Quote:

Original post by Wavinator And what if the villagers are calm and resolute, have paid homage to their gods, and are so deluded they don't know they don't stand a chance without you? I think it's very hard to break free of the thinking that you're supposed to be explicitly told what to do. I think there are entire libraries of situations we could come up with where the "what to do" is implicit, naturally arising out of world and rules.

I think this can work, but as I wrote in my earlier post (which got buried amonst one of Wavinator's series of updates [wink]) there's a big danger that the player will not realise what is going on. In the case of an ogre attack I'd say there's two ways you could broadcast the message: explicitly ("Help! Ogres are attacking the village! Please save us!") and implicitly (the player is skulking around the wilderness and spies ogres preparing a raid). However, I think the implicit method has to be fairly obvious, or broadcasted in a number of different ways, otherwise the player might miss the connontations of what is going on.

I think that the implict method could greatly aid to the immersion, however, if done well. If the player figures out what is going on by themselves, they will feel as if they have accomplished something, akin to solving a puzzle in an adventure game. Done badly, however, and the player will feel lost and powerless.

As for the game continuously providing pressure, that could work, but it could also be a pain in the neck (especially for the vampires [smile]). Needing something like a constant supply of blood will limit your exploring range. You might also need to ramp up the pressure to increase difficulty as the game goes on. This might tick off the players who like to play at their own pace, however.

When I played Morrowind, the main problem with exploring was that the reward factor fell sharply the more that you saw. A lot of the cities looked similar to each other, and a lot of the landscape looked pretty much the same. Yes, there were a huge number of different areas, and I'm sure I've missed a huge amount of wonderful things (for example, I didn't know you could build a village in Morrowind, because I haven't got up to that yet), but the point is I'm already a bit sick of the game. My character already has a good set of armour and weapons, and if it gets increasingly less likely that I'll find something interesting in the world there's little reason to continue to explore.

that remark about putting pressure on the player, and the example of a vampire needing blood, made me realise something pretty simple: boredom comes from the fact that we have too much spare time.
If your character doesn't really need anything, then all you have is spare time that needs to be filled. Quests are there to do just that. They are goals, something to do because there is nothing else that needs to be done.
No need for food, drink, shelter, etc. And if those elements are introduced, usually people start whining because they are too tedious...
Yet, The Sims essentially revolves around those low level needs. And I think we all know how succesful The Sims franchise has become.

So I say, read up on Maslow's hierarchy of needs and try to implement more of those needs into gameplay element.

Take food, for example. Food can be grown (whether it's animals or vegs), or can be gathered/hunted. These two methods themselves can then be refined into mini games that become rewarding rather than tedious (that's the hope, anyway). Hunting means that you need weapons (you could build them, improve them, design new ones) or means of catching preys, you need to track your preys or know of places where they can be found more easily (so hunting doesn't consist of running around hoping a rabbit spawns in front of you for no reason), and the hunting act itself not only feeds a need (hunger) but has also other side benefits that make it not just a necessity but a rewarding act (you can use the fur to craft cloths, or sell it to someone who can, you can make extra cash by hunting more than what you need) and a step ladder to other form of interaction (since hunting takes time, you end up having to rely on other people for other things, while you provide them with food).

I can't help but notice that the traditional Quests we have only concern themselves with reputation, acquisition of goods and improvement of oneself, which seem to fit nicely in Maslow's pyramid, while suggesting that our virtual personas are very much incomplete people.

Philippe

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator And what if the villagers are calm and resolute, have paid homage to their gods, and are so deluded they don't know they don't stand a chance without you? I think it's very hard to break free of the thinking that you're supposed to be explicitly told what to do. I think there are entire libraries of situations we could come up with where the "what to do" is implicit, naturally arising out of world and rules.

That wasn't really the point. A quest is a quest. It just comes down to how you're asking the player to do a quest. If your AI characters are not asking the player to perform quests, then the current situation will be. In my opinion, there is very little difference. In one hand, you have someone asking you to save a town from attack, and in another, the attack itself is asking you to save the town. If you dislike NPC dialog or just don't want to give away the choices, then I suppose one is better than the other. But the exact same decisions are there for the player to make. They are still the same quests.

Quote:

Original post by Zeraan I played GTA for a bit too. I had fun stealing cars and totaling them, but I was at loss at what I'm supposed to do. So the fun fades away.

Umm, you just follow the icons on the mini-map. GTA, like Morrowind, started you off and kicked you in the direction of the main quest. I don't follow why you were at such a loss.

A thought I had was you basically have two types of games (depending on your definition of a quest, I define it more as game direction but others define it otherwise).

The first type of game is the most common game, that being the directed storyline type of game. This sort of game pretty much requires quests. The quests can be obvious (walk into a room and a box pops up that says "Quest" and gives you directions) or non obvious (talk to the NPCs in the town and one mentions that his daughter has been missing for some time and last seen "over there"). By my definition of a quest, this type of game is never without quests.

The other type of game is the sandbox game. In this game, there are not quests but instead the player what their goals are and goes and does things to forward these goals. I don't believe I've ever seen this in a single player RPG (you see it in almost every building type of game, ex sim city, hotel giant, etc) but it could be interesting.

[random tangent on]
I can see a single player RPG with the sandbox style as follows. You have a Warcraft like world where two sides are battling but instead of having third person control over everyting, you walk into this world in the first person. Initially everything is neutral to you but by doing little things to help out one side, or attacking the other side, you gain favor with one side. As you continue to gain more favor with a side, the NPCs for that side are more and more willing to follow your orders and be directed into battle. Eventually you can become the leader (or a leader) of one side and conquer the other side. Now coquering the one side could be considered your quest but its your choice which side to conquer. You could even add the option to profit from both sides by selling weapons or stealing...
[/tangent off]

To me though, the easiest way to implement a non-quest games is in MMORPGs because there, the other players can help determine goal and such.

Sorry for the half on topic post but I hope this helps something click with someone...

You know, Wavinator just has the best posts! [grin]

I totally agree on the free-form, dynamic style of play, but sunandshadow has mentioned more than once that he prefers a goal to drive him forward. I also agree with that, as far as The Sims lost my interest when I realized there were no goals.

I was originally drawn to MMORPGS for the fact that their worlds are terrifically large, and the play never has to end. I left them, because it always just degenerated into level grind, which I could have (slightly) more fun doing on console RPGs.

I think this is something Wavinator has been getting at in a lot of his posts lately: How do you motivate players without restricting them? For instance: if you can do anything, how do you know what you can do or why you should do it? If gameplay never ends, how can there be a big payoff?

I think you could strike that balance between motivation and free-form without quests. You'd just have to be a freakin' AI genius.

I want to design, or even just play, a game where NPCs are directed by needs, goals & AI like in the Sims, but in a wider context. It sounds like that's what you're theorizing. A world which reacts to you, rather than just telling you what to do.

Have you seen Indigo Prophecy, or the AI in Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion? I think most of us have already heard of Facade, but it's relevant enough to bring up again.

Quote:

sunandshadow has mentioned more than once that he prefers a goal to drive him forward

It's a she. [grin]

Also I am starting to suspect that a lot of the people answering here are Explorer types. Is it just me? Personally, IIRC, I am Explorer/Socialiser/Killer/Achiever (with Explorer being more than 50%, can't remember the exact proportions).
I think this info might be relevant, when answering.

The next big deal with MMORPG's will likely be an incredibly massive and very complex AI system. We're talking revolutionary stuff here.

Namely, it would need to affect the "life" of every NPC within the game world. It would be a cause and effect engine mixed in with a want and need engine that is balanced by the NPC's inventory, supplies, etc...

For example, an NPC named John may live in a hut and work at a bakery at the start of our world. Another NPC named Susan stops by John's bakery every Tuesday. When Susan stops by, the AI engine realizes that John is a male and likes females and that Susan is a female and likes males. John rolls his charisma in an attempt to put on the charm for Susan.

If that fails, Susan never goes back to John's Bakery because Susan is "weirded out" by John's attempts to woo her. Susan still "needs" bread from a bakery, however, and either asks a friend to get the bread or picks a new bakery to go to. However, if the woo attempt succeeds, then Susan and John begin a relationship.

One day, John wants to buy Susan's favorite flowers. These particular flowers. "Gumdrop Lilacdilons", are only found on the far end of town and would take a considerable amount of time to find. John would create three choices... choice 1: have a friend do the work for him, choice 2: leave the bakery for a whole day to do the work, or choice 3: buy the flowers from the local florist.

John chooses to buy the flowers from the local florist, because no friend has stepped up to help him out and he cannot leave the shop. So, John walks over to the florist and buys the flowers and walks back... or could have a friend deliver the request and the floral shop could have a friend deliver the flowers.

Let's fast-forward a bit... John and Susan are married now and his hut (from above) is no longer big enough... so John informs his landlord that he is moving out. John buys a new house or hires a friend to build a new house for him and his new wife.

-------Snip-------

The idea here is that the NPC's are living their life. You will invite the player to take part in the every day life of the game simply by this dynamic. It is human nature to realize a need and a desire to help. Moreso in some people then others.

Granted, no actual "quest" was ever assigned or created... but go back read through the story and substitute "friend" with "a possible player via quest" and you will get where I am going.

With this approach, several birds are killed with a single stone... 1) quests are constantly shifting and thus you will avoid the numerous websites giving quest lists for your game... 2) it will generate an immersive environment for the player... the player will feel like the game world is actually alive... 3) quest engine is not static nor is it assigned. Instead, the quest is available to be completed by anyone and typically only 1.

This sort of engine is likely to be done in the next 5 years and I would venture to say that a CRM programmer will be likely to do it.

At any rate, I have to go to lunch... but I wanted to throw this out there so the wolves could rip to shreads before I get back. ;)

-Matt

Quote:

It's a she.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAT!? [embarrass]
Wait...there are GIRL nerds here? [inlove]

I think ahw is right the nature of us reading this. The results on these opinions are likely to be skewed, because we all found this thread interesting.

How many FPSers who just like to "blow s**t up" would click on this thread? Of course, most of them probably wouldn't be your target audience anyway, so I might just be typing for nothing.

As far as EnochDagor's opinions on need-based AI, I completely agree. There was some vaguely related behavior of NPCs in Shenmue. (They didn't really have needs, but they had realistic routines). I still can't tell you how excited I am over Indigo Prophecy and Oblivion in that regard!

P.S. Is Washu a girl? Not that it's relevant, but I've only ever met one girl who was really into programming. Besides, we all know Ryoko was much cooler! [lol]

Quote:

Original post by ahw Also I am starting to suspect that a lot of the people answering here are Explorer types. Is it just me? Personally, IIRC, I am Explorer/Socialiser/Killer/Achiever (with Explorer being more than 50%, can't remember the exact proportions). I think this info might be relevant, when answering.

I think I'm an achiever/socialiser, with maybe a little explorer in the mix. In RPG's, I like side quests because they usually help with the "cultivation" aspect. My character/party is something I "grew", and side quests usually let you grow an even better character/party.

I also enjoy side quests that fill in the story/world, which is why I say I have a little explorer in me. It's similar to the reason I reread LotR, C.S. Lewis' space triology, or the Harry Potter books, and why I've replayed Fallout and Deus Ex so many times: I love the world they create. However, I would enjoy this information just as much if I had read it in the "back story" section of the manual, so long as its feel was present in the game.

Quote:

Original post by Drethon I can see a single player RPG with the sandbox style as follows. You have a Warcraft like world where two sides are battling but instead of having third person control over everyting, you walk into this world in the first person. Initially everything is neutral to you but by doing little things to help out one side, or attacking the other side, you gain favor with one side. As you continue to gain more favor with a side, the NPCs for that side are more and more willing to follow your orders and be directed into battle. Eventually you can become the leader (or a leader) of one side and conquer the other side. Now coquering the one side could be considered your quest but its your choice which side to conquer. You could even add the option to profit from both sides by selling weapons or stealing...

What usually drives me in a game is acheivement. I need some game goal to be working toward. I want the designer to draw me through an interesting universe. This doesn't mean one linear path. Maybe a pachinko machine is a good example. Gravity is always pulling on the ball, but it can choose which path it will take to the ultimate destination. Another benefit of this analogy is that it doesn't have only one "end".

But, that's why Drethon's idea wouldn't work for me. There's no "end" to the story. Even Civilisation recognized the space race/take over the world end goals.

Quote:

To me though, the easiest way to implement a non-quest games is in MMORPGs because there, the other players can help determine goal and such.

Seems most people are talking about MMO's now. I thought this was about a single player game. Anyway, I'm curious, what sorts of quests do you imagine players creating? I can imagine assassinations (if they mattered), I can imagine clan wars (if they mattered), but that's where my imagination runs out. Usually if a level 20 needs something, a level 1 isn't able to do it. If a level 1 can do it, a level 20 usually has no need for it. If levels are equal, the one usually doesn't have enough to make it worth the other's while.

I'm probably wrong, though.

Quote:

Original post by EnochDagor With this approach, several birds are killed with a single stone... 1) quests are constantly shifting and thus you will avoid the numerous websites giving quest lists for your game... 2) it will generate an immersive environment for the player... the player will feel like the game world is actually alive... 3) quest engine is not static nor is it assigned. Instead, the quest is available to be completed by anyone and typically only 1.

1) Assuming the quests don't "solve themselves" (Susan doesn't go to Peter's bakery, where Peter is a devoted husband and too old/young for Susan).
2) The sorts of scenarios that come to mind are still too contrived, to my mind, to preserve immersion any better than the old quest system (which I never really had a problem with).
3) Will there be enough quests to go around? You presented a relatively unlikely sequence of events that produced 1 quest to be completed by 1 person.

Quote:

Original post by Templewulf Wait...there are GIRL nerds here?

Men [rolleyes]
In no way do I mean to challenge sunandshadow's femininity, but I think it's amusing how much more helpful my fellow websurfers become if I drop a few hints that I might be female (btw, to avoid confusion, I'm a guy). Got a lot of free stuff back in the day (haven't played recent MMORPG's) because I used a female avatar, even had a guy ask me out.

Quote:

How many FPSers who just like to "blow s**t up" would click on this thread? Of course, most of them probably wouldn't be your target audience anyway, so I might just be typing for nothing.

*raises hand* Yep, I like to blow **** up. I also like seeing the character I created blow **** up. Of course, I'm also not much of an explorer gamer, so I'm probably not the target audience.

Quote:

Original post by Way Walker What usually drives me in a game is acheivement. I need some game goal to be working toward. I want the designer to draw me through an interesting universe.

I prefer to go off and do my own thing, leaving the story behind. I like exploring, facing impossible challenges, finding treasure, and collecting loot.

I can't count the number of times I've craved an armory display room in the games I've played. Also, winning the game seems pretty standard these days. I need a bit more. I've always dreamed of building up a character who has the potential to become powerful enough to conquer a trained army single handedly. Now that's fun stuff; Taking the hero of the game farther than the designers planned on you taking him. That, for me, is acheivement.

Quote:

Original post by templewulf WHAAAAAAAAAAAT!? [embarrass] Wait...there are GIRL nerds here? [inlove]

Remember that this is the design forum. Nerdism is not a requirement here.