[Removed, no politics]

Edited by - MadKeithV on March 9, 2001 3:20:02 AM

Whew! Sorry about the interruption. There were a few Secret Service agents here. They had a search warrant for some computer equipment.

Dynamite has an important point. It takes knowledge to make a game world. This can be a tremendous challenge. The game designer has to be a cartographer, geologist, astronomer, anthropologist, historian, botanist, cultural linguist, alchemist, storyteller, architect, and many other things all at once. It is the old Dungeon Master''s challenge. How can one person be so many things at one time?

One of the best ways to overcome this is to learn a little about all of these subjects. The more the game designer knows about clipper ships, for instance, the more accurately he will employy them in his games. But for those of us who were not endowed with total recall, this can be a nightmare.

A better solution is to create a Reference Library, and stuff it with all the knowledge you may possibly need on any subject. Anything from pictures of Australian landscapes to articles on varieties of cave mushrooms can be filed away. Then, when the designer needs something arcane, like the ammount of herbivores required to support the existence of a dozen large predators, he turns to this Reference Library. (Actually, I''ve written an article on this, which I submitted to another website. But whether it will be published, I don''t know.)

As I tried to mention the other day, before I ran out of computer time, I think that the details of the game world are very important. It is not the storyline, but the details which create a sense of immersiveness. If the game world is not sufficiently detailed to be an interesting place unto itself, how can it add to a story? How can a story in a bland, boring world hope to compete with a story set in a fascinating world?

These Forums are a great place. The discussions which take place here can make us reevaluate our assumptions of what makes a good game. I''m glad I found this site!

~Jonathon

Whew! Sorry about the interruption. There were a few Secret Service agents here. They had a search warrant for some computer equipment.

Dynamite has an important point. It takes knowledge to make a game world. This can be a tremendous challenge. The game designer has to be a cartographer, geologist, astronomer, anthropologist, historian, botanist, cultural linguist, alchemist, storyteller, architect, and many other things all at once. It is the old Dungeon Master''s challenge. How can one person be so many things at one time?

One of the best ways to overcome this is to learn a little about all of these subjects. The more the game designer knows about clipper ships, for instance, the more accurately he will employy them in his games. But for those of us who were not endowed with total recall, this can be a nightmare.

A better solution is to create a Reference Library, and stuff it with all the knowledge you may possibly need on any subject. Anything from pictures of Australian landscapes to articles on varieties of cave mushrooms can be filed away. Then, when the designer needs something arcane, like the ammount of herbivores required to support the existence of a dozen large predators, he turns to this Reference Library. (Actually, I''ve written an article on this, which I submitted to another website. But whether it will be published, I don''t know.)

As I tried to mention the other day, before I ran out of computer time, I think that the details of the game world are very important. It is not the storyline, but the details which create a sense of immersiveness. If the game world is not sufficiently detailed to be an interesting place unto itself, how can it add to a story? How can a story in a bland, boring world hope to compete with a story set in a fascinating world?

These Forums are a great place. The discussions which take place here can make us reevaluate our assumptions of what makes a good game. I''m glad I found this site!

~Jonathon

First and last warning:
No politics in this forum.


People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
Mad Keith the V.

I would like to apologize if anything I posted in this forum was too political. Honestly, I thought what I said was pretty mild. But this is not a forum for political discussion, all the same. I''ll be even more reserved in the future.

~Jonathon

I read down thorugh a few posts on this thread and I thought I might share a few ideas:

Well, the question here seems to be whether or not a game (more specifically an rpg) should have a story.
From what has been seen in a lot of the games produced, games that have a story are usually, for the most part, linear (an exactly the same the second time around). While games without stories have more responsive worlds and less predictable gameplay.

I don''t think that either style is better, since I love an rpg with a good story, as well as a game that I can play many times and find something new each time. This choice is mostly preference, but why not try to find a balance between the two styles.

You could have a game that has a base story (maybe some history, but character history would not be good) then place the character somewhere in the world, start them off in the game with a randomized first mission and allow them to explore the world as they want. The story can come into play eventually as a random event, but never take complete control of the player''s choices.
In other words, set up a base story that has many different paths. Leave the user to do what they want giving the little bits of the story every so often. They can make a decision based on what they are given and it can affect the outcome of the game.

A really nice addition to this would be to include many pre-made side missions, as well as randomly generated missions that cloud over the story. This way, it will not be completely clear to the user when the story has kicked in, only someone who has played the game 3 or 4 times would know maybe 1 or 2 of the story related things.


I think it is possible to keep a story and a huge immersive world at the same time, it would just require some extra work to create.

Well, you have to remember that there has to be a reason for making this game. You can''t really just make a world for players to experience unless there''s a REASON why they should. Most people won''t go for a game that has a world like Fallout, but there''s no point to it. There HAS to be a story, or else you build a world without something to tie it all together.

Certainly some valid points being raised here, I believe that it is a combination of developer resources & market demands which lead to more emphasis on "story" in many games. Personally whilst I would like more flexibility and scope for gamers experimenting with clever solutions to obstacles that they encounter... I would prefer not to buy a game which presented a hugely interactive and expansive world.. preferring one which provided an interesting challenge & rounded experience (ie. character development, story, interested opportunities to experiment with solutions to obstacles.. etc BUT limited in scope so that it has a beginning middle and end ! so that it does not become a black hole which sucks up my time).

Story is a good way of bringing the player to the challenges, ie. they follow clues and meet the interesting tactical situations that you have put in the game.

Hey Wav, good points as usual! Always enjoy reading your design thoughts. Although you were a bit hasty in giving your impression of Fallout 2 in (see AcK! this is an RPG)!

Though I suspect that your intention in criticizing it was to point out the commonly repeated flaws / deficiencies in other games. (And also Fallout 2 ie. you can't climb the buildings etc).!
----------------------------------------------
As in fact in Fallout 2 you find that the "story" and the hints to where you have to go next are in fact just ways to get you to explore the world in a certain fashion (ie. the easier & experience point building quests are in the first few areas).. you get the opportunity to get involved in many jobs and disputes etc. for different characters.

Ie. it is helping to bring the player to the gameplay (ie. undertaking quests, and random encounters) rather than just sitting in the same location with nothing happening to you.

**** In other words, these sort of CRPGS expect you to go and find the characters, and quests. How can we design games where the quests came to you? What would be the advantages / disadvantages of this design decision ? ****

Edited by - Ketchaval on March 12, 2001 4:28:24 PM

Have to agree, Fallout 2 is a great game. Yes, in the beginning you do pretty lame quests, but heck... You are just a tribal, not a super-trained navy seal.

The first quests are great for Exp, and getting background info. Later, mostly in New Reno, you are offered many choices. Being good, evil, kind, not-kind, a loner, teamworker...