Am I the only one who always shudders at the idea of game worlds evolving according by herd instinct? I would think the horror of the democratic political system (where no creative or controversial possibility ever makes it to the ballot, everyone's vote is equally meaningless, and everyone's equally unhappy with the constant compromising) would be ample proof that a brainless dynamic world will always be less pleasing to the inhabitants than a static cleverly designed one.

Quote:

Original post by sunandshadow Am I the only one who always shudders at the idea of game worlds evolving according by herd instinct? I would think the horror of the democratic political system (where no creative or controversial possibility ever makes it to the ballot, everyone's vote is equally meaningless, and everyone's equally unhappy with the constant compromising) would be ample proof that a brainless dynamic world will always be less pleasing to the inhabitants than a static cleverly designed one.

So, a chatroom (An example of a "brainless dynamic world") would be less pleasing than a cleverly designed prewritten script?


Just like making good static worlds, dynamic ones are hard, even harder to do than static worlds. But that doesn't make them impossible.


Picture this, a game based around politics and economics, where warfare is a short, fast and a very brutral affair. In this game there are, lets say 5 or 6 levels of 'people' and then 'millions of serfs', the people are humans or NPCs that get to actually do things, while the serfs are just there to work factories and provide the nobles something to slaughter when they get bored. I'm thinking of it as far future space aged, multiple star systems, empires kind of thing. Players start out at the bottom level, working under NPC nobles who are all trying to gain enough power and clout to move up a notch, or in the case of the emperor trying to keep enough that they don't get knocked off.

So, someone that starts playing the game from the moment that it goes gold finds himself in a fairly empty set of star systems, one Empire, peaceful times, and then they sets off to claim natural resources and start his own cities and stuff, while paying taxes to those that are above him. The game is about money, secrets, and finding out who is aiming at what and then trying to jam up their works while you fight for an upper hand, make and break alliances with people. That player goes away for a year or two and comes back to the game. Limited new content is made by the devs, but there are now 5 empires, and every other week a thousand nuclear warheads are going off burning planetsides to a crisp.


Besides, games that already are dynamic are like Eve-Online. EVE for one is going very well, and doesn't seem any more bland than the best scripted static worlds. Yes the core NPCs stay the same for the most part, but given time boarder lines shift. I don't see anyone in that game complaining about the massive Player vs Player wars and alliances that goes on in that game.

Wodinoneeye – Yes, NPC’s and other AI aspects like monsters would still be in the game. But I don’t think programming them for every possible occurrence would be as daunting as you might think. For one, NPC’s would have no need to react to changes in every sphere; I would think that they would only need to react to the political (faction status changes) and combat (as a result of a faction change). The social realm is really just players interacting with other players, so it does not need any restrictions. Economics doesn’t need restrictions either. Combat would be bound by a player’s faction status and who they have allied with. The political realm would need the most regulation. By regulation I don’t mean for devs to be standing over players and holding their hand; instead, I mean that the game mechanics of the political “profession” would made in a way allowing for only certain things to happen only when certain requirements are met. I see the political realm as being a type of mini game spanning all levels of government (i.e. town officials up to planetary officials). This mini game would be focused mainly on planetary occurrences and galactic occurrences most of which having to do with players interacting with other government officials at the differing levels of government. For example, a government player might meet with a player from another government on a diplomatic mission and then, using both the simple chat channels and whatever game mechanics are available, accomplish the mission – say to negotiate the use of resource rich location located within the other factions zone. However, Players in government would have no real “power” over other players of their own faction. Players could not restrict another players movement or declare war on the fly. Tyranny would not be built into the system. So government would not be a the same as a real world government; it would be a game within game designed to be fun and entertaining with its focus being on factions and player interaction. Anyway, with relatively frequent elections, government officials would probably be more concerned with getting reelected. Just to be clear, things like the form of government are non-alterable.

Also, the game does not have to be dramatic all the time. If the something dramatic happens fine, if nothing dramatic happens fine, but epic dramatic occurrences would not be the focal point of the game. Economics, the providing of good’s and services, social interaction – these are what the game would be built around. If dramatic things happen, great, if they don’t, fine. But one needs to remember not to overkill dramatic (read epic) occurrences. After all, whether or not something in “dramatic” or not is relative to a player’s perspective. If devs add something huge and dramatic every other week or so players will get used to it and the only other option would be to make something even more dramatic the next time. If however, over the natural evolution of time and player decisions, something big and dramatic happens, it will have much more meaning for the players. 1) The players, having caused it, would have much more personally invested in the outcome of the said occurrence. 2) The perspective would be maintained because the occurrence is interesting simply because it is not every day. 3) Because the occurrence would be a result of a conglomeration of many player actions over a period of time it would, inherently, be unique.

That said, if need be devs could interject story elements into the world.

Sunandshadow – I understand your skepticism. I myself have considered these possible problems which is one of reasons I made this post: how much freedom is too much freedom in an MMO? What I am suggesting is a frame work of built in possible options which players can choose from. Declaring war, for example, does not even have to be a player initiated decision. If certain predetermined circumstances occur the AI could open a “war vote” to the public. In the end, the players at large would decide (and so the problem of players opening a war vote everyday would be removed). But then again, considering that politicians would be voted into their positions, it is reasonable to assume that their fellow players would at least elect fairly mature and reasonable players; after all, if the public doesn’t like them then they will be voted out (also dealing with the 12 year-old kid problem). I will admit that I am putting some trust into the player community, for I only see the system I’m suggesting working with a mature, adult audience.

Second, I don’t think the heard instinct would pose much of a threat. Players could not single handedly alter the environment. It would be a “brainless dynamic world” in the sense that no one is actually guiding what happens to a set conclusion. But, as I said earlier, the world would not be completely brainless because it would be controlled (or guided if you wish) by the limitations of the game mechanics built in by the developers.

[Edited by - SMPryor on April 11, 2007 10:48:52 AM]

Quote:

Original post by doctorsixstring I see that Nytehauq forgot his <sarcasm> tags. Oh, dang it. I just responded to an MMO thread. Now I need to go take a shower and chant the words "Fallout", "Dues Ex", "Baldur's Gate", and "Chronotrigger" five times while I throw salt over my shoulder...

Actually, the irony is that I was being serious. Player leadership...not necessarily so much. Systemic, evolving online world? That's good. It'd be like playing Grand Theft Auto in a city maintained by an AI playing Sim City. Or, in this case, more like a player playing Sim City. That'd be still be cool, in retrospect. The problem with most MMOs is that they require too much player investment to be fun. People wouldn't tolerate a tyrannical leader or a forward thinking one because they'd have, as in real life, too much invested in the status quo. If you designed some sort of game with a sense of character progression and enough consistent opportunity and un-frustrating game play that would allow the player to take risks and not regret loosing as much as he enjoys winning, you could more feasibly have player leadership.

As long as it doesn't become "srs busnss," you're good. You wouldn't mind it if god decided to bulldoze the entire city you're playing in: it's not that big a deal anyway, you're just playing a game. Maybe you can pack up and move to someplace with a less insane deity ruling over it. Maybe you decide that you're going to do some city campaign building yourself instead of playing, and there's no switching cost involved. Maybe it doesn't take that long to build a city or play a character, so idiots that like to ruin things have neither impact nor incentive.

I think the key limitation preventing development is strict adherence to a style of design that emphasizes too much on "progression" and too little on player experience. If you could play an MMO without a persistent character and enjoy it just as much or more than another MMO, what would be the problem there? Even if that were hypothetically impossible, isn't it counterproductive to create so much artificial static value in a game world that it hinders dynamics (Vested interest in player leadership due to its importance in managing something like...time sinks, would be an example of a hindering dynamic. Or trash mobs in the ever popular World of Warcraft) and causes the player to miss out on fun for the prospect of some sort of virtual "security?" There should be a way to combine the illusion of progression, the dynamism of a systemic world, the fun of simple game play, and the interest of player leadership without having them kill each other.

Wall of text for the day.

I like your last post, Nytehauq. MMOs need to be fun and player experience based. I would play them if they were. I don't play because IT's fun for a summer, but The semester starts and I just don't have the time. Rating++

You definitely have point Nytehauq. I would like to further clarify one thing real quick. Politicians have no real power or authority over other players. Think of it like another profession which simply offers unique service to other players. For example, say someone is flying there spaceship around and enters a meteor shower. The ship is all banged up so the player then searches out a shipwright and gets his ship all fixed up. The politician has the same concept. Using the two planet example from above, let’s say that artisans from planet A start mining asteroids inside the zone of planet B and depleting them (of course the resources would have to respawn over time but maybe only one person can mine an asteroid at a time and it is some how hurting player of planet B, not to mention players from planet A already have their own resources to mine), after trying to get the other artisans to stop mining, nothing happens. So, the artisans from planet B go to politicians and make use of their specific “services” – say to deny the use of “air” space or mining or to initiate a vote to declare war (if air space or mining was prohibited and a player proceeded to ignore the rule they would be made attackable, if the players from the other planet don’t like this they might then declare a war, so maybe that is a way a war could start). The politician would not be able to decide the outcome of these votes mind you; they simply provide service (initiating a planetary vote) just like the shipwright provided the service of repair.

Now, with all that said, it is indeed hard to balance the reward for playing for hours and hours and playing for thirty minutes. And, I think, the accessibility of WOW in this area is partly to credit for its great success. But also, in my idea, the game world would not revolve around the political realm or be dependent on it. The economy would be the focal point as I said earlier. I don’t think I can really delve too much into balancing the reward and fun of play times of different lengths without getting pretty specific on some of these ideas (and I haven’t gone that detailed yet). There would be no “player leadership” exactly; other players would not be tethered by reliance upon player government. A player could easily never even worry about anything to do with the politics profession or mini game. The experience would be designed around the individual first and foremost, so don’t get me wrong and think that I’m forgetting the individual players. The player is free at all times and no one can take that freedom away or tether it to the experience of another player. Although, I will say in all probability, players with more time on their hands will be more likely to go the political profession. And I also don’t see politics as a full time in game “career” either. That way, players involved with the political profession would still have a reasonable frame of reference relative to other players.

I wrote this quickly being pressed for time so I apologize for any incoherent or otherwise strange statements. I will check it later this evening. But anyway, thanks for your post Nytehauq. It was a good addition to the discussion.

Quote:

Original post by Talroth Quote: Original post by sunandshadow Am I the only one who always shudders at the idea of game worlds evolving according by herd instinct? I would think the horror of the democratic political system (where no creative or controversial possibility ever makes it to the ballot, everyone's vote is equally meaningless, and everyone's equally unhappy with the constant compromising) would be ample proof that a brainless dynamic world will always be less pleasing to the inhabitants than a static cleverly designed one. So, a chatroom (An example of a "brainless dynamic world") would be less pleasing than a cleverly designed prewritten script?

I'd have to say yes, given that I hate chatting and like playing linear RPGs and reading novels lol. But that's a good illustration in that it points out how personal taste is involved.



SMPryor - To me, the interesting thing is environments that I _can_ single-handedly alter. I don't personally see the appeal of change if it's neither the result of my actions nor a decision made by a designer/artist wanting to provide me with a better experience. But then I've always been repulsed by the idea of a MMO where players can get elected to governmental positions yet I've seen this type of game gather a fairly large and loyal following so someone must like them. So yeah, maybe I'm just not in your target audience.

I think one of the main problems with ideas like this stems from a lack of focus on the idea that this is supposed to be a game, not a replacement for real life. Things like economy, war, and crime are all vastly different in the real world than in any MMO, and always will be. In real life, war is generally viewed as an atrocity at worst, or a grim necessity at best. In games, it's usually considered the most fun thing you can possibly do. In real life, economy is regulated by the need to survive, and the willingness of people to do boring or dangerous jobs in order to make the money they want or need. In a game, people will pick whatever they think is most fun, and if forced to do something boring for too long, they will usually just stop playing. In real life, crime is contained both because people fear punishment, and because they have been socialized to consider crime morally wrong. In a game, crime is the most fun thing you can do aside from declaring war on someone.

So, I think there need to be a lot of specific game rules and systems in place if you want to recreate the atmosphere of the "real world". You can't just hand out political titles to some people and rifles to other people and expect them to act like actual citizens of an actual country. They're not going to work, they're going to play. The primary motivation for war is never really going to be economic need; it's going to be that shooting people is fun, and everyone's going to want to do it.

EvE Online is a good game that has some ideas like this; it has dynamic shifting player territories, and elected officials (who don't actually get to do much). But if you really pay attention, the economy/war model is backwards compared to real life. Everybody is constantly at war just because it's fun, but war never makes money; in fact, it always just costs a huge amount of money for both sides. The economy mostly revolves around the crafters making weapons and ships for the PvPers to replace those that are constantly blown up in the unending wars.

sunandshadow – I understand that this concept does not necessarily appeal to everyone. There would be change directly related to ones individual actions within a player’s bubble of influence; but if you are wanting a system where one “hero” character changes the nature of a game world at the universal level, my idea is definitely not for you. If it where possible, I would love to give players the ability to physically alter the world around them as well (game mechanics could be worked out, it is just the practical, hardware problems which would pose the most problems, I think). Some of the things which you are skeptical about I think would need the fleshing out of an entire game design to set your qualms to rest while my suggestion is really not much more than a design philosophy, so I can’t really provide that, yet. But who knows, you may be in the target audience yet. ;)

makeshiftwings – The sole purpose of my idea is to add depth to Gameplay and make it more fun. In no way do I want to make a clone of the real world be it in what the game is or how the game works. There would have to be many restrictions on the political sphere, but even it would be designed to be fun. “You can't just hand out political titles to some people and rifles to other people and expect them to act like actual citizens of an actual country.” You are absolutely correct; which is why if I were actually developing a project of this nature I would design the specific game elements and mechanics to work with gamers in mind, not citizens. The MMO does not have to be real, it just needs to feel "real" relative to the type of game it is. It doesn't have to be right, it just needs to feel right. So please don't hear me as wanting to implement real world politics into a computer game.

Quote:

Original post by sunandshadow Am I the only one who always shudders at the idea of game worlds evolving according by herd instinct? I would think the horror of the democratic political system (where no creative or controversial possibility ever makes it to the ballot, everyone's vote is equally meaningless, and everyone's equally unhappy with the constant compromising) would be ample proof that a brainless dynamic world will always be less pleasing to the inhabitants than a static cleverly designed one.

I was thinking of the averaging effect of alot of people with their small influence causing a flat general result -- where you wouldnt have a system giving too much influence to only a few players, who would then not care about realism or even consequences and pervert/distort the world simply because they were bored.

As I mentioned before, probably high level guidance would have to be made by staff in an MMORPG to keep things under control (compensate for unexpected pendulum swing effects in an unstable system) and to keep some epic plotline on course (or just a climate supporting epic player experiences).

[Edited by - wodinoneeye on April 12, 2007 11:20:01 PM]