Turner Brown has some very valid points. In B5 you always hear of those great powerful old races like the Vorlons and the Shadows. They always look like they know more, a bit like X Files.

Mr. Stracinsky (I bet that is spelled wrong) once that that B5 is about changes. f.e. how Londo Molari changes form a person without power and moral into a much more powerful person. While watchig the first 10 episodes, nobody imagined that Sheridan would reaque the earth, in fact, he wasn''t even there ;-)

DeusEx is the only game that gave this "part of a bigger thing" feeling to me.

SS2 is a great example of playing with the players fear, but it doesn''t have this special feeling that Wavinator meant, I think.

Tim

--------------------------
glvelocity.gamedev.net
www.gamedev.net/hosted/glvelocity

quote: Original post by Drew

You guys played System Shock 2? Sure scared the crap outta me when I played it. The concept of not knowing where they are coming from, when they are coming, knowing you have limited ability to deal with them, but you can _hear_ them coming...ugh...nasty.

I think you might have a biased opinion of System Shock 2 Seriously though, I had the exact same feelings playing Thief (for obvious reasons) and yes, it all comes down to emotion. The more emotionally involved you are, the more you identify with the character, and by extension, the character''s position in the story or gameworld.

On a more specific note, I think fear is one of the most fun emotions a game can produce and is sadly under-utilised

>> I think you might have a biased opinion of System Shock 2

hehehe, why? ;P

Another thing to consider is the concept of character, and where the player is placed. Is it easier to get involved when you are watching(3rd person) or enacting(1st person)?

At first Id say 1st person and enacting would be easier, its a lot easier to get the feeling of attachment with the character. But I think 3rd person has potential, i mean, we are always 3rd person in a movie experience yea?

Drew "remnant" Chambers
Game Designer
Irrational Games

Yeah, Doom (well Doom2 as well) is the only game to have scared me sh_tless (although I was a bit younger when I played it ). Many other games have come close (so far unreal has come in second). But is was those things like lights suddeny turning off, monsters suddenly appearing and stuff that was done so well in doom as to make it one of the best games ever. Even now, if you were to stick the doom levels into, say unreal (with enough effort to make it look good) you could still scare the pants off anyone who hadn''t played it before. (and that is realy what you wan''t in level design, immersion, as well as perfection: you shouldn''t just slap a level together, you should take delicate care to make the most of your engine, without trying to do somthing your engine dosn''t support)

ANDREW RUSSELL STUDIOS

quote: Original post by Ravanon

What needs to be done is to put the player in a position where he genuinely feels he isn''t quite in control, without making him feel that urge to reload his last save or quit the game.

But how do you do that?

I think this is an excellent suggestion. It seems, though, that you need to seperate his challenges, successes and failures from the "big picture" stuff. So when the big picture stuff doesn''t work out, he doesn''t feel like it''s his fault.

An idea I''ve been working on (forever, it seems) is to have global events like war or great change partly based on player input and partly system generated. But it is tough to communicate to the player that negative system events aren''t bad (sometimes you need a war, for example, to get a war hero senario)



--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

quote: Original post by Landfish

Wav, I remember when you were just a systems-design nazi. With this post, you've officially come to the dark side... welcome...

Does this mean that, together, we shall rule the galaxy as father and son?

EDIT

Hey!!! I'm not letting you off the hook that easily, LF! Whaddaya think?!?!?!!?

/EDIT

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Edited by - Wavinator on January 25, 2001 2:49:07 AM

quote: Original post by ahw

I think the problem is that games tend to be short sighted.

You take B5 as an example, and I''ll tell you why I think you are right. It''s because everything seems to be (was) planned beforehand.

Hmmm. I think you may be right. Part of the sense of the epic is that everything is flowing toward a dramatic conclusion.

So then, does this hint that linearity is the only vehicle capable of giving us the epic? Or do we, as players, just need to know that the game is going SOMEWHERE, and that somewhere is BIG?

(In keeping with my first post, that somewhere doesn''t have to be an event. It could be the revelation of a noble truth or great discovery, or something)


--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

quote: Original post by GalaxyQuest

Of course you need a story if you want to "involve" the user. How else will they be immersed!!

I first agreed, but now I''m rethinking...

Simulations can immerse, w/o story, can''t they? When I used to play flight sim campaigns it was very easy to get caught up in the epic of whatever war was going on if the game was good enough and missions balanced and well designed.



--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

I'm thinking that the best way to get the player totally immersed is to make a "living" universe that they get into. Get them attached to certian things, people, places. That way if whatever it is is lost they feel it. But like all of you said its hard to make them not just go for their last save-game.

The other problem is making that universe. Computers are flat stupid. If only there was a way to make them come up with plausible effects to what you do. NOT preprogrammed ones mind you. The biggest let down that I can think of right now is in Fallout 2. (I am NOT saying that I don't like the game. I love it. Even the upcoming Fallout Tactics) Even after you get the GECK and return to Arroyo you STILL can ask about 1/2 the characters in the game where you might find one and if they know where Vault 13 is. So far in the game I've only come across a few characters that you can ask about what happened to your people. And thats because they are in towns you probably wouldn't be to until after getting the Garden Of Eden Creation Kit. (Your tool for rebuilding the new world you've been waiting for, results may vary)

That is why I think these massively multi-player games are the way of the future. The designers can keep adding to the game universe as long as they want to, or somehow turn it over to the players. Dunno zactly how that would work though...

Anyway, I think you get my point.
-L8r-

Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

Edited by - The_Krill on January 25, 2001 4:10:59 AM

quote: Original post by Wavinator

I first agreed, but now I''m rethinking...

Simulations can immerse, w/o story, can''t they? When I used to play flight sim campaigns it was very easy to get caught up in the epic of whatever war was going on if the game was good enough and missions balanced and well designed.

Of course they can, but the point of this thread is not about immersion, it''s about that feeling of being but a drop of water in the ocean, or as G''Kar put it so nicely in the Third Space video, ants on the figertips of giants ...

One of my favourite campaign of RPG is the Imperial Campaign for Warhammer RPG, because the different books are separate, and can be played as stand alone, but if you combine them, a connection appears between the different episodes, leading to a gigantic climax in the final opus.
The main reason this campaign is so popular and renowned is because of the way the story unfolds no matter what you do. If you want to be part of it, you''ll have every chance to do so, and in this case you will play a major role. But at the same time, other stories which you are not part of take place in the background.
And this is this feeling, I believe, that the world is alive while you are not there that makes the whole difference.

The immersion factor is totally independant, and not really related to "that feeling" of being a small part of a bigger picture.

youpla :-P