will seem a little pointless.

What can be a real problem is too many quests. In Baldur's Gate II you accumulate quests so fast that at points you really don't have a clue anymore just how many quests you are currently doing. I'd get hestitant to talk to NPC's, cause they were just going to add another quest to the already huge list in my quest log. The fact that most of these were made out to be 'really urgent' kind of killed the immersion too. You can be urgently working on one objective, but when there is a dozen of them the fact that they are not really urgent and the game is giving you all the time you need for them becomes awfully obvious.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Clarifying as with Dauntless, I assumed that objectives would be imposed as they are in 95% of all games.

I'm sorry, I fully admit I've not played any new games in a long time, so I may be off. While reading your post I thought of objectives in four games:

Fallout II
Final Fantasy VI
Final Fantasy Tactics
Deus Ex

and in all four of those games, the objectives increased my immersion.

Quote:

Quote: What are you intending to immerse the player in? The gameplay? The story? The characters? The world? The "one step more realistic, but still no where close to the real world" details? The backstory entries, the little NPC vignettes, the breathtakingly beautiful graphics, the areas where reading about the world pay off in gameplay bonuses, etc.

Backstory with no story sounds a little odd to me. I've never played a game for the graphics. One time I saw a "breathtaking" sunset in Asheron's Call, then I looked out the window. I really liked Final Fantasy Tactics' graphics, but I've never put the game in to see them. As for gameplay bonuses, that's why I and others I know dislike MMORPG's. All you can do is get more gameplay bonuses, which allow you to get even more gameplay bonuses!

Quote:

Quote: If I'm not trying to complete some objective, why am I playing? If you're not using objectives to draw the player into the story, the characters, the world, the gameplay, what are you using? Your own choices and consequences?

But without being handed an objective, my choices start with "North, South, East, or West?" and what are the consequences of one choice over the other? It would seem, to my tastes, very much like playing with a toy, like a Rubik's cube. But I've never been "immersed" in a Rubik's cube in the same sense that I was immersed in the world of Final Fantasy VI or The Lord of the Rings, which I assume is the sense you're using.

Let's use Final Fantasy VI as an example. I got very immersed in the world and characters while playing through the story (Rachel's theme still darkens my heart, and the thought of Locke congratulating Celes on her performance still warms my heart). I'm off to meet the Returners to find my place in the world. I'm off to Jidoor to get an airship so I can infiltrate Vector. I'm off to the find the Espers in the hopes that they'll help us. Always an objective, but objectives justified by the story and, later, by my affection for the characters. However, something happens when you reach the world of ruin. You're left with no direction but "go, find friends". Yeah, I want to find my friends, but there's no specific objective. It felt much more like "gotta catch'em all". I was pulled outside (i.e. less immersed in) the game as I considered where to explore next and explored aimlessly.

I know I am WAAAAY out of date on this one, but reading this thread reminded me of an amazing game experience I had as a kid. Ultima IV was very interesting in that there was only a single huge underlying quest. In the end it was about BEING the character who fulfilled the champion prophesy.

It was (and still is) hailed for its nonlinearity. You could go anywhere, do anything, talk to anyone. The platform made the interactions extremely limited, but the concept was incredibly immersive, even on a 1mhz 6502 with 64k of RAM.

I think diversion should take precedence over immersion. That said, I think that the immersive properties of a game are only undermined by objectives when the nature and pace of the game are too frenetic. Splinter Cell is an example of a completely objective-bound game, yet the measured pacing and emphasis on stealth virtually demand that you stop and smell the roses, so to speak.

In short, as with all design debates, It Depends™.

I will, as usual, take my latest experience as my guiding example, in this case, the Doom 3 demo. This game uses, at least for the first while, short and easily accomplished objectives. Then the designers put in a LOT of things that make you not able to reach that objective, all designed specifically to introduce you to the world, theme, and pace of the game (as well as to teach you the systems).

I'm of the opinion that an objective is a great thing in specific types of games - Deus Ex, Splinter Cell, and Doom all do this extremely well. It can also be severely limiting, as witnessed in most adventure games, which are little more than narratives wrapped around puzzle games. For similar reasons, they are difficult to swallow in an RPG unless they are extremely simple, and the content between the starting point and the finishing point is deep.

This last sounds like your final complaint, which I would rather call "varied pacing" in a well-made game. Half-life, on the other hand, felt like you HAD to do things, and then you had things that you simply couldn't do. Despite Doom 3's obvious sourcing of many of the techniques of that game, its ability to simplify and really "do more" with them catapults it into a different kind of experience.

Quote:

Original post by Oluseyi I think diversion should take precedence over immersion. That said, I think that the immersive properties of a game are only undermined by objectives when the nature and pace of the game are too frenetic. Splinter Cell is an example of a completely objective-bound game, yet the measured pacing and emphasis on stealth virtually demand that you stop and smell the roses, so to speak.

I'm not sure if we're all working under the same definition of 'immersion,' here. I'd say that it's more about making the player forget that they're just playing a computer game; you appear to be using a definition which hinges on the level to which they 'experience' the virtual world (Heh, maybe my 'immersion' is your 'diversion' [smile]).

I've played at least one stealth game - I think it may have been Thief - where, while waiting for my opportunity, I basically ignored the game and started rummaging around my desk for something. That's not exactly 'immersed.' If I had been patiently sat there, staring at the screen, doing nothing... i.e. if I had actually forgotten that I could do other things outside of the game while waiting for this NPC to move away - that would be immersion.

I'd say it's perfectly permissable to have the player persuing an objective with a certain amount of urgency, and yet still be immersed in the game. Furthermore, I believe the key to that lies in believable characters.

Quote:

Original post by Way Walker Fallout II Final Fantasy VI Final Fantasy Tactics Deus Ex and in all four of those games, the objectives increased my immersion.

Gotcha. I don't know about the middle two, but Fallout 2 was open-ended and allowed you to choose your goals, so I don't count it. Deus Ex actually would be more of what I had in mind, although it I think got more open-ended toward the middle of the game, so maybe its a bad example. The crucial difference is whether or not the objective is timed and whether or not you have to do it.

Quote:

I've never played a game for the graphics. One time I saw a "breathtaking" sunset in Asheron's Call, then I looked out the window.

Hrmph, you've just disqualified yourself to be a game reviewer at a major gaming magazine. [grin]

Quote:

I really liked Final Fantasy Tactics' graphics, but I've never put the game in to see them.

Unfortunately, the real test here can't be done, and that is if you would have played bought the game, then played the game long term without them.

Quote:

As for gameplay bonuses, that's why I and others I know dislike MMORPG's. All you can do is get more gameplay bonuses, which allow you to get even more gameplay bonuses!

Not sure what you mean exactly here (I haven't played any MMORPGs, unfortunately)

Quote:

But without being handed an objective, my choices start with "North, South, East, or West?" and what are the consequences of one choice over the other?

What about: "Hey, I hear there's great mining in the east. But if you want some real adventure, they're having a hell of a time with the sea serpents in the southland. But whatever you do, I'd stay out of the northwoods-- too many trolls and the king's daughter hasn't been seen since last week. No, if I were you, I'd head with the caravans west and make an easy profit... if you don't mind goblins..."

Nowhere have you been handed "Mission 1: Find the King's Daughter!!!" which you can't escape from. There are simply events in the world, and you choose to react to them or not.

Now, if there's a further level of detail where your actions impact the world in strategic and layered ways, you now have even more incentive to go in any one direction based on what YOU want to personally see, experience and achieve.

Quote:

Let's use Final Fantasy VI as an example. I got very immersed in the world and characters while playing through the story (Rachel's theme still darkens my heart, and the thought of Locke congratulating Celes on her performance still warms my heart). I'm off to meet the Returners to find my place in the world. I'm off to Jidoor to get an airship so I can infiltrate Vector. I'm off to the find the Espers in the hopes that they'll help us. Always an objective, but objectives justified by the story and, later, by my affection for the characters.

And never do you experience any rebellion when you're presented with where to go? What if you hate that Locke or Celes person? What if you don't want to go to Jidoor? What if the Espers help you one game but not the next?

I guess this is the difference between sandbox players and directed players, though-- and neither is wrong, but I find not being able to choose as untenable as you may find not being given an objective. I'm playing through Freelancer right now, which constantly interrupts its open ended play with story objectives and I find myself mutter, "damn you Chris Roberts, why don't you come play the game and I'll just watch, because that's pretty much what I'm doing right now."

Quote:

However, something happens when you reach the world of ruin. You're left with no direction but "go, find friends". Yeah, I want to find my friends, but there's no specific objective. It felt much more like "gotta catch'em all". I was pulled outside (i.e. less immersed in) the game as I considered where to explore next and explored aimlessly.

I'm very curious about this experience you had. The game gave you an overarching objective, but are you saying that you wanted specifics.

What could the game have done to entice you to chart your own course? Or do you view the purpose of a game in general to be to present you with episodes of challenge connected by meaningful events?

My natural response is "what's wrong with the game that a player doesn't want to figure out their own path, but rather wants that path clearly laid out before them?" The question is invalid, however, because people play games for different reasons. Clearly when you're fighting in the game you're making your own decisions as to timing and tactics. Why would you not want to make similar decisions in the game world at large?