Original post by ishpeck It's true, the compiler is not "fully interactive." But it is fully capable.
Yes, very well said! This is exactly the point Im trying to get across. I think games should be made the same way as well. The more tools you give the player that they can use to interact with the games environment, the more ways they can progress through the game. It allows for open-ended game play, even in a linear game.
Pixel Artist - 24x32, 35x50, and isometric styles. Check my online portfolio.
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.
Those people suck and should get cancer.
Just kidding. :)
You expose the natural spectrum of "versatility versus playability." In developing a more "interactive" game, you demand out of the player more cognition. Sometimes, video games are used for the express purposes of shutting the brain off. Sometimes, we just want senseless, unjustifiable carnage. . . and video games give our brains exactly that. The relief from the 9-to-5 drudgery of is a precious thing.
-----------------"Building a game is the fine art of crafting an elegant, sophisticated machine and then carefully calculating exactly how to throw explosive, tar-covered wrenches into the machine to botch-up the works."http://www.ishpeck.net/
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.
"Not a good idea" isn't exactly what I meant. More like "unnecessary" or "reduce to the same thing". I think I'm mostly just disenchanted with the idea of "fully interactive environments" as a panacea. The argument is that you can let emergent behavior take over and dictate the sorts of solutions available to the player. But, really, you're still limited to the solutions the designer provides. I see two scenarios:
1) You have a fully interactive environment. Designer places tree next to the goblins and lets that solution emerge from the ineraction between trees and axes.
2) You do not have a fully interactive environment. Designer places tree next to the goblins which is scripted to fall when you use an axe on it.
and I don't see any significant difference. They'd both feel the same and make the player feel smart for thinking of a solution that doesn't get his hands dirty.
Quote:
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.
I think we're on the same page... just making sure, is all :)
I think that sure, we are capable of thinking of solutions like the 'average' movie hero, but that's because most movies are set in the real world. A world we've all had pretty extensive experience with(running on 17.5 years myself), so if we couldn't I'd be more shocked than anything. But in all honesty, we need that much time because our world is so complex, and full of millions of different interactions, all which have to be accounted for.
Case in Point: First Person Shooters(the more mindless ones) are always very upfront about what you can and cannot do. And people don't expect more than that. The simple world it presents is always the same, and because of this, people are able to exploit 'The System'. I play Halo 2 online a lot, and while it may be more complicated(in terms of physics, and weapon balance) than other games, I've still seen(and had) tons of amazing moments, where you just go "Wow, that was awesome. Who would've thought of that?"
But in more complicated games it becomes harder. Adding rules, is an exponential component. It becomes harder for the games to read what is and isn't within the laws of the game, and what sort of thing is doable. A big part of this is the fact that we really are missing things we take for granted. IE, Depth Perception, I know instinctively if I'll make a jump a matter of seconds before I actually jump, because I'm aware of how fast I'm going, and how far away the other side is. I'm missing this in the game world, and there isn't really an equal to it. And that's just one of many things i'm missing.
So no, I don't think we can do it in games. Even if the hardware/software caught up, I don't think humans would be able to. Atleast definitly not in this generation(one grounded in a much simpler game design).
Would the system ned to understand culpability? I was playing Full Spectrum Warrior the other day, and on the grenades course, you have to use the M203 grenade launcher to blow up a truck, and then use a M67 fragmentation grenade to take out a silhouette target. When I blew up the truck, the silhouette appeared, only to be knocked down by the truck's bumper as it bounced across the street. "That's a confirmed kill, soldier," came the voice-over's congratulation, and I continued to the next area.
So, if I'm assigned to assassinate a man in-game, and he falls down some stairs and breaks his fool neck, can I just have a cup of coffe and go collect my fee?
How hard would it be to insulate the system against this sort of thing?
HemoGloben: Its difficult to say whether were ready for more complexity or not, people and humans in general are highly adaptable to various stimuli, i don't even think about depth perception when jumping my character around ingame. Most of the time its simply a matter of adapting to the 'feel' of the physics engine and responsiveness of the controls to meet the players expectations, so its entirely possible that although new and more complex games might be difficult its quite possible for people to adapt and become accustomed to such difficulties. I've heard rumors that games imported from Japan and translated into english for the western world are infact dumbed down in difficulty because their standards of gameplay are quite abit higher, but who's to say for sure?
Dealing with unusual circumstances, such as your target getting himself killed is probably a matter of perspective and left up to how the developer would want to deal with it. In reality, who's to say you didn't push him? How woudl they know if you didn't? People who get hired to kill would probably get paid anyway since the person in question is already dead, which is what they got contracted for in the first place. Then again whoever highered the person might want to make sure he got his money's worth and make sure you actually killed him and not some freak accident. Who knows, making it a random 50/50 deal on you getting paid or not could make the game interesting. ;)
I think MGS3 is one of the games which goes the furthest in offering the player room for experimentation. While the game itself is very linear, there are lots of ways to take care of enemy soldiers. You can shoot them, of course, but experiment a bit and you'll find you can capture dangerous animals like snakes and throw them at enemies, you can lure them away with food or by making noise, or into quicksand or bees, but also shoot their radios to prevent them from calling reinforcements, blow up ammo or food depots to weaken the patrols, scare them with a crocodile disguise... Most of these things the game won't point out, you have to figure it out for yourself.
I mean, Ok, there's only so much stuff you can do, but I've had lots of nice surprises when trying to do things I thought the game wouldn't acknowledge. For example, there's an escort mission in this game, a bit like Ico or Silent Hill 4. Like in SH4 the accompanying character was being a nuisance, so I actually used my tranquiliser gun on her. Turns out you can put her to sleep, and transport her to the objective yourself, and it'll be perfectly valid. And she even talks in her sleep...
Or you can blow up some helicopters in a base, and they won't show up later in the game, in the segment where they should be (One of the bosses can be disposed of in the same way, sniping him from a cliff long before you actually meet him face-to-face). There is an impressive amount of combinations available to the player, so for once thinking outside the box can produce good rewards for the player.
Ironically, according to message boards most player are so set in their ways they didn't even try to experiment and played it the "normal" way, then declaring it unimaginative XD
Original post by sunandshadow This POV makes sense when you realize that an author can't create characters more intelligent than they themselves are
Here's a story written by me: "One beautiful day our heroine proved the Riemann Hypothesis as true, and it only took her 3 minutes to formulate the proof in her mind. And she lived happily ever after." Now, me being able to write a story about such an intelligent person must make me one of the most intelligent beings on Earth, right?
