quote: from an original post by Wavinator but I'd rather have heard a bunch of gameplay innovations like those that were apparently coming out of the game Republic : fix soccer matches to get the will of the people on your side, bribe a prostitute to put an enemy politician in a compromising position, kidnap the children of your rivals...

This was from a discussion of a (pre)-preview of a third-person character oriented game. And it raises an interesting point that I've been thinking about recently. How much does linking world interaction to the abilities of a single character limit the scope of a game? Ie. In many games you can be a single character with a limited inventory, and limited abilities. But beyond this, you are unable to affect the world. If you cannot lift a car that is blocking a man-hole cover, you cannot ask for people to help you. Now take this further If you are limited to a view, and control of characters that YOU control, then you cannot effect something in the world, unless your units / weapons can reach the thing that you want to affect. So, the abilities of a more detached way to influence the game provides more opportunity for gameplay in the form of changing the world, and the things within it. [Ie. Black and White, where you can move your view from one end of the island to the other in a few seconds. + Your hand will instantly zoom to pick up anything that you point out. Edited by - Ketchaval on May 29, 2001 7:20:46 PM Edited by - Ketchaval on May 29, 2001 7:21:40 PM

So what are the many important differences that arise from a change in control and focus of the game?

The Dramatic Focus

Without a single unit to care about [Mario, Lara, Garrett etc.], the player needs to be able to focus their attention on something.

What thing in the game world, does the player care about(?) What provides the sources of conflict and dramatic tension?
This differs with each game, in Lemmings the focus was a race of homogenous creatures, yet each creature potentially mattered, as sometimes letting THAT one creature die would stop you saving enough to win the level. That and they had CHARM.

Whereas in other games, what may matter is gaining something whether it is power, money or a military advantage.


Edited by - Ketchaval on May 29, 2001 7:10:09 PM

quote: Original post by Ketchaval

How much does linking world interaction to the abilities of a single character limit the scope of a game?

I hope I''m understanding you on this, Ketch... in my view, it doesn''t. There''s no direct correlation (AFAIK) between the scope of world interaction and the frame of reference you give the player. Since I''m trying to create an RPeG, a role-playing empire game, this''d better be true!

I believe you can offer a wide amount of world interaction even if the player is playing a single character, and that you can be pretty detailed even if you have a great scope. You just have to be clever about how the player can change the world. If, for example, I can ask the president to start a war with Russia, and that changes the number of SpetzNaz commandos that I have to fight on an individual level (or whatever) then I have interaction on both a grand and detailed, personal scale. Though I haven''t played it, B&W seems to do this with villager interaction and world strategy (?) as well.

The catch is that there''s always a hard wall in terms of representation. Somehow you have to show all of this to the player, and that means levels, graphics, buttons, maps, inventory, fx, text, etc.



Did I even answer your question?




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

quote: Original post by Wavinator

I hope I''m understanding you on this, Ketch... in my view, it doesn''t. There''s no direct correlation (AFAIK) between the scope of world interaction and the frame of reference you give the player. Since I''m trying to create an RPeG, a role-playing empire game, this''d better be true!

I''m thinking in terms of (standardised) player roles. In say Fallout 2, it would be a lot of work to give you the scope of say Republic. In a standard heroic character based game, you have to do things yourself, although you may recruit other characters to help you do them. In Third Person games of this type the camera is centred around you.

Now it is possible to have a "single-character" with a lot of power, say THE PRESIDENT. Who''s telephone directory serves as his power. But in terms of standard games there would be a problem with this.
1. Most games are based around the survival and events that effect your character. [Mario avoiding enemies ETC]. This would be changed if your character were secluded in a bunker ordering around troops RTS style.

2. PLAYER Information systems, wouldn''t just be limited to a character based camera. You would need to have a decent idea of what was going on in the world. Ie. Tv screens, neural info interfaces, satellite scanning, spys.

3. In a standard RTS, you are still limited to interaction with the world near your units . Unless you have teleportation, you need to wait for them to arrive at their destination. Which [to me] doesn''t sound as interesting as actually seeing the event, and its consequences. > Thus GOD games / abstracted puzzlers have the ability to affect anything. But this would not necessarily suit all games [RPGs].


In other words there needs to be a dramatic redesign of a game system to incorporate this kind of action by proxy .

quote: Original post by Ketchaval

I''m thinking in terms of (standardised) player roles. In say Fallout 2, it would be a lot of work to give you the scope of say Republic. In a standard heroic character based game, you have to do things yourself, although you may recruit other characters to help you do them. In Third Person games of this type the camera is centred around you.

Hmmm... it seems to me that even in the case of Fallout, if your actions somehow have global or at least large scale significance then you''ve achieved the scope of Republic. For instance, if you''re the sniper that''s taking out the opposition personally, or meeting with an ally to bribe them, and these affect the big picture, then you can still be character focused yet have a huge scope.

quote:
Now it is possible to have a "single-character" with a lot of power, say THE PRESIDENT. Who''s telephone directory serves as his power. But in terms of standard games there would be a problem with this.
1. Most games are based around the survival and events that effect your character. [Mario avoiding enemies ETC]. This would be changed if your character were secluded in a bunker ordering around troops RTS style.

The trick I''d like to use is based on the hero-king myth: You lead from the front, like renown leaders of old such as Alexander the Great. Then, not only do events affect you personally, but you have a chance to both get involved at a low level while retaining (a certain degree of) control at the higher strategic level.

The major thing that has to go for this to work is realism. In empire scale or RTS games you are detached, which is realistic. But this isn''t necessarily fun. So you have to invent a reason for the leader to be personally involved that jibes with the world fiction and makes sense.

quote:
2. PLAYER Information systems, wouldn''t just be limited to a character based camera. You would need to have a decent idea of what was going on in the world. Ie. Tv screens, neural info interfaces, satellite scanning, spys.

Summaries could also come from NPCs, too.

quote:
3. In a standard RTS, you are still limited to interaction with the world near your units . Unless you have teleportation, you need to wait for them to arrive at their destination. Which [to me] doesn''t sound as interesting as actually seeing the event, and its consequences. > Thus GOD games / abstracted puzzlers have the ability to affect anything. But this would not necessarily suit all games [RPGs].

I''m not sure this is true on two accounts:

1) You could use an in game mechanism to shift focus. An example would be a visual comm device that shifts screen focus. (This has the problem of abandoning and putting in danger your character, but there are ways to handle that)

2) Abstract actions that are communicated could be very interesting. Playing Voyager gave me insight into this: Your team would sometimes split up and report on their progress. It was nice to have remote help, and made the world feel larger and more interactive (cheap trick, but it worked). Also, when they got in trouble it made it that much more dramatic (especially since similar gameplay when they were nearby was so sucky)

quote:
In other words there needs to be a dramatic redesign of a game system to incorporate this kind of action by proxy .

Workin'' on it!

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

quote: Original post by Wavinator

...large scale significance then you've achieved the scope of Republic. For instance, if you're the sniper that's taking out the opposition personally, or meeting with an ally to bribe them, and these affect the big picture, then you can still be character focused yet have a huge scope.

Well, you could do this but there would have to be a slight change in gameplay or script writing to make it interesting. In a character based game, you would have to worry about getting to the bribe location, making sure not an ambush etc.

In strategy you would arrange it, then hear back / see the results, ie. you hire a thug to meet up, and he kills the contact for his wallet. You hire a good "Man In Black" (more expensive) and the plan goes more to plan. In a character based game there is usually less tolerance for personal failure to win, whereas with NPCs the player knows what he is getting, and can understand failure instead of reloading.

quote: Wav.
The major thing that has to go for this to work is realism. In empire scale or RTS games you are detached, which is realistic. But this isn't necessarily fun. So you have to invent a reason for the leader to be personally involved that jibes with the world fiction and makes sense.

The results of the actions matter in the world, destroying the vice den of Las Vegas makes the area safer for people living their and stops any nasty exports.

quote: Wav.
I'm not sure this is true on two accounts:

1) You could use an in game mechanism to shift focus. An example would be a visual comm device that shifts screen focus. (This has the problem of abandoning and putting in danger your character, but there are ways to handle that)

I don't think that you need to focus on the character, but that is how most character based games work. The results of your decisions, on the surrounding world are important.

2. Do you mean that you can "invent" fake situations that the NPC has dealt with which the player cannot verify. Like (having) your HEROIC sergeant who reports back about recapturing a Standard Battle Flag that some Orcs had stolen...


Edited by - Ketchaval on May 31, 2001 6:02:50 AM

quote: Original post by Ketchaval

2. Do you mean that you can "invent" fake situations that the NPC has dealt with which the player cannot verify. Like (having) your HEROIC sergeant who reports back about recapturing a Standard Battle Flag that some Orcs had stolen...

Sort of. I''m more saying that there are remote tasks that an NPC can be "said" to be doing that don''t actually resolve out to step by step actions. For example, they can throw a switch that opens a door near you. Rather than acting all of this out, you move the NPC to location, assess if they could realistically throw the switch, then trigger the switch and open the door.



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