This underlying psychological aspect is what I find most interesting. Take the crudest, most viceral example: The player says, "I kicked some a##!" Whether he knows it or not, the designer is trying to bring about this emotional resolution (a catharsis? I'm not exactly sure.)
Yeah, cathartic response.
Quote:
So how do you get this without the formal goal? One way, I think (very tenuous here) is to actualize it, the more dramatic the better. If you come to a building and you see people being slaughtered, men, women and children, and the game world has set any kind of heroic identity in you, that deep, soul seated need to avenge injustice I believe will naturally come to the fore. "Dammit, get off of her!" you might yell at the screen as you draw your sword, or pistol or whatever-- provided you're immersed, your belief is suspended, and the game has (at a low psychological level through gameplay mechanics) twinned your fate with the fate of the realm.
You hit it on the head, afaict. The context has to be very, very narrowly defined in order for the choice to be obvious, becuase the hesitation response has to be overcome before acting. In dramatic situations, time in compressed, but response is in human terms of time.
Quote:
There are drawbacks to this approach that have to be dealt with on a user experience level, but the payoff is that the player take away value is greater because they bring something back into their life away from the game ...
Yeah, this is what I have been driving at for a while with my work. Its still in the crudimentary zone, but I like the direction things are going in.
Quote:
OT, but I think this is the secret sauce of The Sims and why so many hardcore gamers can't relate.
Part of this is attributable to the immediate payoff designs of the past that fixed expectations perceptually in hardcores, as well as the low level response required in those game challenge designed responses. In the examples we are discussing, the cognitive leap from fragging to playing virtual sandbox to making an risk decision with moral implications has a lot of the same hesitation, instant self search and resolve forming the same kind of choice in life would have, thus, it ain't easy, and, we are fortunate that we can have run through in a simulated experience. Simulated experiences are going to become, imo, the therapy of the future. There was a thing on this last night on NPR where surviving firemen suffering PTSD from 9/11 were taken though a virtual disaster enviroment of the twin towers, discussed a walk through of their recreated memory, and were able to heal in very significant ways. Clearly to me, this means other choices that are very Ibsenesque in nature dramatically can become fantastic virtual interactive dramatic experiences. Think of how "Claudia hesitates" or "John angers" can be developed.
Sad to say we are selling virtual evolution, but hey, we help the planet any way we can, right?
Quote:
[grin] Okay, my Zen question to you of the day: What are these things, these games? Not what they do or you do, but what are they as interactions and experiences?
Definitely tightly contexted situational worlds, and single objective scenarios. The human will emotionally collapse or psychologically tire if you have to save the girl from the burning building every single level. As a writer, the only way I know how to develop a defition of the objects defining the fundamental components of this kind of game is to take the wheel of life approach and develop an array of experiences to test interaction and response against, and then see what you have when you are done as a definition. Welcome to the essence of plotting. Art imitates life, but interaction with art realizes perception and identity. Not easy material to codify. The difference to note is that the take away value for the interactive experience is so much more because of the higher emotive and moral choices having to be made by the player in situational reponse presentations. This is kinda 'seriousgamesy' but not in the areas that area of game design has formally recognized, I think. Good for us, we need all the market competitive advantages we can get. Just think, "Blow aliens away, feel better about your life!" has transitioned to "Save this baby from the burning building, improve your relationships!" Whoda thunk?
Adventuredesign
Always without desire we must be found, If its deep mystery we would sound; But if desire always within us be, Its outer fringe is all that we shall see. - The Tao
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.
Don't get me wrong, what you're saying is exactly what I'm talking about when I speak of "cultivation". I like building my character to be "the best", but the question is "the best at what?"
Take this example. In Fallout 2, I'm off doing all sorts of side quests. These get me all sorts of equipment and experience improving my character and filling the trunk of my car with trophies. But, then the game throws this in my face: "What're you doing?" "Well, I'm supposed to be looking for the GECK, but I spend most of my time walking into people's houses and going through their things... oooo, shiny!" At this point, I realized that I'd completely forgotten about trying to get the GECK because I was so into going off doing my own thing. However, had this thought crossed my mind and had there not been an answer to "what AM I supposed to be doing?" then I'd be the best at... well...
And that's the biggest complaint about MMORPG's. Basically, you grind and do quests so you can face more grinding and more quests. There's no real acheivement because there's nothing to acheive.
Basically, the end goal provides, for me, a "meaingful" measuring stick. To put a math twist on it, I think this is how it seems we measure acheivement:
a_w = p/g - 1 (subtract 1 so that a_w = 0 when p = g) a_k = p - g a_w = level of acheivement according to Way Walker a_k = level of acheivement according to Kest p = how "good" the player is g = how "good" the player has to be to acheive the end goal p >= 0, g >= 0
Thus, by my measure, if there is no end goal (g = 0) then there's nothing to define acheivement (p/g = p/0 which is undefined). By your measure, if the designers don't plan on taking you anywhere (g = 0) then that just means your character is never "in the red" (a_k >= 0 for all p).
As for winning the game being a given, I think part of that is due to wanting to make exploration/story part of what defines acheivement but also wanting to keep exploration/story orthogonal to acheivement through skill. If the two are to be orthogonal, then exploration/story has to be possible by relatively unskilled players. If we also want to have things to explore later/want the players to have closure in the story, then we have to make sure those later areas are open to relatively unskilled players.
Quests are just a collection of scripted story fragments. If you want to get rid of quests, then get rid of the scripted story fragments. Instead, use some sort of dynamic story generation. This is an AI problem. I've read some papers on using multi-agent systems to create dynamic storylines.
If you have access to IEEE Xplore, then search for "story generation". There are a couple papers on the subject.
Original post by Zefrieg Quests are just a collection of scripted story fragments. If you want to get rid of quests, then get rid of the scripted story fragments. Instead, use some sort of dynamic story generation. This is an AI problem. I've read some papers on using multi-agent systems to create dynamic storylines.
If you have access to IEEE Xplore, then search for "story generation". There are a couple papers on the subject.
I'd recommend this approach too (well, of course I would, story generation is my whole big thing), but that isn't really the same as removing quests. The dynamically generated story fragments would just be dynamically generated quests.
Haven't got a lot of time to elaborate on this (I'm on an ultra short break), but if you're interested check out my thread on automated storytelling techniques. And yes, admittedly, I'm using every opportunity to direct attention to that, as it's been lagging off in attention for a while and I don't want to let that thread die [wink].
But I'm not sure it's appropriate to Wavinator's question. Although I am noticing a tendency in his latest questions to get very close to the core elements of my own game design lately. I'll have to get cracking with finishing off my own design document soon, right? [smile]
Morrowind was fun, but after beating the main quest and being left standing there with a shiny new ring, i kinda just stood there asking myself "well now what?". I never did enjoy games that rewarded you with continued play as opposed to a shiny ending scenematic and the title screen.
I think Ultima Underworld provided a great form of motivation/freedom mix. You are given a purpose at the begining (save the princess from the evil wizard in the abyss, or rot in there forever), and your peroidically reminded/urged to complete your end-goal by an old man who appears in your dreams when you sleep. The player can explore anywhere and do anything, talking to whomever he wants, but ultimately there's only one way to go, down towards the lower levels and the princess/evil wizard.
Original post by Way Walker Take this example. In Fallout 2, I'm off doing all sorts of side quests. These get me all sorts of equipment and experience improving my character and filling the trunk of my car with trophies. But, then the game throws this in my face: "What're you doing?"
I'm sure you know, but just in case you don't, they removed the time limits with a patch for exactly this reason :)
Quote:
Basically, the end goal provides, for me, a "meaingful" measuring stick. To put a math twist on it, I think this is how it seems we measure acheivement: ... Thus, by my measure, if there is no end goal (g = 0) then there's nothing to define acheivement (p/g = p/0 which is undefined). By your measure, if the designers don't plan on taking you anywhere (g = 0) then that just means your character is never "in the red" (a_k >= 0 for all p).
Well, I didn't say I didn't want a main quest or ending. I said I like to leave the story behind. Meaning leave it there until I've become kryptonian enough to have the mega end-boss demon crying like a baby with my bare fists.
But what you're saying is not entirely true. The game could give you unheard-of challenges that are not required to finish the main quest. They could even give you these challenges after you win the game. If it relates to the setting, I would be all for it. If not to test my abilities, just to have fun. Imagine having a certain NPC type monster or gang who wanders the game's world. What if you could find their base of operations and stomp the entire fortress? Definitely not required to play through the game, but if the game world and characters acknowledge your accomplishment, that to me is better than an ending.
Quote:
Original post by Gyrthok Morrowind was fun, but after beating the main quest and being left standing there with a shiny new ring, i kinda just stood there asking myself "well now what?". I never did enjoy games that rewarded you with continued play as opposed to a shiny ending scenematic and the title screen.
This is exactly why I leave the main quest behind until I'm bored with the game [grin]
Sorry if do spamming, but i have so much to say....
OffTopic
I DONT consider Hack & Slash games (Dungeon Crawling) as RPGS, and I never will. RPGs, even cRPGs is about ROLE PLAY!(I am writing ROLE PLAY separately so u have a deep think of its meaning) RPGs are all about youre interacting in a world, and changing it, and be changed by it (by development/inventory). Hack & Slash genre give only enphasis to RPG-style combat, with almost no enviromental interaction besides combat mode. And theres no role play. (unless you consider a completely linear gameplay of a paladin killing hundreds of monsters until he kill Diablo as roleplay. In this case you should go look a dictionary about what roleplay is)
GTA have some roleplay game elements but i dont consider it as roleplay, as it have a very deficient development system (comparing to any RPG style) and dont give much objective besides the main plot. So the player can only explore, go rampage or follow the plot. There is no trade so shopping is just a tool to improve gameplay. I personally dont consider it as roleplay.
on topic
-------------------------------------------------
(Im considering "quest" as in-game built quests)
I think it depends of what kind of RPG game your making, and what are your target player, to decide how (and if you should) get rid of quests
In a single player, a main quest is essential. If dont, the player wont be willing to achieve anything (unless you make a world wonderfully live, interactive and interesting, so he explore for hundreds of time) and will only play in rampage mode and get tired of it. Sucessive/optional quests just works to keep the player busy so he dont grow tired os the main quest (like in Ultima 8 or Revenant, who had little or none side quests, respectivelly). So, if you dont use quests in a single player game, you must put a lot of effort to make the game very interactive. Putting lots of minigames (like lots of japanese RPGS) is a way. Make the map more beautifull, interesting for exploration and interactive with player's avatar is another.
In a MMORPG things change a little. Now you have player playing roles like none npcs youl'd make could never do. So the game can suck like Tibia while being addictive, because your world is filled with the best "AI" mother nature has to offer. One drawback is that your game gonna be dependent of your community and moderation (by moderators or in-game rules), but it is offtopic. What is important is that there much more things to do than single (chat, simple trade, player vs player, grouping -clans-, teaming, etc) So a main quest to inspire the player loses its force. So if the world shows some good challenge and reward, there is no need to a main quest.
But analising games like Ragnarok, you see that MMORPGs can get very boring fast if it dont have a main quest. Ragnarok is a nice game with a beautifull world full of stupid cute monsters with some quests but no main objective. If you play too much you can get very powerfull but... for what? kill more monsters? The game dont give a main quest for you to achieve nor it permits player vs player (only in arena but its pretty useless as you dont lose anything when u die nor you win much for killing others). So after a time the player grows tired if he dont like trading or exploring.
Seeing that I come to 1 conclusion: MAKE A GAME WHERE YOU LIKE TO KEEP PLAYING, OR AIM FOR SOME GAMEPLAY TYPES!
Here is some MMORPG gamer type and ideas of what to do to please them without quests:
- Warmonk type- The type of player who likes to see things dying. Try to make an action combat system. Try to diversify enemies and rewards. Make the enemies challenging, cool looking and fun to kill. As Diablo thaught, randomness help replayability.
- hardcore role players- Do optional quests! Or think of some other system to reward hardcore roleplay (Players playing acordingly to the story). And do a good and epic story that involves everyone. (think of epics like Odissey, Star Wars, Ultima, etc...). And do avatar customization. Besides quests, only a "gamemaster" or a very well organized group of hardcore player can make a real roleplay. So u can put some system that permit events controlled by gamemaster (like NWN) to permit moderators making semanal events. And u can promote hardcore clans someway (but it will depend of the community, not the game itself).
- player killers- Players that like to see ppl pissed off. Make sure your game support and reward/punish pvp without ruin pk's game or making pks rule the world. Its a very hard thing to do but its possible. Keep in mind that no one likes to be killed, specialy pwned by other players, but avoiding pk in the game kills the freedom of choice of your world, and a world without danger is no fun at all.
- group players- Players that loves to play with others. Just make the game fun and not pk-infested. Some party system would be good too.
- explorers- a nice, huge, interactive and varied world will do. Make some control to the avatar (swin, climb, jump etc).
- socialiser- a chat system and some places to gatter idle players. Some emoticons or gestures support with hotkeys would help.
- traders/builders- a nice trade system and craftmaking. Some safe place for the player to place his itens (bank, house, etc)
- adventure players (Archievers)- players that just want to act, and need an objective (typical japanese RPG console players). Do quests. Or a job system with boss-employee relation.
- (real) Archievers- Some nice char development system and a arena with paycheck should do the trick :)
and so on...
Note that its impossible to please everyone so the best thing to do is to build a game for yourself (if youre a gamer. If youre not, dont waste time making games). Obviously the players will only like and be addicted (with quests or not) if you give the gameplay they like.
Story is aways nice to RPG, but RPGs dont need quests to be fun. Quests give objectives but kill freedom because even optionally it rewards who do it, forcing players to do it. (the player can choose dont do it by lazyness, but then he wont have the nice shinning sword everyone have) Besides, it just plain tell what to do! The best RPG let the player do what they want (and receive the consequences for his act)
What im saying is that you dont need necessarily a quest (objective) to make a cRPG fun. You just need a world fun WITH challenges (not just to develop, but to just live -eat, slow heal, sleep, get money-) and good gameplay. If the game give some development to gameplay, I assure you the players will find an objective themselves. But if you do quests , making all quests optional (even the main one) is a must, unless youre making a single player.
The magic words arent "objectives" or "quests", but "things to do" ingame, and "accomplishment sense" when done.
Something I REALLY hate the RPGs today and the road they're taking is that they tend to remove all challenges off the game, because the player dont like.
"The player dont like to die? Dont worry, he can resurect and lose almost nothing" "Players dont like do be PKed? Lets put a high restriction to PVP. Lets flag them so everyone attacks or limit PVP area." "Players dont like to eat, drink or sleep? So he wont." "Players dont like to run on low health? So lets put a low priced 10000HP healing potion with hotkey to drink it!." "Players dont like to walk, then lets make a portal in each town and a town portal scroll." "Players dont like to organize his backpack. Lets make slots!" "Players dont like dying from poison, let then just make light poiton that take damage 1-5 sec "
In the end is a safe and sterile world with no real worries or challenges or meaning to live.
More Offtopic thoughts:
cRPGs basic todo list is kill kill kill kill. No wonder it has a high PK breed I want make bread, run shop store, create new itens, employ guards, hire assassins, arrest a thief, sail a boat, build houses and roads, to marry and have children, to rule a nation! THATS REAL ACHIEVEMENT!
And no, that wouldnt be a sim. Because if I could do all that in a game. youre pretty damn sure I had my objectives. Not only that, I would even plot "quests" myself to other ppl.
[Edited by - John Kowawsky on September 24, 2005 12:08:24 PM]
