Hmm... this poses an interesting technical problem! I really like the idea though, and I think it could be good if we think through it.

Okay, let's examine a really small example history line:

Stone Age -> Industrial Age -> Space Age

Will be the only three ages we'll look at, just for examples.

Okay now, basically for each of these three examples we'll need the graphics, any interaction/dialog, and ideas for what can be done in each.

It sounds to me like they can be shifted back and forth, which is where the interesting part comes in.

* Altering the Tech Tree

You could have, as a set of objects in your game, a "generic" tech tree, that refers to everything your "God" character can do but in a generic way that doesn't apply to any particular age. For each object in that generic tree, there would be a child for each age you wanted to create.

Then, it would be a matter of, whenever you needed to use an ability, casting the generic tech tree object into the specific tech tree object you're using at the moment. So if there's a cGenericProjectileWeapon object, it would have cProjectileBowAndArrow (for Stone Age), cProjectileGun (for Industrial Age), and cProjectileLaser (for Space Age). Your "God" would have a cGenericProjectileWeapon object if he'd gotten to that in the tech tree, but depending on the "Age" he's in it would be cast to "bow and arrow" or "Gun" or "Laser" on the fly whenever you needed to use it.

This is, of course, just in theory. I have never tried anything like this.

* Handling the Destruction of Possible Plot Elements

Hmm, I suppose there's a lot of things you could do. For NPC reactions, perhaps you could create an object that holds a list of everything that can be done in the game... like this:

"Everything that can be created/destroyed" table: Names of towns, technology, specific people, etc...

"Everything that can be won/lost" table: Wars, competitions, quests etc...

And in each of these "tables" (however you would implement this, I'm only now just thinking about it so I don't know how feasable it is or how it would even be implemented), you would add slots whenever something was created or something had the potential to be won or lost. In the table would be information about the state of that "event" or "object": Was it successfully created? Was it destroyed? Was it won? Was it lost? Is it in the process of being created or destroyed? Is the tide being turned against the player? etc... Then, NPCs could refer to that table and randomly extract something from the table (or maybe not randomly, depending on the NPCs focus) and talk in a generic way about it depending on the current "state" that this "event" was in, and also perhaps some variable held in each NPC determining his "demeanor" or how he would respond to things going well for you or going poorly. Like a personality variable held in each NPC.

For more important NPCs, ones that actually interact with you for quests and the like, I think it is perfectly feasable to flag a quest as uncompletable until, perhaps, you work back to the tech level needed for that NPC to exist (perhaps build a belief in reincarnation into the game, simply for the purpose of not having important NPCs die out forever).

EDIT: Or maybe, if a character dies, another NPC somewhere inherits the higher responsibilities that this character had: so that, somewhere in the world, someone is allowing that quest to occur.

Anyways, I hope this all helps... these are all really new concepts for me, and I'm not 100% on how it would be implemented... but I do hope it helps to stir some ideas. =)

Quote:

Original post by TechnoGoth I'd love to play a game where as a single character I can help shape the world. Things like an election in a tower arises and I can help shape the towers future by trying to convice npc to support my chosen canditate.

Cool example. I was thinking more physical objects, but it reminds me that some objects must be abstract. The problem is that I'm not sure how you'd interact with abstract objects, such as "elections." If it were something like a "wormhole gateway object" then that represents a physical place that could be affected using the established game rules.

There'd also need to be some place to refer to abstract objects. You can see the state of physical objects, but not so with something like elections (how are things, how close am I, who is threatening the elections, etc.)

Quote:

But I suggest making them mutable but not destroyable. For instance the jump gate in chapter two that you mention. It should not be possible to destroy the gate until its purpose has been resolved. Meaning that since the chapter ends when the first ship leaves the solar system. Then the gate can only be destroyed after its secerts have been discovered. So until at least one faction has learned enough about it to build another then no one can destroy it. Since destroying it would effectivly stagnate the entire game.

Yeah, I'm really struggling with this one. On the one hand it would be cool if the system could create new plot objects once you destroy one, I can imagine it would make it even more of a PITA [wink] than it already will be to create.

In terms of stagnation, imagine having a list of counterbalancing plot objects that appear when one is destroyed. So if the "wormhole object" gets destroyed, you decide that this triggers either the "alien invasion" or "FTL discovery" plot objects. Obviously this could get hairy, but from a gameplay standpoint I wonder if this would be more fun, or if it would negate the player's changes. I mean, why else would you destroy a plot than to prevent it from happening, meaning you want something else to occur?

Quote:

But chapter two always starts during the solor development era, and chapter three always begins 20 years after the start of the galatic colonization movement has begun.

I don't want to start relying on this, but as an aside I've got some idea of giving you a "time passes" option, where you automate several actions as years pass. So it *MIGHT* be okay (depending on if I can make this "time passes" option not suck.)

Quote:

Lastly I strongly suggest that you have automatic saving at critcal points in the game. Thing of them as chapter and section markers. So that you can allow player to start again from the begin of any chapter in the characters history. Yo've won the game the galaxy is controlled by a massive trade guild that your president of. But you can't help but wonder what would have happened if you choosen to fight the seiger in chapter 5 instead of getting rich selling weapons to various other factions. Since the game saves the start of chapter you can easily.

I did not think of this, great idea. You may want to go back and see how things would have turned out otherwise. I like it.

Quote:

Original post by VThornheart Hmm... this poses an interesting technical problem! I really like the idea though, and I think it could be good if we think through it.

Thanks for the help!

Quote:

Okay now, basically for each of these three examples we'll need the graphics, any interaction/dialog, and ideas for what can be done in each.

Okay, graphics are the nastiest challenge, but it really falls into specific areas: Ships, cities and characters. Ships will be mix & match prefab pieces, so I think that's okay; cities I'm not so worried about changing, they'll just expand; and for characters, I think I'm going to see if I can procedurally generate textures on a set of costumes and call it a day (there's only so much variety that can be created-- and we expect less from the future than we do from the past, I hope)

Quote:

* Altering the Tech Tree You could have, as a set of objects in your game, a "generic" tech tree, that refers to everything your "God" character can do but in a generic way that doesn't apply to any particular age. For each object in that generic tree, there would be a child for each age you wanted to create.

One of the things I was thinking about doing, rather than trying to generate a tech tree, would be to create abstract techs that are stat-based, but apply interesting names to them. Behind the scenes, you'd have Propulsion (Fuel Cost: 500, Build Cost: 2000, etc.), but it's called "The Takahashi Drive"

I could use what you're talking about to enhance this, I think, because there'd be predictable links and you'd drop in the specific techs. What might not make sense is why one tech is related to another, though. OTOH, these are future techs, so if the "Takahashi Drive" links to "Dimensional Miniaturization" it might not have to make sense. (I think people really puked over Alpha Centauri's well-thoughtout tech trees, unfortunately, so I don't see a need for hard SF)

Quote:

Hmm, I suppose there's a lot of things you could do. For NPC reactions, perhaps you could create an object that holds a list of everything that can be done in the game... like this: "Everything that can be created/destroyed" table: Names of towns, technology, specific people, etc... "Everything that can be won/lost" table: Wars, competitions, quests etc... ...

We're on the same page. Spice it up with opinions related to factions and personality, and I think you get statements like "I'm worried we'll lose the war to those damned Centaurians" generated procedurally.

Quote:

For more important NPCs, ones that actually interact with you for quests and the like, I think it is perfectly feasable to flag a quest as uncompletable until, perhaps, you work back to the tech level needed for that NPC to exist

You remind me of another, peripheral question: If a plot object is destroyed, but can be rebuilt, should this automatically happen over time? I'm thinking yes. So if a rocket pad will help restore spaceflight, and you destroy it, the NPCs would keep trying to rebuild it.

However, that could get annoying. Maybe it only happens a certain number of time?

Quote:

EDIT: Or maybe, if a character dies, another NPC somewhere inherits the higher responsibilities that this character had: so that, somewhere in the world, someone is allowing that quest to occur.

I like this more. Tougher, but it gives the world more redundancy.

On the "Takahashi Drive", is that a static name, presumably reflecting a pre-destined inventor, or is it mutable - so one game has the Takahashi Drive, while the next time through you get the Graham Drive etc - could also have multiple implementations depending on tech maturation - so the mature "{inventor} Drive" is always the same specs, but the original prototype varies from game to game, and early production models gradually improve until you reach the mature form.

Quote:

Original post by rmsgrey On the "Takahashi Drive", is that a static name, presumably reflecting a pre-destined inventor, or is it mutable - so one game has the Takahashi Drive, while the next time through you get the Graham Drive etc - could also have multiple implementations depending on tech maturation - so the mature "{inventor} Drive" is always the same specs, but the original prototype varies from game to game, and early production models gradually improve until you reach the mature form.

In theory, the name should vary from game to game, and the initial specs would vary somewhat (but not wildly or there will be no way to QA it). So in first it's the Takahashi Drive with a certain fuel and build cost, but if you somehow intervene (kidnapping or subverting her), then because it's a plot object it will need to be picked up by some other NPC.

If you decide to restart the game, it might be the Graham Drive, maybe with a huge fuel but slight build cost (whatever varies gameplay).

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Cool example. I was thinking more physical objects, but it reminds me that some objects must be abstract. The problem is that I'm not sure how you'd interact with abstract objects, such as "elections." If it were something like a "wormhole gateway object" then that represents a physical place that could be affected using the established game rules. There'd also need to be some place to refer to abstract objects. You can see the state of physical objects, but not so with something like elections (how are things, how close am I, who is threatening the elections, etc.)

Well depending on your game rules, an abstract object could be just as easy to interact with as an tangible one, but with less art [wink]. An election object could be a simple as a list of canditates, who have a list of supporters. The outcome is determined by which ever canditate has the most supporters on election day. The player can interact with election by manipulating canditates and supporters. Blackmail the most popular canditate to convince them to drop out of the election. Hand out propeganda to supporters to try and swing them to your canditate.

Checking the current election standings would be as simple as opening your PDA and looking at the polls.

Quote:

Yeah, I'm really struggling with this one. On the one hand it would be cool if the system could create new plot objects once you destroy one, I can imagine it would make it even more of a PITA [wink] than it already will be to create. In terms of stagnation, imagine having a list of counterbalancing plot objects that appear when one is destroyed. So if the "wormhole object" gets destroyed, you decide that this triggers either the "alien invasion" or "FTL discovery" plot objects. Obviously this could get hairy, but from a gameplay standpoint I wonder if this would be more fun, or if it would negate the player's changes. I mean, why else would you destroy a plot than to prevent it from happening, meaning you want something else to occur?

Well... It depends if plot objects and plots are interconnected then that might provide a reason to destroy a plot object. Such as destroying the gate to prevent an alien invasion, or rivial faction from gaining a stanglehold on galactic commerce. But then you have to ask yourself does each era have a goal? If each era reflects an important chapter in earths histroy then, there most have been something of importance the occured during that chapter, and which brought it to a close. Then event that brought the chapter to a close would also be the goal of that era and as such something the must always occur.

If you create multiple ways it can occur that can usual be a good thing, but the resource required go up. But then you also run the risk of either alieniating the player by allowing them to prevent all but one event. Or trapping them by allowing them to prevent all the events.

So if the goal of chapter two is for earth to gain FTL capability, and the three ways are the gate, discover the tech, or alien invasion. Do allow the player to successfully prevent the first two they attempt and not the third? Leaving them to feel cheated? Or annoy them by allowing them to stop all 3 and thus never finish chapter 2?

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Quote: Original post by rmsgrey On the "Takahashi Drive", is that a static name, presumably reflecting a pre-destined inventor, or is it mutable - so one game has the Takahashi Drive, while the next time through you get the Graham Drive etc - could also have multiple implementations depending on tech maturation - so the mature "{inventor} Drive" is always the same specs, but the original prototype varies from game to game, and early production models gradually improve until you reach the mature form. In theory, the name should vary from game to game, and the initial specs would vary somewhat (but not wildly or there will be no way to QA it). So in first it's the Takahashi Drive with a certain fuel and build cost, but if you somehow intervene (kidnapping or subverting her), then because it's a plot object it will need to be picked up by some other NPC. If you decide to restart the game, it might be the Graham Drive, maybe with a huge fuel but slight build cost (whatever varies gameplay).

I was thinking that having a constant "mature" form (or range of forms) of the tech would ilustrate consistent underlying "physics", while having early versions with variable stats would reflect player influence - so the Takahashi Drive might be highly fuel efficient, but have a low acceleration, high cost to produce and weigh a ton, while the Graham Drive would have high aceleration but be a gas hog, heavy and expensive, but the Improved Takahashi Drive and the Improved Graham Drive would both have good fuel efficiency, high aceleraion, low mass and reasonable cost.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Quote: Original post by Spoonbender Hmm, first, I have to ask, is this still the same game? Last I checked, it had the entire galaxy populated with countless alien species, and now, it's about Earth and a few colonies? Or was this just an example of how all this could work?) Believe it or not, it all falls under one umbrella, but some of it will have to be scaled back. The focus has always been combat / stealth / trade, on the ground or in space, witha special emphasis on making NPCs extra-important. Since I think I have game mechanics that will let you experience several lifetimes, I'm free to start you on Earth, expand you to a few colonies, then get you into the Mobius Strip, a maze of wormholes connecting the galaxy. My hope is that you walk away with an epic experience, and will want to try to achieve different futures.

Wow... Certainly sounds epic. :D

Quote:

The drawback is that by focusing more on Earth, there won't be as much development for the aliens. Everything depends on content limits (graphics, writing, sound) for the most part, and I still don't have a clear picture of those limits yet.

Just dont spread yourself too thin. The current Earth-based stuff sounds awesome, as did the "older" galaxy-wide stuff, but trying to cram it all into one game is risky. Nothing worse than a shallow game that tries to do everything, but doesn't have the resources to make it work.
(But you're probably aware of that already ;))

Quote:

Quote: First, a few practical considerations. 1) Keep in mind how much wasted effort it would be. No matter what, the player always sees only one path through the game. The way the game changes based on your actions might only really become apparent if you play through the game again or compare notes with another player. I'm not saying it's a bad idea (It does sound damn cool), but keep in mind that the player will only actually experience a tiny slice of the content you create. Would it help to build the entire game's premise around the idea that there are multiple futures, multiple "timelines" as it were? Also, since I'm trying to hybrid a civ-like empire game and RPG, let me ask this: Why does the player only see one path? I've played Civ games where I've ended up with the Zulus conquering the world, or with a nuclear wasteland all over the globe; IOW, I've played multiple times.

As you say, you've played Civ games.
In each individual game, you only follow one linear path. Yes, you may play it again, and things might happen completely differently, but in a single game, it's logically impossible to experience mutually exclusive paths through the game.

But even in Civ, you don't really see much unique if you play through it again. True, the Zulu's might start somewhere else, and someone might start tossing nukes at you, but the game is still the same, and the (lack of) story is still the same. But the basic game is still the same. Only the AI differs a bit in it's choices. The background setting or storyline doesn't differ no matter how many times you play it, so I don't really think Civ is a good example.

Look at Deus Ex instead, for example. At the very end, you get to choose between three branches, three different endings. Why at the end? Because otherwise the player would most likely never get to experience more than one of them. They might not even be aware that playing the game again would unlock an entirely new experience.

Quote:

The shift in scale to RPG only matters if each epoch is extremely long. So you could take 2 weeks, experience the lower tower, find out that you don't like it; take another two weeks, get into space, find out you love it, etc.

Ok, I didn't realize you could backtrack and choose a different path in this example. But no doubt in many others, once you commit to one action, you're stuck with the consequences of that, meaning that to experience all the alternative possibilities, you'd have to restart the game. And meaning that while you have to provide content for countless branches each changing the world and the storyline, the player only sees one route from the beginning to the end of the game. As you said in the original post, "if you were to, say, start (or fail to stop) a war that destroys society in one era, you could be left playing in the ruins in the next." In other words, the player would only experience playing in the ruins in one game. He'd have to start over and take different actions to experience the non-ruined world in that epoch.
Or, like someone above mentioned this history line:

Quote:

[smile] Okay, since this is the second time this has come up (along with the post above), I'd better ask: Given that the game is about going from lifetime to lifetime, what's wrong with becoming all-powerful in a single lifetime? Imagine that you become some sort of Alexander the Great, with the battles and management decisions stripped down into NPC interactions and plots by the court. The gameplay hasn't really changed since you were a peon, but the context has. Is that bad?

Hmm, ok first, I wasn't aware that you'd play through multiple lifetimes. Of course, that changes things a bit. [smile].
But my main point was just that it doesn't really seem like a real, coherent world, when one person is able to follow his own personal agenda and shape the entire world as a result, no matter what anyone else does, and with no one else trying to take advantage of it.
Even Alexander the Great no doubt had countless people trying to use him as well as help him on his way, not because they wanted him to become a great hero, but because he was a pawn in their own power games. Because if he managed to succeed at his own plans, it would help them with own agenda as well.
He wasn't a big one-man show, he was the result of a lot of people working behind the scenes for and against him, and all trying to change the outcome to suit themselves.
If more people had seen him as a potential threat to their own plans, then he might have been assasinated before he'd even considered his future career. Or maybe if someone had decided that he had other talents they might profit from, they might have convinced him to become a tailor or a writer instead.
My point is just that it shouldn't be just you alone who decide the shape of the world. People will always try to push you to do what suits them (and you might not be aware that you're helping them), and they're sure to try to turn any of your actions to their own advantage, possibly taking things in a radical new direction that you had no idea about.

Quote:

Yes, this is what I'd like to see as well. As I mentioned, though, the danger is that you could tip the balance in a direction that you couldn't perceive and thus may not like.

Well, how bad could that be? Keep in mind that no matter how much people try to use your actions to further their own plans, it still doesn't change what you actually did. If you save a planet, then it stays saved, even if someone decides to exploit it by, say, selling postcards and plush dolls depicting you on the planet, and even if they eventually make so much money on it that they manage to start a major interplanetary corporation and so become an important actor later on.
Maybe I'm missing a point here, but I don't see how it could turn in a direction you may not like. Got an example?
Wouldn't you just take it as a challenge if in one epoch, the world has turned into something you don't like, because someone took advantage of you in a previous one? Wouldn't it just encourage you to change the world again, to put it right?

I think that apart from anything else, it would be really cool to look at the world in one epoch, and be able to trace it back to how it relates to what you did in the last epoch, and look at how the rest of the world reacted and took advantage of your actions.

Quote:

Original post by rmsgrey I was thinking that having a constant "mature" form (or range of forms) of the tech would ilustrate consistent underlying "physics", while having early versions with variable stats would reflect player influence

Why is consistency important ? For immersion? I ask because I'd think replayability and surprise would be more important than underlying science principles. But maybe a focus on reliable rules would give the world more gravitas, and thus make it more enjoyable?

Quote:

Original post by Spoonbender Wow... Certainly sounds epic. :D

[lol] Yeah, now the only trick is come up with the content generation and gameplay rulesets to make it work on a shoestring budget!

Quote:

Just dont spread yourself too thin. The current Earth-based stuff sounds awesome, as did the "older" galaxy-wide stuff, but trying to cram it all into one game is risky. Nothing worse than a shallow game that tries to do everything, but doesn't have the resources to make it work. (But you're probably aware of that already ;))

Yes, plenty of material for nightmares here, thank you very much. [wink] However, even the galaxy-spanning gameplay was never going to rely on a high-content approach. That's just suicide!

I see only two ways to do this: Vary stats on stuff you care about; and throw in lots of dynamic changes so that you experience variety of encounter. The first creates a functional difference between locations that softens the inevitable visual/audio repetition; the second (I hope) will create enough surprises to totally forgive that repetition.

Quote:

As you say, you've played Civ games. In each individual game, you only follow one linear path. Yes, you may play it again, and things might happen completely differently, but in a single game, it's logically impossible to experience mutually exclusive paths through the game.

Unless you reload, and try a new approach. Now I know people do this, but your point is well taken. The deeper the experience and details, the more likely I think you are to pursue a single path.

Quote:

But even in Civ, you don't really see much unique if you play through it again. True, the Zulu's might start somewhere else, and someone might start tossing nukes at you, but the game is still the same, and the (lack of) story is still the same. But the basic game is still the same. Only the AI differs a bit in it's choices. The background setting or storyline doesn't differ no matter how many times you play it, so I don't really think Civ is a good example.

Here I think you're severely underestimating the difference in play experience. These games are not the same. I may see the same graphics each and every time-- same continents, city screens, terrain. Yet the game occurs at a higher level so that it doesn't matter.

In one game, I'm fenced in on all sides, insecure, and constantly at war. In another, I'm isolated and desperately cut off from allies, but able to develop infrastructure (gardening gameplay) in peace; in yet another, I have just enough mountains to my west to center the game around a desperate Maginot Line defense that saves my bacon the ENTIRE game; in yet another, the rest of the world is on fire and I'm the primary cause, safe amid conquered allies and projecting power overseas.

What I'm trying to express by these examples is that there is a metagame experience that transcends surface gfx/sound similarities.

Quote:

Look at Deus Ex instead, for example. At the very end, you get to choose between three branches, three different endings. Why at the end? Because otherwise the player would most likely never get to experience more than one of them. They might not even be aware that playing the game again would unlock an entirely new experience.

You know, I'm more convinced than ever that games like Deus Ex, Fallout and Morrowind have to advertise, in-game, what they have to offer. But that's a topic for another thread.

But beyond the possibility of wasted resources, what would the gamer's main complaint be? Overwhelm?

Quote:

My point is just that it shouldn't be just you alone who decide the shape of the world. People will always try to push you to do what suits them (and you might not be aware that you're helping them), and they're sure to try to turn any of your actions to their own advantage, possibly taking things in a radical new direction that you had no idea about.

Okay, I keep doing a poor job expressing this, maybe because I'm changing so many things. I see this as being what you describe, with you having the power to change the world, but having to follow certain means and contend with certain challenges to get there. So it's not a free ride, where you're a god without contenders.

Quote:

Well, how bad could that be? Keep in mind that no matter how much people try to use your actions to further their own plans, it still doesn't change what you actually did. If you save a planet, then it stays saved, even if someone decides to exploit it by, say, selling postcards and plush dolls depicting you on the planet, and even if they eventually make so much money on it that they manage to start a major interplanetary corporation and so become an important actor later on. Maybe I'm missing a point here, but I don't see how it could turn in a direction you may not like. Got an example? Wouldn't you just take it as a challenge if in one epoch, the world has turned into something you don't like, because someone took advantage of you in a previous one? Wouldn't it just encourage you to change the world again, to put it right?

We're on the same page story-wise, yes. If you change the world, then some evil (heh, or good) powermonger undoes that change, I see you as being motivated.

My concern was more along gameplay, which is hard to really guage considering that there would be a few different ways to play. But let's take combat for example: (off the cuff example) Let's say that you get used to a certain frequency of combat encounters, then manage to either unleash a flood or stopper activity to a trickle. Both could create undesirable changes that you might not necessarily forsee.

In another example, perhaps you travel through a wormhole and accidently lead back a conquering force which essentially eliminates overt combat. Now you must switch to subterfuge, stealth, and rag-tag hit & run gameplay.

Quote:

I think that apart from anything else, it would be really cool to look at the world in one epoch, and be able to trace it back to how it relates to what you did in the last epoch, and look at how the rest of the world reacted and took advantage of your actions.

I think this holds a lot of possibility for softening dismay that you may feel at gameplay that can swing (wildly) one way or another. If the point of the game isn't hacking & slashing, but rather worldbuilding, then maybe you get to a point you don't like and I use another mechanism I've been planning-- a "time passes, the world changes" metagame which could allow things to instantly change again.

The trouble is that you'll never quite know what the player likes, and will always run into the danger of them being ultrafinicky because it takes a long time to learn how to play in any one way.