Quote:

Original post by Evil Bachus Does it show that I think the dialogue and characterization of KOTOR2 was the best part of the whole game?

It was pretty good. The other thing i liked about KotOR was the 'random' short scenes involving other crew members that'd happen sometimes after return to your ship, kind of "Meantime..." thing. Having this as addition to the dialogue system could probably flesh things out a little, too... it creates impression of the NPCs being to some degree independent beings with their own goals and thoughts, and not everything being centered on "you", the player (even if some of these scenes might concern your character)

I've collected a lot of ideas while reading this big-arse thread.
So here's whats on my mind:

Firstly, for the example we should be analyzing the real-life counterpart. Why is one attached to a wife and son anyway? Because you spent heaps of time with the (now)wife, eventually got her to marry you and the son is the product of your love, who you've been raising etc etc.

In the game counterpart, you see them once every hour or two, for a few seconds. And they don't even leave the house or anything. Forcing more time would make it boring though.

So the deal here is that one only grows attached to characters that one interacts with very often. Wing commander was a great example, and the burning sim also a good one, but in an inverse way. If the sim burns right away, you had no attachment to the character. Also, the sims (part one at least) had very cartoony personalities, so you couldn't go "ooh she had so much life ahead of her". You do feel bad about the mourning family as well, and thats another important point, that someone mentioned. You can always feel bad about someone else's loss.
In Wing Commander you could also see the rest of your wingmen mourning. Thats why it works so well. You spent time with them, they had personality, and when one passed away, everyone was mourning.
Also, since the wingman was... well, a wingman, you don't get the "The only thing he was good for was dying" syndrome. You know, that party member that always gets killed, and doesn't bring enough to the party to make up for it. You don't feel sorry for that one. You feel glad he's not a burden anymore.

For this very reason, mere dialogs won't cut it. You'll only get attached to the ones that are constantly with you.
Does anyone remember the little scout robot in Descent 3? you could name it. I called it 'Mini Mad'. I was really attached to that thing. Had they killed it, I would have sought revenge. (for those that didn't play, you could give orders to the scout, and it was really useful during the game)

Or i would have quickloaded. And thats the next bullet in this bullet-less post:
Discourage "fixing" the loss. This can be accomplished by showing right away that the event isn't entirely bad gameplay-wise, and if you reload you will miss out on stuff. So the loss is not really an error, but only a branch in the storyline.
In the example of the wingman, i could imagine a 'get revenge' sidequest (or even changes in the main quest).
In the example of the wife and kid, i could imagine meeting a new potential love, or something like that. Or the revenge quest, whatever. The thing is giving something interesting that can only be obtained by accepting the loss. Maybe a shiny new Demon Sword of Grieving (just kidding, they gotta be goals, not items...unless they significantly change gameplay)

this in reply to a comment:
Events have to be meaningful.
Someone mentioned a tragic event that was caused by the player, but since its so long-winded, player doesn't know and gets frustrated because it feels random.
This can be tackled by EXPLICITLY SHOWING the line of events that brought on the disaster, of course just before or after it happens. This way player can learn how to make it better in a next replay or a similar occasion later on. Or at least, it won't feel cheap.
Too much complexity gets lost on the player. Either take it out, or make it easier to follow.

And lastly, to close with a question:
about episodic gaming, if you played one guy in the first episode, and in the second episode you play someone else, and the storyline involves the other guy getting killed.... would you care?
would it matter that you played (and supposedly enjoyed) the whole first episode with that guy?

Reminder!
-Attachment comes trough gameplay usefulness + character background + constant hanging out
-encourage acceptance of the loss by offering new things to look up to, gameplay-wise
-explain trail of events when consequences reach the player

good thread, Wavinator. Been thinking of those for a while, but just now it cristalizes as actual doable game concepts. Oh and photorealistic facial modeling would help =P~

Quote:

Original post by Way Walker I haven't meant to argue that it's impossible, just highly improbable given the current audience. I'd be interested in how you'd get players to "unlearn what they have learned".

I wonder if it helps to take the tack of approaching this like a whole new genre. In every new genre (thinking of RTS here) the game required a heavy amount of beginning handholding to set expectations for how the game was supposed to turn out. I remember, for instance, shifting my whole set of expectations the first time I found that I could completely take over bases in Command and Conquer with engineers. Previously, my expectations had been set by war games which required lines of support and whatnot.

Quote:

Would you give them something "as good" whenever they lost something?

I think you have to move away from an exact tit-for-tat match because it invites "gaming the system" and min-maxing. There has to be a balance of definite reward that is drawn out of the expectations set by the universe you're in: For instance, most people are sympathetic to those who have suffered a death in the family, but don't expect much from your bookie. What I mean is it must, in part, be natural and expected.

Quote:

Would the outcome of the situation always be "as bad"? (Son either becomes a powerful enemy or a hindering drunk, but no "happy" outcome possible)

I don't think you have to be extremely explicit about how this works so long as there are flexible strategies in getting to the game's goal.

Quote:

Would you be able to undo what's been done? (Your wife left you, but you can win her back)

Personally, I prefer this maybe 60% of the time, but some choices should be hard choices for gravity's sake.

Quote:

Would losses not really affect the game? (Like Wing Commander)

IIRC WC had a victory / loss tree that let you tip victory each way after every battle. That might be a neat system for this.

Quote:

Without making all paths equal, how would you get a player to just suck it up and take the loss?

Right, you don't want to make all paths equal or they become meaningless to some extent (why give them a choice if they all turn out the same?).

My main choice for getting the player into seeing past an immediate loss, with the game not needing to employ any fancy enforcement (like no saves or whatever) would be: Non-binary victory conditions; the ability to freelance to different sides ("heck with this, I'm joining evil!"); the ability to explore the outcome of different choices without actually committing (via dialog or whatever); and having interesting outcomes even in loss (such as it being the only path for certain events, like two feuding family members reconciling).

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Conclusion: Fiction has free reign where game designers dare not travel. Agree? ... Why?

Absolutely. IMHO the thing that bounds games is the market. Today consumers of drama are mostly adults (movie watchers, book readers) and adults don't have time (don't know how) to play a game long like a long book and keep up the plot at the same time.

Kids don't understand adult situations like the one you described about being abandoned by a wife. Many (most?) of them do know what it is to be abandoned by their parents, and use games exactly to avoid having to face that reality.

So... if I had time and resources to make a game like this, I would probably make it, but I wouldn't expect it to be sold a lot.

Quote:

Original post by Madster I've collected a lot of ideas while reading this big-arse thread.

At least the size can't all be blamed on me for a change! [lol]

Quote:

In the game counterpart, you see them once every hour or two, for a few seconds. And they don't even leave the house or anything. Forcing more time would make it boring though.

This is why I don't think it works to even imbed it in the gameplay, such as "you have to visit people to maintain a good reputation with them." Funny enough, though, that IS how it works IRL up to a certain point, with people investing time in each other proportional to contact. (A solid bond gets formed after that for SOME relationships, but look at business as an example otherwise.)

Quote:

So the deal here is that one only grows attached to characters that one interacts with very often.

I've been thinking about the wife being an NPC ally for this to work. Wherever they stay, they can perform some useful and needed function that you care about in terms of gameplay; this is cemented with expressions of personality / behavior and choices that come as a result of your interactions.

If we stab the 1950s "stay at home spouse" idea in the heart, we make room for NPCs who actually get out and help the player. Maybe your virtual spouse drives the getaway car, or is your scout, or acts to hold down the fort in a necessary way while you're gone.

Quote:

In Wing Commander you could also see the rest of your wingmen mourning. Thats why it works so well. You spent time with them, they had personality, and when one passed away, everyone was mourning.

Very important! Yes, the game has to reinforce and recognize what's going on. This is akin to the "APPLAUSE" sign for the live audience of TV shows. It helps set expectations of appropriateness.

Quote:

In the example of the wife and kid, i could imagine meeting a new potential love, or something like that. Or the revenge quest, whatever.

I'm thinking the Verhoven version of Starship Troopers (the movie), where Rico loses his high school sweetheart to his rival and gains Diz as a result; then loses her to battle, and gains maturity and inner strength as a result.

Look at what that models out to be: Isn't it funny that games model our physical realities pretty well, but rarely touch on mental / moral development? What does psychological or moral leveling look like? (I've got a good excuse to use it concept-wise because it affects how the AI in your body develops, but other games could model this with magic, a diety or some other force).

Quote:

The thing is giving something interesting that can only be obtained by accepting the loss.

Agreed. Personaly, I really want to focus on the area of character development in you and NPCs because I think it's a prerequisite for dynamic stories.

Quote:

Too much complexity gets lost on the player. Either take it out, or make it easier to follow.

Good point. I'd rather not be taken out of the game, though, and shown a cutscene. Rather, I'd like the NPCs to comment. ("First you killed my father, then you destroyed his name, then you wiped out my family. Now you're going to pay." == a catalogue of real, in game events YOU did.)

Quote:

about episodic gaming, if you played one guy in the first episode, and in the second episode you play someone else, and the storyline involves the other guy getting killed.... would you care?

Only if the story unified it for me, especially if I'd gotten attached. If I'm told that I'm an undying soul of my people, for instance, and have found a new avatar, or whatever.

Quote:

Oh and photorealistic facial modeling would help =P~

Bah! As if it weren't already hard enough to build a game! [rolleyes] We can add that 1,000,000+ lines of voice acting, too!

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator If we stab the 1950s "stay at home spouse" idea in the heart, we make room for NPCs who actually get out and help the player. Maybe your virtual spouse drives the getaway car, or is your scout, or acts to hold down the fort in a necessary way while you're gone.

The scout would do it. At least, the scout robot did that for me in Descent 3. go there! fetch me the item! find an exit! good boy!

What if she was a checkpoint? your house as destructable save room?
then if it gets destroyed you need to form a new one?
Sounds potentially annoying, but since we're throwing ideas around... In GTA3 you had to move sometimes, and it was a bit awkward since you got used to save in the same place.. and then its just shut down and all. Aw. I used to live there.

Quote:

Original post by Madster The scout would do it. At least, the scout robot did that for me in Descent 3. go there! fetch me the item! find an exit! good boy!

Of course, you'd have to add a bit of personality: If you've married Helga, the big brawny Valkrye who fears goblins, she says "Nay! Why don't you get it yer damn self!"
You'd have to make sure the NPC didn't become the same as a dog, obviously.

Quote:

What if she was a checkpoint? your house as destructable save room? then if it gets destroyed you need to form a new one?

I'm generally against objects representing critical functionality. (Sorry, got abused one too many times in C&C / Red Alert whenever I lost my radar and couldn't scroll properly using the mini-map)

If you're restricted to the same stats as your typical RPG, you're going to have to provide advantages like "home makes you heal faster" or "wife lets you save."

I guess this is okay, but I really think it works against the whole purpose here.

[NOTE: Didn't read the whole article]

I think one problem with getting the player to actually emphasize is that the big idea of game stories today for the player to identify with the character by the character being representative of the player. You can't effectively force a player to feel so therefore in order for a lot of these concepts to work it would most-likely require to be focused on a character that the player may identify with but is not representative of the player.

Quote:

Original post by PSWind You can't effectively force a player to feel so therefore in order for a lot of these concepts to work it would most-likely require to be focused on a character that the player may identify with but is not representative of the player.

So you're saying that since it's tough to get the player to empathize because you don't know their emotional state, it might be better to get them to identify with another character? Sort of by proxy?

Quote:

Quote: Original post by kseh 2. I don't want my character to be harmed by something when it feels like random chance. Do you take the mentality, "I'm ALWAYS SUPPOSED TO WIN, THIS ISN'T FAIR!!" and uninstall the game? (Personally, I WOULD if such an invent never lead to something better.)

Playing Fallout:BOS, I had one traps specialist. With 5 identical traps to disarm the first 2 are no problem and then the third explodes in her face. It's death by dice roll. I feel cheated. This is the sort of thing I mean.

Playing Romance of the Three Kingdoms, I take a risk leaving a province with only a few soldiers so I can attack another. My minimal defenses get clobbered by who I thought was an ally and one of my best diplomats is killed. This doesn't feel as random to me.

Maybe I'd get past the Fallout situation a bit better if instead of "Looks tricky" for a warning I got, "Hmm... I think I should read three more books on this subject before I attempt this." Looks Tricky is warning that I should heed, but we are heroes here and we're already doing extrordinary things.

Quote:

Quote: Quote: 3. If something happens to my character which is obviously a predetermined story element (they didn't do that cut scene for nothing), I don't relly care. Care as in "don't care about the story" or as in "it's okay with me?" If the later, maybe all that's needed is to present events like the above partially as in-game cutscenes?

Don't care as in I'm not typicaly emotionally affected by the event. It was completly predestined to happen. If it weren't there wouldn't be a cut-scene.

Quote:

Quote: Quote: 5. If I can undo a bad thing by going back to a previous save, I will. Quote: Quote: 7. I've gone into games with the expectation of having to accept certain kinds of losses. It helps, but it isn't enough. Did you ever gain anything positive by accepting the loss? Personally, never.

A certain amount of persoanl growth, maybe. In the same sense as your typical emotional beating makes a person grow. That's a bit overly dramatic, but the right general sentiment. A sort of bragging rights when talking amongst friends about the game. A memory, (I'll never forget making the mistake of leaving Shadow on the floating island in FF6).

Quote:

What a second, now. One, I think you do vast injustice by stereotyping men and women, even in the broad (I know SEVERAL female Halo and fighting game fans who would disagree, as well as a number of Phantasy Star players). Second, time and again RPG players have said they want a more living, breathing world. Third, I think you're looking at the past and projecting it into the future, which is suicide in a world of increasingly expensive game budgets and a crossover audience that's just loaded with cash.

I was basicly trying to point out the vast shift in thinking of both the designer and player required to accept tragedy as an element in game play. It should be made clear early on that not all problems can be fixed. It should also be made clear that'll be a philosophy that will be implimented throughout the entire game. In fact I think I want to retract my #7 a bit. Change it to:

7a. I've gone into games expecting that mistakes, material losses, or deaths will happen in a game but I'll be able to continue on. It usually doesn't feel consistant though the entire game. And sometimes it feels like it's just a part of the game system rather than a part of the plot.


Some more thoughts (typical sentiments after playing past games):
-I wouldn't want my wife to die by my side, ever. Chances are I'd think it was a failure on my part to click the button in time. If my wife and I stood side by side in the midst of a firefight, I'd reload the game each and every time she died untill I could figure out how to get us both out alive.

-If she was say the ships doctor and someone boarded the ship to steal medical supplies and she was killed, I could maybe deal with that. I'd probably think I should've blown up the other ship faster. If I knew I couldn't I'd probably end up cursing the "random encounter" and try to find a way to avoid it. I'd do the same for any crew member especially if they were difficult to replace.

-If she was at home while I was away and thieves broke in and killed her, I could deal with that.

It seems to be, the more something is a direct result of my actions the more difficult it is to let a situation go. The first situation I'd probably reload 98% of the time. The second situation 75%. The third 40%. And if this makes any sense, when something happens and I reload I'll be more likely to reload next time. If something happens and I don't reload I'll be less likely to reload next time.

What a disorganised mess. I shouldn't write so much until after I'm done thinking.