Hmmm, or in a game that remarkably looks like diablo the NPC walks past the player and quickly moves next to the player and shuffles around before running off faster than the player can follow. This also causes the inventory box to open with a piece of parchment taking up the foreground... Isn''t really difficult, so I wonder why they haven''t used it yet ... I guess they are still stuck on linear with massive slaughter without choice

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
          

I''ll admit that that method is a little forced. Although, I assure you that Daggerfall is the absolute antithesis of linear.


"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd

"Though the course may change sometimes, the rivers always reach the sea" --Led Zeppelin

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

I would like to say, that AP was genius. However, how do you prevent the player from being protagonist? Just because he (or she) is a lowly kitchen servant does not mean he is not the protagonist. The problem is, if the player is doing anything, then he is going to affect the plot. I mean, just because Sam was not the protagonist doesn''t mean he had no effect on the plot. And as soon as the player has an effect on the plot, he can mess it up. If he can''t mess it up, then you have a linear game. The genius of AP''s idea is that, it takes the pressure off of the player/player-character. Basically how this works is, even if the player is protagonist, at any time you allow certain actions (attack or defend, assassinate the king or not, help the old witch or not . . .) always allow a null action. The player does nothing. That way if the player is off doing something you didn''t expect, something would still happen.

mildly pleased witch . . . LOL

Think outside the dodecahedron

Yeah, I suppose the basis of it is that the plot doesn''t strictly depend upon the player''s intervention. The plot goes on with or without the player, but the player can still affect the plot. It''s just that the plot does not depend on the player''s actions to continue and grow.

APs come up w/ the best ideas


"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd

"Though the course may change sometimes, the rivers always reach the sea" --Led Zeppelin

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

quote: Original post by MadKeithV


Actually, that leads me to a VERY simple solution to the problem!

Always have TWO places that can lead to a certain outcome/story twist. Then, if the player happens to be in one place, let it happen in the other, and the player will feel as if he/she has influenced the story, while your carefully crafted series of events is not compromised.

( works in single player only of course )


People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~

This sounds like a nice idea, but I am not sure I understand completely. Are you suggesting to do this just to increase the chances of the player intervening since the player can't be everywhere?

I'm trying to make sure I understand what you're saying.


"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd

"Though the course may change sometimes, the rivers always reach the sea" --Led Zeppelin

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.


Edited by - Nazrix on October 29, 2000 10:05:39 PM

I don''t have much time, I''ll get into this a little deeper tomorrow...

Naz, I think you are making a classic mistake by downplaying the division between player and character. Most story based games give the player exceedingly little control over personality traits, favoring instead concrete right/wrong decisions or tactics.

This is neither bad nor good. A lot of great games have characters who ARE the player, and a lot of my personal favorites draw a very thick line between the two... More later.

quote: Original post by Nazrix

Yeah, I suppose the basis of it is that the plot doesn''t strictly depend upon the player''s intervention. The plot goes on with or without the player, but the player can still affect the plot. It''s just that the plot does not depend on the player''s actions to continue and grow.

APs come up w/ the best ideas

thx. . .heh. . .actually I didn''t notice that I posted anonymously at the time, but I''ll have to do that more often. . .usually I''m just long-winded. . .

MadKeith, I''m having some problems understanding your idea as well. The way I''m seeing it, this would be just frustrating/comical, and I''m sure that''s not what you had in mind.

The big question is how to ensure that the player still feels that their actions w/in the game still carry meaning. But I''ll have to wait until tomorrow, since I have class in approx. 5 hrs. (damn daylight savings time. . .)

If you see the Buddha on the road, Kill Him. -apocryphal

Ah...so it wasn''t an AP, it was the AP.

Well, first of all I''d like to note that few story-based games have made me feel much like my actions had a lot of impact on the plot when the main character is the protagonist.

I think this is the beauty of your idea, AP. It finally allows the player to look at the occurances going on and act on his/her own initiative. The characters would seem to have their own agendas and the player could decide what role he wants to play in this story.

The story could be made to mold around the different possible decisions the player could make. If the player does not intervene, the plot would be set up to account for that too.

I''m not sure how this would work in practice however...


"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd

"Though the course may change sometimes, the rivers always reach the sea" --Led Zeppelin

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

Well, the story for my game is coming along. I nearly have the design doc done. I might upload it so that you can all give me feedback on the subject. At each major point in the game there are at least 2 choices and often 3 choices that the player can make. It depends much on the biases of previous games, ie, I wish to see what path the gamer takes through the game. It is going to be a little experiment to see if people will try to blindly hack anything that moves or not...

The player character will grow through the game based on the decisions that the player makes for their character. I think that it has merit, though there are still some holes in the story that I need to fix up

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
          

dwarfsoft-

I like the basis for your idea. Any way that the game can be reactive to the player''s moral/ethical choices, rather than just strategic/tactical choices is a major plus. Fallout''s the only game I''ve played that handled this at all and I think it could have been done even better. (not a slight on Fallout, BTW, its just the choices were too apparant)

I don''t know how you''re planning on handling this in your game, but my $.02 on that is: Have you thought about the way these choices would be presented to the player. Have you thought of ways you could make these decision points transparent to the player? You may have already considered this, but I''ve seen it handled poorly in games too many times to not bring it up. W/ the major junctures in the plot tree transparent, the game feels almost non-linear the first time through, which is a great effect.

You know, I''ve been thinking of this lately, as I am at present limited in every possible resource. (cash, personnel, time, you name it) Many of the best games do not achieve their effects through killer algorithms, or any advanced programming at all. Good ol'' fashioned sleight-of-hand goes a long way towards immersing and involving the player. For example: Making these decision nodes transparent, but their effects readily apparent, tossing the player some interesting choices that have little or no effect on the game, (perhaps just cosmetic changes) along w/ the major plot branches, stacking the deck against the player in a particular scene, so that even though the segment appears interactive, the outcome is in effect pre-destined. . .the list goes on and on, all low-tech solutions based upon existing technology.

As a player, I don''t feel cheated when the game designer plays me like this. In fact, I admire his skill if it is done well, and if it is done poorly. . .well I appreciate the effort, I guess.

If you see the Buddha on the road, Kill Him. -apocryphal