Wow, okay, a lot of thoughts:

Environment, yes, this is one of the largest reasons that a player cannot be inventive. Some windows cannot be broken. Some objects cannot be moved. Yes, I might have a rocket launcher, but nothing is going to get me through that door but the stupid key I have to find.

The more games expand, allowing more interaction with objects and the environment, the more a player will be able to create logical solutions to various problems.

HL2 did a decent job at this, but they were still scripted solutions. What if rather than weight the wooden board with concrete blocks to create a ramp, I wanted to pick up the board and set it up against the ledge to create a ramp? No, the game doesn't allow me to move the board, only the bricks, so I'm forced to use the solution the game designers had in mind.

But there are a couple of other factors we need to consider:

In a movie, the hero is always extremely, extremely lucky. Yes, Marty was able to avoid being shot by wearing a plate of metal over his chest, but what would have happened of Mad Dog had shot him in the head? Or the gut? Marty's ingenious solution to his problem wouldn't have mattered at all.

When the train is pushing the DeLorean towards the cliff, Marty slides the hoverboard to the Doc who is able to coast away to safety. But what if Doc had missed?

Games will have an extremely difficult time re-creating these solutions. Worse, this is compounded by the fact that the heroes solutions often border on breaking the rules set by our own expectations. A game will have a set physics logic, just like reality does. But when our hero falls three stories only to save himself by grabbing a wire, he breaks those laws. In reality, his hand would have been shredded or torn clean off, and he would have continued to fall.

So how do you create a system with set rules, physics, and expectations that allow a player to logically create various solutions, while at the same time breaking those rules when it's convenient to the hero?

A movie is a continuous story, from beginning to end, scripted out to satisfy the viewing public. Games, on the other hand, depend upon the player, who is able to make mistakes, miss their target, or otherwise mess up the continuous story. So in effect, a movie hero can rarely be wrong. Any solution they come up with will be the right one. Real people don't have that luxury, and may be forced to try several times before finding a solution that works.

In line with this, movie heroes have the luxury of knowing a lot more than we do. McGuyver might be able to concoct an explosive out of common household cleaning chemicals, but the average player won't... or would blow themselves trying. Hints from NPC's or the environment might help in this kind of situation, but then we just come right back to having a solution scripted out for you.

I think that the most obvious thing a game could do to improve a players ability to come up with heroic solutions is to enhance and deepen the environment, physics, and so on. But there will still be obstacles to overcome beyond that.

Some of your other examples included Neo sacrificing himself: In a game, this would be extremely unlikely for a player to do unless they were fairly confident that they would not be killed. Neo fully expected to die. A player wouldn't make the same choice, since the point of playing the game is to continue to play.

Merry tricking the Ents: The game would have to have an very complex AI. Yes, you could present a menu of choices to the player, but once again, it's scripted out for you. The player just needs to try the different combinations until he gets one that works. How would the player be able to come up with and implement this idea all on his own? The day a game allows a player to logically communicate and interact with NPC's in that manner is the day we've developed true Artificial Intelligence.

When a player chooses to play a game, he agrees to abide by the rules implicit in the game. We don't consciously think about the contract -- but we are making such a contract simply by putting the disk into the Playstation, or by clicking on the quickstart icon. The degree to-which a player likes a game is a function of how much satisfaction the player receives within the confines of the game's system.

A friend of mine likes to play games like Fallout and Morrowind that allow for an abundantly open-ended gameplay. He likes to ask the question: "What will this game('s mechanical restrictions) allow me to do?" He loves to use the "Pick Pocket" skill in Fallout to plant dynamite on people -- a simpler solution than having to fight them. He loves to exploit the twinkery in game systems and define his own victory conditions as he plays.

When Blizzard Entertainment developed their holy grail of RTS games, Star Craft, they wanted to provide each of the factions with units that were more effective at killing certain other units. But they wanted an elegant solution. They did not want to crudely state: "Firebats do five times the damage to Zealts." Instead, the solution was: Firebats do splash damage that affect more than a single target, are small, relatively cheap, and can swarm around swaths of smaller units to cumulatively yield more damage against groups of light units.

StarCraft provides an excellent example of how to, with a few core mechanics and simple mathematical formulae, develop a game that is "simple and precise and lucid."

The general sentiment found in this thread is true: A game developer can not explicitly script a quintillion different options for the player to try. There is no such time and no such technology available to the game industry. But with a little bit of care and a little bit of know-how, we can provide just a few functions that can maximize the sensation of options.

As I've said many times, the real key to proper electronic entertainment is to convince the player that your game is more fun, better-looking, and more nifty than it really is.

Quote:

Original post by Spoonbender A very simple example that comes to mind is in KoTOR, you have to trick a huge rancor into eating something explosive to kill it. My first idea was to give it one of those mines I'd been pulling out of the ground everywhere for the last 30 minutes, but it turns out the game only counts grenades as explosives. How was I supposed to know that? Does that encourage me to try to come up with ideas for solving these puzzles myself? Or does it just encourage me to look up a walkthrough, toss away my own initiative, and just stick to the simple solutions I'm given?

Whas that what I was supposed to do? I killed the rancor using the mines. Didn't even think about making him eat a grenade. I went into stealth mode, picked up all the mines in the room and placed them in a rough line in front of the rancor. I then went to the other side of the room and made myself visible. The rancor saw me and ran towards me blowing up all the mines in the process. Rancor dead :)

It's been a while, so I'm not 100% certain if the mines were enough to kill him (I might have lobbed a few grenades as well), but I'm sure he didn't eat anything explosive.


A simple (perhaps too simple) way of letting the player know what to do would be to let the playing character talk to NPC's or even himself. The NPC could say something like "Maybe you could bring down an avalanche" if the player has to block a pass. If no NPCs are available clicking on the player with a talk icon when close to the puzzle would make him say something like "Hmm.. That drift looks a bit loose.". The player would then know something about the "correct" way to solve the puzzle.

One of the things I miss in older adventure games (Quest for Glory, Kings Quest, Space Quest etc by Sierra) was that I *had* to type things. It made much more sense to type "Look around", and get a text box with a description of the area, and a nice hint in the form of "...bars in front of the window. One of the bars looks a little different." Typing "Look at bar" returns "Hey! This isn't metal! It's painted wood!". Doing the same puzzle with a point-and-click system would require that the wooden bar in front of the window look very different from the rest to avoid making the player furious with the pixel-searching. As the final result, it would probably end up too easy or too hard.

How hard it should be in a "typing-adventure" can be easily modified.
"Look around" -> "One of the bars in front of the window is made of wood" = very easy
"Look around" -> "One of the bars in front of the window looks different" -> "look at bar" -> "Hey! It's made of wood" = easy
"Look around" -> "The window is barred" -> "Look at bars/window" -> "One of teh bars looks different" (set a flag to know that it's noticed) -> "Look at bar" -> "It seems to be painted. The paint is flaking" -> "Scrape paint" -> "You scrape away some of the paint with your trusty Leatherman Wave^(R). You see wood underneath." = hard

To get through the window you type "Break wooden bar" or something, but unless the character knows which bar is wooden he'll refuse. Perhaps say something that will make the player want to examine the bars.

---

On the other extreme, if everything in the game is interactable, the player could decide to blow a hole in the wall, unscrew the bars, pick away the mortar of the stone wall and remove the stones, saw through a rafter and bring the house down around him (at least he'll make an opening), blow up the rafter, get out a rope and hang himself from the rafter etc. "There's no eEEND to the possibilities!"

I hate to reference the same game in two different posts (makes me feel like a fanboy), but Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy (PS2/XBox) has a lot of neat little features that let you enjoy different puzzles in different ways. You can run&gun through the whole game, killing everyone with bullets, but you'll take a lot of damage and run low on ammo sometimes. In almost every scenario, you can find a way to use one of your psi powers to distract, disable or cut off your opponents either directly or indirectly. The designers obviously designed the maps with this in mind. A pile of loose wood in the rafters, an exploding barrel, a decorative statue, a distant box of grenades, or any number of other little objects can be used in fun ways to beat tough enemies. SOme enemies couldn't be directly harmed with psi, so you'd have to set a box on fire with pyrokinesis and then use telekinesis to throw it at them. Or you could stand on a metal crate and psionically lift it to the top of a building, then hop to the roof and snipe them. Delightful.

Resident Evil 4 also has some good innovations, including a limited interaction with the evironment that lead to and endlessly flexible series of back doors and improvised explosives. Ladders to windows that can be climbed, knocked down behind you, and then set up again by your enemies were my favorite.

Huh, wierd. Personally I always find myself thinking that book and game heroes are morons, and that I would solve probems with more subtlety and creativity than them. This POV makes sense when you realize that an author can't create characters more intelligent than they themselves are, so I'm very unlikely to find a book where the hero's IQ is more than 120.

In situaions where the hero solves a problem in a way that doesn't make sense to me, it is usually because I am missing some piece of info, often because the game's graphics or controls don't accurately model and communicate the situation the author envisioned, or because the hero knows things about the worldbuilding or other characters which the author does not explain to the audience.

Quote:

Original post by ishpeck The general sentiment found in this thread is true: A game developer can not explicitly script a quintillion different options for the player to try. There is no such time and no such technology available to the game industry. But with a little bit of care and a little bit of know-how, we can provide just a few functions that can maximize the sensation of options. As I've said many times, the real key to proper electronic entertainment is to convince the player that your game is more fun, better-looking, and more nifty than it really is.

This really is the key. It reminds me of seeing how movies are made. In my mind, people advocating fully interactive game worlds are the type who would build the entire forest for a movie. In reality, the movie set contains trees cut off only a meter above the actors' heads, and only extends a surpisingly few meters behind them. In theme parks, if you turn around a corner marked "employees only" you'll find that their extensive world and convincing buildings aren't quite so extensive or convincing. The key isn't fully interactive environments, it's environments that feel fully interactive.

The rancor example wouldn't have been a problem if the mines would've worked. Fallout was mentioned. I'm fairly certain every solution was scripted, but you don't feel restricted because pretty much anything that makes sense works. The "Who needs keys when they have rockets?" complaint is common. Easy solution? Don't give the player access to rockets when you want them to find a key. ICC's examples are awesome. Make the player feel like they figured out something sneaky when it was scripted all along.

Also, I don't think fully interactive environments are a good idea because, for the most part, they'll still only allow solutions the programmer planned. Basically, you just replace scripted reactions with "conveniently placed" reactors.

Quote:

Huh, wierd. Personally I always find myself thinking that book and game heroes are morons, and that I would solve probems with more subtlety and creativity than them. This POV makes sense when you realize that an author can't create characters more intelligent than they themselves are, so I'm very unlikely to find a book where the hero's IQ is more than 120. In situaions where the hero solves a problem in a way that doesn't make sense to me, it is usually because I am missing some piece of info, often because the game's graphics or controls don't accurately model and communicate the situation the author envisioned, or because the hero knows things about the worldbuilding or other characters which the author does not explain to the audience.

Keep in mind that while a character cannot be smarter than the author, the converse isn't necessarily true. An author can make a character who is less intelligent than himself. Maybe the author sees other solutions, but feels it wouldn't be in character.

The second paragraph was actually my first reaction when I saw this topic. It's not so much that gamers aren't as ingenious, it's that movie heros don't suffer from amnesia. The game has to, in some way, show the player that something is possible or exists before he can use it to solve a puzzle. Of course, you can be sneaky about it. Mention key facts in passing. The player'll be like "Hmm... I seem to recall something about..." and feel all intelligent and stuff.

Quote:

Original post by sunandshadow Huh, wierd. Personally I always find myself thinking that book and game heroes are morons, and that I would solve probems with more subtlety and creativity than them. This POV makes sense when you realize that an author can't create characters more intelligent than they themselves are, so I'm very unlikely to find a book where the hero's IQ is more than 120.

The author has the benefit of time -- and full knowledge of the situation -- so they can create characters more intelligent than themselves. Those characters might not be that much more intelligent though [smile].

• An author may not be able to quickly come up with a solution to a puzzle that, in one of {his|her} own books, a hero solved quickly and easily. In fact they may not be able to come up with a solution at all, but instead have to base the solution off the solution of someone more intelligent than themselves.


• An author may also not be able to make connections between seemingly detached events/ideas given the same subjective information as one of their heroes, but with full objective knowledge of the same situation, and time to think about the problem, the author may be able to make the same connections that their hero made.

Quote:

Original post by Way Walker Also, I don't think fully interactive environments are a good idea because, for the most part, they'll still only allow solutions the programmer planned. Basically, you just replace scripted reactions with "conveniently placed" reactors.

But isnt that the idea though? As you said:

Quote:

The key isn't fully interactive environments, it's environments that feel fully interactive.

A fully interactive environment gives the player tools to accomplish their goals that most games do not give them. Open-ended gameplay would no longer mean that you dont have any goals, it would mean that your goals can be completed the way you want to complete them. For instance, say a quest in a game would be to take out a group of goblins camped in a forest not far from town. How would you do this in a normal RPG? Run in there again and again and slay them until you can do it without dying? Pick them off one by one, using the games tired old 'agro sphere' to trick the others into not coming after you? LAME.

Now imagine the same quest in a fully interactive environment. Wait until night time, when the goblins go into their tent. Chop down a tree that crushes the tent. Dont think that will work? Set the tree on fire first. Or perhaps you could do something sneaker? Shovel out a pit trap and trick them into chasing you so theyll fall in it. Then kill them with arrows, fire, rocks, whatever you want.

I dont think you can make a game FULLY interactive. But you can give the character environmental tools so that they think its completely interactive. And as you said, thats the key.

Quote:

Original post by Omegavolt I dont think you can make a game FULLY interactive. But you can give the character environmental tools so that they think its completely interactive.

Take the example of computer programming: The folks who developed my C++ compiler did not plan for it to be used explicitly for game development or any kind of software development. They did not construct it with the understanding that I (the user of the compiler software) would want to make a tetris clone (or whatever). There is no "tetrisclone.h" and none of the functionality of a tetris game is implicitly stored in the standard C/C++ libraries. But I can use this software to make a tetris clone. Why? Because the software has a few core rules that are dynamic and flexible enough that a creative, well-trained mind can formulate ways, within the software's confines, to create such a game.

I think that a "fully interactive" game would follow such an example. The game engine itself would have a sense of cognition such that a player, within the game world's rules, can do anything imaginable.

It's true, the compiler is not "fully interactive." But it is fully capable.

Quote:

Original post by ishpeck [...]It's true, the compiler is not "fully interactive." But it is fully capable.

Alas, humans are not. Search the internet and see how many people fail to use a compiler to make the simplest of things. Expecting anything remotely similar in complexity{or even orders of magnitude easier} as a compiler isn't a very realistic expectation IMO.

Wavinator, I think your friend is correct - people like easy choices, even in real life. Just look at how many people do whatever TV tells them("buy _ because it'll get you sex!!!") and follow the latest fads etc beacuse it's easy to see what they are if you watch lots of TV or hang around in social circles. People make the easy choice every day and stick to their patterns, their safe places, etc and will go far out of their way to avoid (difficult) decisions.
The only difference in a game is that the players want their easy chioces to look cool.

If you ignore the above, I think the problem is the fact that games pretend to be realistic while entirely ignoring the rules of our world. Thus, hundreds of solutions that a player may come up with simply don't work for one reason or another, and the player may take ages to find a solution that works in the game unless the game points out the solution rather blatantly. This is another difficult problem to overcome.