I've been reading up about stories in games, and how a story is about emotional motivations / reactions / relationships. How about making *small/short* games where the basis is not so much on the player winning / losing and character survival. But on what the player-character is trying to achieve. Ie. If the character is trying to rescue their wife from terrorists, then if the player fails there is a (skippable) cut-scene which shows the grief and hurt that comes from their failure. This way when they next play it they want to play to help the character and save him from this pain. Or if the player-character dies, then it shows their friends grieving at a memorial service. This way the player isn't just playing for winning or losing, but because they have a stake in the story and the characters.

This reminds me of the ending of FreeSpace 2. In the last mission of that game, the player has to defend endless streams of refugee ships fleeing an unstoppable alien armada. The idea is to help as many ships as possible reach the jump node before command destroys the jump node in order to contain the invasion. The thing is, before you are supposed to leave, when the bomb that will destroy the node arives, the enemy blows up the star in the system. The game then gives you about a minute to get to the jump node and get out, before the shock wave kills you. For an unsuspecting player, that is usually not enough time because the back of the convoy is the part under the heaviest attack. So usually what happens is the player dies. Then a cutscene plays in which your commanding officer, who escaped earlier, talks about how you stayed behind to help others escape. Even though I had already beat the game by getting to that point, that speech always motiviated me to replay the mission. Why? The implication that I pointlessly stayed behind to protect convoys that couldn't move fast enough to escape, when in fact I always try to reach the node in time, bothered me. You might want to take a look at the game for an example of the sort of thing you are talking about.

It's really interesting to try and make games more emotional. Games are a great platform for promoting emotions in players - be it sadness, fear, happiness, joy - games can do it big time, creating great atmospheres by correctly using graphics, sounds and so on. I think that the games I liked the best, such as Half-Life, Deus Ex, Black & White and others - were the ones that really made me FEEL.

As for death - there are games in which death is permanent, but the game still continues. I think in Rainbow 6 you had lost members of your team if they died, or were injured etc.

Quote:

Original post by Ketchaval This way the player isn't just playing for winning or losing, but because they have a stake in the story and the characters.

I know that there have been plenty of games with different endings to either the main plot or subplots, but I'm always going to find it hard to be invested when I know the outcomes are deterministic (based on state triggers and such). Maybe it's just my jaundiced view from seeing the code, but it always feels arbitrary and cold to know that the story can only end with option A or option B.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator I know the outcomes are deterministic (based on state triggers and such). Maybe it's just my jaundiced view from seeing the code, but it always feels arbitrary and cold to know that the story can only end with option A or option B.

True, true.
This approach also stays true to the "bookend" story approach, ie.it is in cut-scenes in the intro and at the end. Maybe it is possible to put the story and reactions in the middle of the game as things happen?

What's more the examples I've given would probably be too negative, like a punishment for the player rather than as a reward for play.

Whereas if the player was able to win a teddy bear for their kids that might be better and act as a reward?

[Edited by - Ketchaval on May 1, 2005 6:36:51 PM]