Maybe it''s a brain infection... maybe my link with the homeworld has been severed... whatever, here goes... I hate games on rails. Absolutely despise them! They''re repetitive, mindless, and boring. They suck. Yet what if rails, or more precisely, scripted action sequences were just the concept needed to create hardcore, "true" CRPGs? Shifting Focus from Acts to Decisions Notice how limited CRPGs are in terms of skill and actions when compared to pen & paper RPGs. Compare GURPs to Fallout, or AD&D to Baldur''s Gate. Why do CRPGs, in comparison, contain so few choices? Could the problem be too much detail? when it comes to action and gameplay? In Fallout, if you want to fire a gun you have to equip it, load the ammo, aim for the target, click the target, and repeat until dead. Compare to a tabletop RPG: It gets right to the meat. "The Deathclaw charges. ''Fire my AK.'' It jams. ''Crap; retreat and get the people to safety.'' The Deathclaw''s almost on you. ''Seal the door; tell my lieutenant to radio for help while I try to activate the factory.'' The door buckles. One of the refugees, a fanatic, whips out a gun and orders you to open the door..." What would a CRPG have to implement to get this kind of gameplay? Myopic Focus Consider a game where the player cares more about making decisions than doing actions. Yes, actions are a form of decision making. But I''m talking about the difference between abstraction and going through the motions. The decisions a character makes can define the role they play. But when a player must go through the motions, two drawbacks occur: First, they are forever myopically focusing on the mechanics of the deed, not the role-playing and decisions that make up the experience. It''s the decisions that put the role into role-playing, not just carrying them out in detail. Second, we are forever saddled with limited games because adding each action (theiving, hand to hand combat, hacking, etc.) in detail is extraordinarily expensive -- and not just in coding terms. Our players have to learn the details of each action and the interface. The more "jumpy / fast" we make things, the less we can add, and the more we cut out hardcore CRPG players and older players. In short, emphasizing the details may make our CRPGs smaller! Scripted Action Sequences Here''s a design problem that will frame what I''m proposing: You want to emphasize role-playing. You want to put the player in a big world with a huge number of classes or professions. You want them to be able to take up almost any job, any skill, and get into almost any adventure appropriate for your world. In short, you want the power of pen & paper RPGs. But since you''re not a billionare, this is impossible, right? Maybe not. Drop the long sequences of clicking. Drop the actual minutia of doing. Focus on the fun decisions-- the high level decisions that define the role you want the player to play- and then think about randomly or semi-randomly placed elements that convey the action being done. What?!?!?!?! You''re not aiming the crossbow itself. You''re not actually endlessly clicking on targets. You''re instead: Defining your combat posture, trading attack for defense, chosing "special moves," and stacking them all in a sequence. In real time. It''s the depth you get in a turn-based game, mixed with the excitement of live action. Because of lag, MMORPGs sort of already do this, but there''s really not enough detail or choice. With scripted action sequences, you make up for the lack of actual action with (*gasp* ) role-playing . You can now include a ton of real RPG choices because you don''t require the player to learn minutia. You can create a more adventurous, cinematic feel and provide hardcore decision making. Even better, if you use random encounters and randomized sequences, you don''t lose non-linearity but you gain a greater sense of a living, responsive environment. And best of all for us indies/would-be indies, it doesn''t take a billion years / dollars to code. Thoughts? -------------------- Just waiting for the mothership...

That doesn''t sound like rails. It sounds like a greater degree of abstraction.

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster

That doesn''t sound like rails. It sounds like a greater degree of abstraction.

Rails refers more to implementation. Yes, this is greater abstraction, but when you get right down to it seeing your character carry out scripted sequences versus the minutia of clicking would make a game seem like it''s either AI driven or on rails.

For example: You can be a starfighter pilot and a race car driver.

Done traditionally, these are two different game engines. The learning curve would be steep. Few would stand for it.

If, however, these were scripted action sequences, then you''d be displaying the action of the space combat or race, but focusing on what choices would be interesting.

It''s the only way to actually give CRPGs the same scope as RPGs without having millions of dollars behind you.

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

How do you define interesting choices?

But I really don''t see how you could cover every eventuality with scripted sequences.

-Mezz

decipher(argument for rails.)

Yeah, why do you control Mario with split second timing? (It is an easy way to give the player things to do second by s, minute by m. Yet the player also has to make choices, avoid shell? jump on shell? get power up. It seems stupid that to climb stairs in Mario, you have to jump up each step..

It is focussing on the small picture, instead of the bigger picture.

Edited by - Ketchaval on February 22, 2001 9:11:57 AM

Yes, I have always felt that the higher-level decisions were the important thing such although I never thought of taking it this far. It is true that with the detail that it does make our players focus far too much on the little details.

It''s like Ultima Online. Who the hell wants to click on a tree all day. It should focus on the higher level decision to want to chop a tree down which should include some sacrafice such as the fact that you aren''t spending your time doing something else.

This is a great idea, Wav, but I can''t think of how the interface would work.


Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
What a plight we who try to make a story-based game have...writers of conventional media have words, we have but binary numbers

What about using a degree of "artificial intelligence" to have the computer come up with the available options. Thus this would allow for situations that hadn''t been scripted to be generated on the fly.

1 problem with "scripted" sequences with several action choices would be that the player wouldn''t be sure if the "implementation" of the action would be good. Ie. Climb to top of wall, would it do this in a safe way? avoiding fields of enemy gun-fire?

The player must trust the computer/game to be fair.

Coming off from what Nazrix was saying, the thing about not having to click on a tree for five hours or whatever. Yeah, you need the higher level functionality of just being able to ''chop tree down'' or ''mine gold'' or whatever.
What you also need to consider is how you are going to entertain the player whilst these tasks are being accomplished.
I mean, if a player clicked on the tree for five hours previously, now he/she only has to do it once.
What is the player going to do for the other 4hr 59 mins?

-Mezz

quote: Original post by Mezz

How do you define interesting choices?

Good question. It would depend on the task or situation, but I think the choices that are most interesting in a CRPG are those that reinforce your place in the game''s milieu, and make you feel like you are the role.

quote:
But I really don''t see how you could cover every eventuality with scripted sequences.

This would depend on how granular you make things. If you require lots of detail, then scripted sequences will be a nightmare. But if you''re at a high enough level, you can use montage: Reuse sequences for many different circumstances.




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

quote: Original post by Ketchaval

decipher(argument for rails.)

Yeah, why do you control Mario with split second timing? (It is an easy way to give the player things to do second by s, minute by m. Yet the player also has to make choices, avoid shell? jump on shell? get power up. It seems stupid that to climb stairs in Mario, you have to jump up each step..

It is focussing on the small picture, instead of the bigger picture.

Right. Just to reinforce the point, though: This would be for CRPGs, where the fun is in actually being a character who''s on an adventure. This wouldn''t apply to other games where the fun is in doing the task (like Mario).

If, however, you have Mario like action when you''re supposed to be King Arthur, I think my suggestion would apply.


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