Thanks Nazrix... Nice to be back

Hmm, so what you are saying is that you dicatate a linear story, but allow many paths to acheive exactly the same results? That could work and I think that it is something that hasn''t really been considered much before. It is so simple that I have to say that I overlooked it as a possibility.

Basically though I think that it all comes down to a yes/no choice at certain points that branch the game differently for you. It is not a concept that I haven''t thought of. I am using this concept to maintain a strict story with at least some interactivity. Also, I have other things like time-based quests where the player may or may not complete them and it has little impact on the game.

BTW. It is good to see that LF got his forum, now all that is needed is for the NPC forum to open

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft
"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy"
IOL (The list formerly known as NPCAI) - A GDNet production
Our Doc - The future of RPGs
Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche

Already designed a game using this solution (and others) :p

Anyway I don''t have the time to put enough energy in it to make it true.

Maybe when I''ll create that famous game firm I want...

-* So many things to do, so little time to spend. *-

As much as I appreciate Naz''s plan, I get the sense that it will still feel something like Fallout. Sure, there''s a story there, kindof, but nothing you can get terribly involved in because we throw characterization to the wind by letting the player choose things arbitrarily.

I want to say there''s a "better" way, but it''s not. It''s just different.

You see, a system of various routes to success (as Naz has implied) still implies a possible failure. All games have failure in some form, even MYST (remember when you couldn''t figure out that puzzle, and you broke the cd and never played again? Yeah, that was failure...)

On of the things in the Ten Commandmants on Landfish.com that I really didn''t understand until recently: Games should be deeper than they are long. This really means alternate scenarios, two people will not usually play through the same way twice...

But this divergence should NOT be a concious process for the player. She shouldn''t be able to state the points in the game at which she could have done something different to get a different story. These divergent pathways should arise organically from the story, as simple as pass/fail or location at a certain time...

Thus the actual cause/effect relationship becomes null, it is no longer the only way! Sure the chararacter might be on the way to speak to a specific person, but if she gets there fast enough she overhears that person taking a bribe! It just adds a whole new layer to the gameplay, no more cause and effect.

quote: Original post by Landfish

As much as I appreciate Naz''s plan, I get the sense that it will still feel something like Fallout. Sure, there''s a story there, kindof, but nothing you can get terribly involved in because we throw characterization to the wind by letting the player choose things arbitrarily.

I want to say there''s a "better" way, but it''s not. It''s just different.

You see, a system of various routes to success (as Naz has implied) still implies a possible failure. All games have failure in some form, even MYST (remember when you couldn''t figure out that puzzle, and you broke the cd and never played again? Yeah, that was failure...)

On of the things in the Ten Commandmants on Landfish.com that I really didn''t understand until recently: Games should be deeper than they are long. This really means alternate scenarios, two people will not usually play through the same way twice...

But this divergence should NOT be a concious process for the player. She shouldn''t be able to state the points in the game at which she could have done something different to get a different story. These divergent pathways should arise organically from the story, as simple as pass/fail or location at a certain time...

Thus the actual cause/effect relationship becomes null, it is no longer the only way! Sure the chararacter might be on the way to speak to a specific person, but if she gets there fast enough she overhears that person taking a bribe! It just adds a whole new layer to the gameplay, no more cause and effect.

You used to say that the plot shouldn''t diverge whether the player effects it or not. What you''re saying about divergence not being a concious action for the player sounds like a contradiction. Did you change your mind?

I really think that the players effect on the plot being a concious choice is not a bad thing.

What you propose about having the player see that someone''s taking a bribe is really great. Like, if the player had all along trusted the NPC taking the bribe and sees this happen it could change any things about how the player sees that character for the rest of the game.

I think that''s a really good, powerful tool. I think that allowing the player to look at the situation and evaluate a concious choice is also very powerful too. It makes the player actually plan and think. Assuming the player is responsible enough it allows room for role-play. The player can react to situations according to their conception of the character they''re playing.

I think you''re example is more along the passive, story-telling area where letting the player make a decision is more along the interactive, game side of things. They''re both useful in telling a story and creating an immersive environment.


""" "'Nazrix is cool' -- Nazrix" --Darkmage --Godfree"-Nazrix" -- runemaster --and now dwarfsoft" -- dwarfsoft

I am with LF on the involvement aspect. I think that with some foresight as to where the story is going, you can place things in the game that are relevant and hint to some finality in the game. This is something that you can''t do (at least not yet) in a fully divergent game. If you had a lot of resources then you could have a branching story to your hearts content, but never get the full immersibility that a totally linear story can render (not saying that all linear games have immersible stories - most don''t ).

What you can do is have shortcuts and long cuts in a linear story. This is just a divergent or branching story. What you do is have some things that the player may or may not consider as shortcuts to their final goals. If they miss asking the NPC (for example) for directions then they may have to take the long way. If they take the long way then they may find out more information. I think that to acheive an immersible story then you need to have at least a minimum of player choice while maintaining a reasonable complete linear story. This is not to say that you cannot do it with a divergent story, just that it would be extremely difficult to contain the content that would be required to create the effect.

About the alternate scenarios, that is a reasonable idea and could hold some merrit, but it still holds that you would need to put a lot more thought in to get the required depth in the same time period in the same era with the same (mostly) people in your game. This only holds if you want the scenarios to be consistent with each other (which is something that hasn''t been considered to be modifyable) and do not contradict one another. Shortening the game length is one of the discussions that we had back in the Game Design corner. I think it is reasonable and would promote the depth in game aspect. If you did shorten it then you would be required to include greater depth and more content than a linear long game. This is definitely the pathway to games as art

About consistency. What I said before was if you were making a divergent game, if you want each of the divergent stories to be consistent with one another or if you want the stories to diverge into their own sub-stories. By this I mean that in one of the sub stories NPC X kills the govenor, but in another the govenor lives and kills the player, or in another NPC Y kills the govenor and player X. This is just a simple example, but it could be on a grander scale with more importance on the game. Say if your game was about ridding the evil that had beseiged a land (a cliched story) in ending 2 the evil was the mad king that had consorted with satan/the devil and in ending 7 it ended up being aliens that were attempting to take over the planet. These drastically change the finish and are completely inconsistent. This way you could have greater depth with difference in story and it would be a completely different experience the next time you play it because you wouldn''t know what to expect.

I think now that I have ranted enough, so comments please

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft
"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy"
IOL (The list formerly known as NPCAI) - A GDNet production
Our Doc - The future of RPGs
Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche

Naz, I thought we went through this. That''s why mutable is one of the ten commandments.

It''s like I said, deeper than they are long...

The character not seeing the bribe take place doesn''t make the NPC any less evil, and it doesn''t mean the bribe-taking didn''t happen. It just affects the player''s experience of the story in a non cause-effect way. That''s what we all want, right?

Theoretically, the game part of the story might never diverge in the above example... but the player''s experience certainly does.

The main problem that I see in a consistent-divergent story is that on replay-value the player is going to know too much. You should be able to add random elements and have a non-consistent story at the same time. As I stated above, there are pros for a non-consistent-divergent story being that the player has a new look on the game. A con is that they may not love you as a game designer for being non-consistent. However, a pro for a consistent-divergent game is that the player gets a feel for the world that you make for them, a con is that they are biassed in their outlook on it.

Just a few more thoughts

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft
"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy"
IOL (The list formerly known as NPCAI) - A GDNet production
Our Doc - The future of RPGs
Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche

LF,

Yes, I definitely agree with this. The thing I have a problem with is why would it be bad that w/ a certain experience the player makes a concious decision that effects the plot. Maybe the effect won't be 100% direct, but I don't see what's wrong w/ the player being able to see the effect of his/her actions. I'm not saying what you're saying is bad but I don't see why a concious decision is bad.

I like non cause & effect. I like it a lot. It's taking advantage of the game medium in a very good way. I just don't see what is wrong with the player taking in the information of the world and making a decision based on that information and having it effect the flow of the plot. I'm not saying that every story-based game should have this, but I don't see what's wrong w/ it.

You said it yourself: The player should do stuff 'cause he wants to based on information gathered about the world. I don't see what's wrong with the player doing something 'cause he/she wants and seeing a result of his/her actions.

quote: Orginal post by Chicken of the Sea
But this divergence should NOT be a concious process for the player.

Maybe you were saying in your particular example the divergence shouldn't be concious, instead of for all games in general? 'Cause that's the statement that's bothering me most.

One thing I must admit is that if you allow the player to choose concious decisions, you're putting a lot of trust in the player. You're trusting the player to be responsible enough to have a theme for their character at the beginning, so that they make consistant choices according to how the character of their player.

I must tell you though. That kind of player is out there. I check the message boards for the Elder Scroll games (Daggerfall was one of them) often, and there's a lot of people who are that responsible. There's people there who dressed according to the seasons in Daggerfall even though it had no effect. Imagine if it really did effect the game.

My point is that there's people who would be responsible enough to make consistant decisions, (the game's mechanics could help this also obviously through repuation and stuff like that).

If doing things like this is targeting a smaller audience, I wouldn't mind cause I'm just doing games for a hobby. I don't that the audience would be that small anyway.



""" "'Nazrix is cool' -- Nazrix" --Darkmage --Godfree"-Nazrix" -- runemaster --and now dwarfsoft" -- dwarfsoft



Edited by - Nazrix on October 9, 2000 6:46:12 PM

cause & effect are good - if you can keep it away from the players knowledge. They just play the game as if it is branching out in front of them but to them it is linear. Unconciously they should be making decisions that affect the game, but throw in some concious decisions for them that don''t have any bearing on the game. This way they will always do something different, even if they follow their concious decisions step by step . Then they will just consider the story randomly generated...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft
"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy"
IOL (The list formerly known as NPCAI) - A GDNet production
Our Doc - The future of RPGs
Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche

Damn Naz... you''ve edited that post at least 5 times now... Just write a new one for gawds sake.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft
"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy"
IOL (The list formerly known as NPCAI) - A GDNet production
Our Doc - The future of RPGs
Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche