Wai...I don't have the time at the moment for a detailed response but what I can say in brief is this:
Mechanics are not what makes a video game successful.
Solid development, production, and marketing makes a successful game.
The 6 points I laid out are just 6 guidelines to focus on that when focused on produce good results in business in general.
Like I said, I'll respond later in more detail to your questions, but largely I think you are looking in too much detail on just mechanics and not the entire package of what is the product and it's success.
19 users logged in
Proud partner of GDC 2025
Before posting, review our community guidelines.
Support GameDev.net with a monthly GDNet+ subscription!
Generation: Character (The Next Generation of MMORPG's)
1,007
June 03, 2009 01:49 AM
Re: When game mechanics matters in the determination of success
I just want to say that I understand that you were describing success from a high level market view. But game mechanics do matter. It is something you cannot observe easily by experience because you seldom (never) have two games with the same production capacity, distribution, marketing strategy, target audience, capital, customer service, etc.... but only differ in one game mechanics.
It does not happen in real life.
So from real life experience, it suffices to say that, "Since business endeavor A has better customer service, and everything else is not significantly different, therefore endeavor A is successful and endeavor B is not."
This is probably the resolution you will ever need in a real life situation.
But in principle, it matters. I think there are some cases where this part becomes significant.
Imagine two iphone games that have the same distribution, same price, same cost to make, reliability, etc. Both of them have equal advertisement and customer service (having equal could also include having none at all). However, it is obviously that when both iphone games go to the market, the data will tell you which is more successful. Here, the only difference is in the game mechanics.
So there are definitely situations where the gameplay/game mechanics become the determinant of the success of a game.
Now if we return to the original post, the content was also a game mechanic. It was about evolving features and options of the player controlled character. You were making a case to present that as the inevitable mechanism to success. So you can only conclude that game mechanism do matter, since that was the premise of this thread.
But in retrospect I think that perhaps what you really meant was that the evolving features will happen, they will happen across the board, as in most of the MMORPG will have evolving features. So it will not be a battle between games that have evolving features versus those that don't, but still a battle between the business strategy of one group versus the others.
I am not contesting this, I am just expressing the confusion.
On the other hand, what games do you consider as failures?
How would you describe their reasons of failure? Because it seems that a single ill game mechanic can screw up a lot of things, which you agreed:
What made you believe that a certain single-player mechanism would transfer to MMO? Quick-save-and-load play style is pervalent in single-player games, it did not transfer to MMO. Will it be transfered? Will it never be transfered? Which of the six catagories does it violate?
What makes you believe that an MMORPG player would enjoy seeing scars on their characters that they inevitably get combat? What makes it obvious that people would play the version with scars versus the one without?
Why was Portal successful? Is its gameplay a significant factor? What were you describing by "Simple and Clean" if you were not describing game mechanism?
[Edited by - Wai on June 3, 2009 2:49:20 AM]
I just want to say that I understand that you were describing success from a high level market view. But game mechanics do matter. It is something you cannot observe easily by experience because you seldom (never) have two games with the same production capacity, distribution, marketing strategy, target audience, capital, customer service, etc.... but only differ in one game mechanics.
It does not happen in real life.
So from real life experience, it suffices to say that, "Since business endeavor A has better customer service, and everything else is not significantly different, therefore endeavor A is successful and endeavor B is not."
This is probably the resolution you will ever need in a real life situation.
But in principle, it matters. I think there are some cases where this part becomes significant.
Imagine two iphone games that have the same distribution, same price, same cost to make, reliability, etc. Both of them have equal advertisement and customer service (having equal could also include having none at all). However, it is obviously that when both iphone games go to the market, the data will tell you which is more successful. Here, the only difference is in the game mechanics.
So there are definitely situations where the gameplay/game mechanics become the determinant of the success of a game.
Now if we return to the original post, the content was also a game mechanic. It was about evolving features and options of the player controlled character. You were making a case to present that as the inevitable mechanism to success. So you can only conclude that game mechanism do matter, since that was the premise of this thread.
But in retrospect I think that perhaps what you really meant was that the evolving features will happen, they will happen across the board, as in most of the MMORPG will have evolving features. So it will not be a battle between games that have evolving features versus those that don't, but still a battle between the business strategy of one group versus the others.
I am not contesting this, I am just expressing the confusion.
On the other hand, what games do you consider as failures?
How would you describe their reasons of failure? Because it seems that a single ill game mechanic can screw up a lot of things, which you agreed:
Quote:Do you mean that on one hand, game mechanics cannot make a game succeed but on the other hand it can definitely make a game fail? In that case, how do you determine when a game mechanic is potentially castastrophic and when it is not? How would your team determine that?
9) User picks the desired race by clicking a randomly appearing icon in the game 50 times. The player character will slowly evolve into that race. If the player clicked the icon of another race, the player will get negative progress toward the desired race.
This is part of Ease of use, Efficiency, Simple and Clean, and Reliability; since this is not how things work in WoW, switching to such a system without compensation in the rest of the system for such a dramatic change would crush the game.
What made you believe that a certain single-player mechanism would transfer to MMO? Quick-save-and-load play style is pervalent in single-player games, it did not transfer to MMO. Will it be transfered? Will it never be transfered? Which of the six catagories does it violate?
What makes you believe that an MMORPG player would enjoy seeing scars on their characters that they inevitably get combat? What makes it obvious that people would play the version with scars versus the one without?
Why was Portal successful? Is its gameplay a significant factor? What were you describing by "Simple and Clean" if you were not describing game mechanism?
[Edited by - Wai on June 3, 2009 2:49:20 AM]
June 03, 2009 05:58 AM
If you want me to respond to the previous post, just let me know, but considering the direction, I'm going to just respond to the last post you made for now.
I do not attest that game mechanics do not matter (Chess is absolutely all about game mechanics).
I was stating that one cannot only focus on game mechanics.
Not to success; just the inevitable implementation of adaptable technology.
I proposed how it would be used in broad form, to the success or detriment of the technology in the genre.
I even made a later consideration comparing the possibility for ruin against the last mess of the aspirations for a one-world-server.
No, they are two separate conversations.
One was about the technology that will be used, while the other is redirected from a question about WoW specifically and how it is successful.
That's probably why it seemed confusing; I never intended to discuss success theory in the topic of evolutionary systems in MMORPG's, but I don't mind following conversation wherever it may lead.
Out of the MMORPG titles?
Well...an easy off-the-top-of-my-head list would be:
Wish (I don't think you can even find a wiki entry on it)
Earth & Beyond
Dark and Light (in a lawsuit and shutdown...and they had Gary Gygax writing for them! Not to mention that NPCube is nearly in ruin now.)
Asheron's Call 2
Horizons (now listed as Istaria)
Those games are dead or all but dead.
So many various reasons things went wrong with each.
Wish, for instance, over spent and went belly up a few short weeks after launch just because they couldn't afford to keep running despite interest.
Dark & Light was death in so many ways that the lawsuit seems forgiving in some ways considering some of the alternatives.
But really...there are too many issues in each to just say there is a tangible universal reason.
The only tangible statement that you can say is horribly executed and managed products.
Mechanics can cause a game to succeed greatly, but it really takes more than just a mechanic for MMORPG's.
That is the key statement; "for MMORPG's."
For Chess, well...mechanics is all that it really has going for it.
However, MMORPG's cannot rely on only mechanics as they all carry very similar mechanics to each other.
The same way that Pixar figures out if something belongs in their story or not; you work very hard for a long period of time (Pixar works on story for 3 to 4 years alone in a collaborative format) involving all talents from the respected departments determining exactly what the goal of the game is, and also what the nature and essence of that world is (since we're talking about MMORPG's).
Everything after this becomes a comparison to whether or not it continues or hinders the goal or essence of the game.
It's so much the mechanic as it is the technology that I see all around the consumer industries, and now it is arriving in computer games.
That means it's reached the gaming industry and will soon go online, and then it's inevitable to become part of MMORPG's.
At this point, I think you greatly misunderstand me.
Several of my examples are to cause provocation in the minds of the readers as to the types of options that will open up.
As to whether or not they are used and to what level of success they are received is completely up to the quality of the development of the product; with or without the evolutionary system in place.
No single attribute of a product as multifaceted as an MMORPG causes it to succeed. It is the entire package, largely, that causes it to succeed.
As I said, we've been talking about MMORPG's.
You have a habit of inappropriate comparisons; but you can't compare something that is all about it's single defining mechanic exclusively (a gimmick game, no foul intent meant by that name) against a game that has hundreds of mechanics layered and dependent upon each other such as an MMORPG.
It is as I said earlier about Chess.
Simple and Clean can apply to any aspect of any game that you are looking at.
It can apply to the GUI, the world (not cluttered with virtual junk), contact options between players, mechanics, etc...
This can many times be closely related to Ease of Use, as many times they are from the same ambition.
Quote:
But game mechanics do matter.
I do not attest that game mechanics do not matter (Chess is absolutely all about game mechanics).
I was stating that one cannot only focus on game mechanics.
Quote:
You were making a case to present that as the inevitable mechanism to success.
Not to success; just the inevitable implementation of adaptable technology.
I proposed how it would be used in broad form, to the success or detriment of the technology in the genre.
I even made a later consideration comparing the possibility for ruin against the last mess of the aspirations for a one-world-server.
Quote:
So it will not be a battle between games that have evolving features versus those that don't, but still a battle between the business strategy of one group versus the others.
No, they are two separate conversations.
One was about the technology that will be used, while the other is redirected from a question about WoW specifically and how it is successful.
That's probably why it seemed confusing; I never intended to discuss success theory in the topic of evolutionary systems in MMORPG's, but I don't mind following conversation wherever it may lead.
Quote:
On the other hand, what games do you consider as failures?
Out of the MMORPG titles?
Well...an easy off-the-top-of-my-head list would be:
Wish (I don't think you can even find a wiki entry on it)
Earth & Beyond
Dark and Light (in a lawsuit and shutdown...and they had Gary Gygax writing for them! Not to mention that NPCube is nearly in ruin now.)
Asheron's Call 2
Horizons (now listed as Istaria)
Those games are dead or all but dead.
Quote:
How would you describe their reasons of failure?
So many various reasons things went wrong with each.
Wish, for instance, over spent and went belly up a few short weeks after launch just because they couldn't afford to keep running despite interest.
Dark & Light was death in so many ways that the lawsuit seems forgiving in some ways considering some of the alternatives.
But really...there are too many issues in each to just say there is a tangible universal reason.
The only tangible statement that you can say is horribly executed and managed products.
Quote:
game mechanics cannot make a game succeed but on the other hand it can definitely make a game fail?
Mechanics can cause a game to succeed greatly, but it really takes more than just a mechanic for MMORPG's.
That is the key statement; "for MMORPG's."
For Chess, well...mechanics is all that it really has going for it.
However, MMORPG's cannot rely on only mechanics as they all carry very similar mechanics to each other.
Quote:
In that case, how do you determine when a game mechanic is potentially castastrophic and when it is not? How would your team determine that?
The same way that Pixar figures out if something belongs in their story or not; you work very hard for a long period of time (Pixar works on story for 3 to 4 years alone in a collaborative format) involving all talents from the respected departments determining exactly what the goal of the game is, and also what the nature and essence of that world is (since we're talking about MMORPG's).
Everything after this becomes a comparison to whether or not it continues or hinders the goal or essence of the game.
Quote:
What made you believe that a certain single-player mechanism would transfer to MMO?
It's so much the mechanic as it is the technology that I see all around the consumer industries, and now it is arriving in computer games.
That means it's reached the gaming industry and will soon go online, and then it's inevitable to become part of MMORPG's.
Quote:
What makes you believe that an MMORPG player would enjoy seeing scars on their characters that they inevitably get combat? What makes it obvious that people would play the version with scars versus the one without?
At this point, I think you greatly misunderstand me.
Several of my examples are to cause provocation in the minds of the readers as to the types of options that will open up.
As to whether or not they are used and to what level of success they are received is completely up to the quality of the development of the product; with or without the evolutionary system in place.
No single attribute of a product as multifaceted as an MMORPG causes it to succeed. It is the entire package, largely, that causes it to succeed.
Quote:
Why was Portal successful? Is its gameplay a significant factor?
As I said, we've been talking about MMORPG's.
You have a habit of inappropriate comparisons; but you can't compare something that is all about it's single defining mechanic exclusively (a gimmick game, no foul intent meant by that name) against a game that has hundreds of mechanics layered and dependent upon each other such as an MMORPG.
It is as I said earlier about Chess.
Quote:
What were you describing by "Simple and Clean" if you were not describing game mechanism?
Simple and Clean can apply to any aspect of any game that you are looking at.
It can apply to the GUI, the world (not cluttered with virtual junk), contact options between players, mechanics, etc...
This can many times be closely related to Ease of Use, as many times they are from the same ambition.
1,007
June 03, 2009 06:57 AM
( Re: Success )
When I was talking about single player games, I was responding to you assertion that the six catagories
That was not just about MMORPG.
I agree that it was confusing because when I read your first post I thought that you were describing the next element of success. Otherwise it won't be very revolutionary.
You defined a demand, and the prostulated the way the demand will be met. You didn't mean that the industry would meet the expectation and just evaporate, but that the industry will adopt the mechanics and that mechanics will be the revolution of the genre. So you were talking about success. In fact, I would interpret that you were prostulating success due to the use of that mechanism.
I never said that game mechanics is the only important thing in general, but as you see, if everything else is not particularly revolutionary, then we had to talking about why the adaptive system structure will be the driving force.
Is the adaptive system structure just a subtle change that is inevitable, or is it an explosive revolution?
Re: Technologies
How do you tell what is fad and what is revolution? A while ago there was voice-recognition. We never got a revolution of a games having voice recognition. We also have GPS, and there are GPS based games. But we don't see a revolution in gaming with GPS. So, why did you say that the adaptive system structure like Amazon's will be the next revolution element instead of, say, the table-top computing interface or HDTV systems? What happened to the virtual reality game helmets and groves? Where are the MMORPG with virtual reality helmets? Where are the Dance-Dance-Revolution-based MMORPG? What makes you choose one technology over another? Is it random? Why didn't you predict MMORPG based on racing?
When I was talking about single player games, I was responding to you assertion that the six catagories
Quote:
In fact, these are the basic concepts to success in pretty much any consumer market business.
That was not just about MMORPG.
I agree that it was confusing because when I read your first post I thought that you were describing the next element of success. Otherwise it won't be very revolutionary.
Quote:
GAME (never) OVER
The advent of highly efficient and well oiled MMORPG systems like World of Warcraft have succeeded in pushing the classical Netonian mechanics of MMORPG's to their fullest potentials. It is because of this and the demand by players for a more full exposure to a truly immersive environment that a pioneering in Metaphysical mechanics in MMORPG's will be the next explosion in the revolution of the genre. The day of this new intelligent and rapidly evolutionary reactional game is inevitably close. Look to the offline games and see for yourself tomorrows MMORPG's. And then step back and smile at the potential. The future, is wild.
You defined a demand, and the prostulated the way the demand will be met. You didn't mean that the industry would meet the expectation and just evaporate, but that the industry will adopt the mechanics and that mechanics will be the revolution of the genre. So you were talking about success. In fact, I would interpret that you were prostulating success due to the use of that mechanism.
I never said that game mechanics is the only important thing in general, but as you see, if everything else is not particularly revolutionary, then we had to talking about why the adaptive system structure will be the driving force.
Is the adaptive system structure just a subtle change that is inevitable, or is it an explosive revolution?
Re: Technologies
How do you tell what is fad and what is revolution? A while ago there was voice-recognition. We never got a revolution of a games having voice recognition. We also have GPS, and there are GPS based games. But we don't see a revolution in gaming with GPS. So, why did you say that the adaptive system structure like Amazon's will be the next revolution element instead of, say, the table-top computing interface or HDTV systems? What happened to the virtual reality game helmets and groves? Where are the MMORPG with virtual reality helmets? Where are the Dance-Dance-Revolution-based MMORPG? What makes you choose one technology over another? Is it random? Why didn't you predict MMORPG based on racing?
June 03, 2009 06:03 PM
Quote:
Original post by Wai
You defined a demand, and the prostulated the way the demand will be met. You didn't mean that the industry would meet the expectation and just evaporate, but that the industry will adopt the mechanics and that mechanics will be the revolution of the genre. So you were talking about success. In fact, I would interpret that you were prostulating success due to the use of that mechanism.
To be accurate; not one single mechanic, but a different approach to mechanics.
Quote:
Is the adaptive system structure just a subtle change that is inevitable, or is it an explosive revolution?
From what the technology has done in other consumer markets for allowing the provider of products to more quickly adapt to the consumer's desires, I would say that it has the potential to be a revolution, at least on the back end.
Quote:
How do you tell what is fad and what is revolution?
Only in hind-site.
Prior to this, it's generally about a "wow" factor (not the game).
Meaning, if it truly amazes the mind of a leader at some level of the business, then the "revolution" can be believed in or envisioned.
This, however, does not mean it will be revolutionary. Only time determines this.
I believe the adaptable and evolutionary systems will be revolutionary; silent or not.
Quote:
So, why did you say that the adaptive system structure like Amazon's will be the next revolution element instead of, say, the table-top computing interface or HDTV systems?
I see this because it logically makes sense as the overall consumer concern for consumer business is seeking for ways to get faster responding and customized customer experience.
Customers are becoming less willing to wait, overall, and trends appear to be increasing in speed of change, so multiple consumer markets are turning to adaptive technologies to help them keep up pace.
MMORPG's have been wrestling with this problem from very early on, and have continually had to manually reshuffle the deck to keep things going and alter the system to meet their ever-changing audience market.
So I see this coming to MMORPG's because firstly, it saves the developers money on manual labor.
To me...it's like asking how I can be certain that automated switchboard systems will exist instead of having to call the operator for every phone call.
Because it makes sense and is more efficient for the provider and consumer.
Quote:
What happened to the virtual reality game helmets and groves?
They are still around; they just went to the back burner because they could not generate consumer revenue at the level of cumbersomeness and cost that they currently exist with.
Quote:
Where are the MMORPG with virtual reality helmets?
Someone one day, will look at that question seriously.
Quote:
Where are the Dance-Dance-Revolution-based MMORPG?
I believe it's right there next to the Paraper The Rapper MMORPG.
Quote:
What makes you choose one technology over another?
What makes you choose a search engine instead of the original yellow pages of IP addresses?
Quote:
Why didn't you predict MMORPG based on racing?
I haven't said that I wouldn't, and that's not a bad idea.
1,007
June 03, 2009 08:11 PM
Re: Adaptive System, a comparison in terms of the context
How would you describe the role of Amazon's adaptive system in their business and how do you draw the analogy between the that an a game company?
I see several differences between Amazon's role and a typical game company.
First, Amazon is not a content provider. Amazon doesn't write or publish the books that they sell on the site. The role of Amazon is to sell the book. Amazon is an automated book salesperson. It serves many people at comparatively low cost.
A game company is typically a content provider. It sells what it creates. What you have mentioned in earlier posts, is that you see the game itself as an environment where gameplay experience is distributed. Your analogy was that, just like Amazon's system, the game would use an adaptive system to suggest experience based on the collective tendency that a certain gameplay experience will be favored by a certain type of player.
There are many differences between the two contexts.
1) Amazon lists millions of distinct titles, does a game have a million distinct gameplay experience for the player to select that warrants a search engine?
2) Amazon does not create the titles itself. The game could have become analogus if its gameplay experiences are generated by AI, or it support player created content.
3) The titles of Amazon, collectively, have no common theme. Is it still important for the MMO to have common theme is its gameplay?
4) Amazon occasionally misclassify books and suggest book titles that are totally irrelevant.
5) Amazon allows the user to immediately locate the best book in the subject or genre. Once the player located and got the best gameplay experience, will the player ignore the rest of the contents, unsubscribe, and wait till the next best gameplay experience come out?
What is making the million new games that allows the player to change from playing one game to the next at their pace?
I understand that this is not the only way to see the situation. But if you are confident that a system like this would be widely used in the context of a game, then you must have an analogy that let you see the parallel between Amazon and a game company. Otherwise it is just a wild guess.
In either case, you have also mentioned that what you proposed, as an approach, is no different from the other 100+ approaches that also have 'potential', and you cannot tell whether it is a fad or a true paradigm shift. So in what sense is it accurate to label it as a revolution? Why not just call it "potential popular approach #101 out of 200 technologies to use in MMORPG"?
Re: Revolution
I think perhaps we just have a different interpretation of the word revolution. Because I don't consider the change from yellow page to search engine an revolution. What kind of changes do you call revolution?
I only consider changes that change the roles between entities/agents to be revolutions. For example, a change from Monarchy to Democracy is a revolution because, the role of the citizens change from being ruled over, to ruling themselves.
A digitized, searchable version of yellow page is not a revolution because there is no change in the role.
A game where every player interaction becomes a content creation process is a revolution because it changes the role of a player as a content consumer to a content provider. Google had a game where players match keywords to images. Fold-it is a game on rotating poteins. They are not "hot" game because they are frankly quite boring. But if a game of the same role succeed in gaining major market and cause other game makers to follow, the revolution succeeds.
(In the way I use the term, a revolution is still called a revolution if it fails. As long as it changes the fundamental role among the agents concerned it is an revolution. A revolution is considered successful if it shift the norm.)
Social responsibility is an on-going revolution. It is a revolution where consumer favor companies that are socially responsible, and use their choices as a basis of social change. I wonder whether the gaming industry will be caught in it.
Another on-going revolution is the merge between the education system and the gaming industry. This is a revolution where the interactive industry eliminates the educational system as we know it today.
A third on-going revolution is the merge between government and gaming. This is a revolution where the government is replaced by a more efficient interactive system derived from the technologies of the gaming industry.
Note that I am not saying that these revolutions will be successful in 10 years, in 20 years, or ever. Each of these would take a certain innovation or event that sparks the wide acceptance of the role change. But note that I did not define the revolution based on a technology. I defined it based on the change in the role.
So in conclusion, if I were to present Adaptive System as a spark for an revolution I would proceed like this:
1) Define the current role between the players and game companies
2) Define the alternative role between the players and the game companies
3) Define the technology that will allow the change to happen.
If I were to rephrase your arugment, it would be like this:
A revolution in the role of MMORPG on role-play immersion
A change from relying on the players to perform in-character behaviors to enforcing in-character behaviors.
1) The current situation:
o Characters in MMORPG are allowed to perform out-of-character action
o Players have the freedom to dress one way and consistently behave differently
o The game relies on the players themselves to enforce in-character behavior
2) The altered situation:
o Characters that perform out-of-character actions will have their characters shift to that character automatically
o Players have no freedom to dress one way and consistently behave differently
o The game enforces in-character behavior
3) The enabling technology:
Adaptive system like the one Amazon uses. This system will use the norm between appearance, selection of quests and style of gameplay to determine whether a character is behaving in-character or out-character, and change the opportunities that the game world will give the character.
Your argument would need to show that (1) and (2) are correct, and (3) will work. I think there were comments that (2) is not desired and (3) will not work.
For instance, do you assume that the norm of the players are representative of good role-play behavior? Do you need this assumption for the system to work?
A comment:
MMORPG NPCs are mostly immobile because they need to simultaneously serve multiple players. No one wants to wait, so an NPC that appears to be just standing is talking to 5 players at once. You mentioned a mechanism where NPCs could get scared and run away when a murderer PC approaches. But if that happen, a good PC that comes to the town would see no NPC. You get into a situation where your game either need PVP, so that the good PC can kill the murderer and restore the normal function of the town, or end up having some wacky situation where an NPC stays because the good and evil is in balance, but that allows the evil to kill the NPC, while the good PC must heal the NPC because if he stops healing the game would blame him
[Edited by - Wai on June 3, 2009 9:11:17 PM]
How would you describe the role of Amazon's adaptive system in their business and how do you draw the analogy between the that an a game company?
I see several differences between Amazon's role and a typical game company.
First, Amazon is not a content provider. Amazon doesn't write or publish the books that they sell on the site. The role of Amazon is to sell the book. Amazon is an automated book salesperson. It serves many people at comparatively low cost.
A game company is typically a content provider. It sells what it creates. What you have mentioned in earlier posts, is that you see the game itself as an environment where gameplay experience is distributed. Your analogy was that, just like Amazon's system, the game would use an adaptive system to suggest experience based on the collective tendency that a certain gameplay experience will be favored by a certain type of player.
There are many differences between the two contexts.
1) Amazon lists millions of distinct titles, does a game have a million distinct gameplay experience for the player to select that warrants a search engine?
2) Amazon does not create the titles itself. The game could have become analogus if its gameplay experiences are generated by AI, or it support player created content.
3) The titles of Amazon, collectively, have no common theme. Is it still important for the MMO to have common theme is its gameplay?
4) Amazon occasionally misclassify books and suggest book titles that are totally irrelevant.
5) Amazon allows the user to immediately locate the best book in the subject or genre. Once the player located and got the best gameplay experience, will the player ignore the rest of the contents, unsubscribe, and wait till the next best gameplay experience come out?
Quote:
Customers are becoming less willing to wait, overall, and trends appear to be increasing in speed of change, so multiple consumer markets are turning to adaptive technologies to help them keep up pace.
MMORPG's have been wrestling with this problem from very early on, and have continually had to manually reshuffle the deck to keep things going and alter the system to meet their ever-changing audience market.
What is making the million new games that allows the player to change from playing one game to the next at their pace?
I understand that this is not the only way to see the situation. But if you are confident that a system like this would be widely used in the context of a game, then you must have an analogy that let you see the parallel between Amazon and a game company. Otherwise it is just a wild guess.
In either case, you have also mentioned that what you proposed, as an approach, is no different from the other 100+ approaches that also have 'potential', and you cannot tell whether it is a fad or a true paradigm shift. So in what sense is it accurate to label it as a revolution? Why not just call it "potential popular approach #101 out of 200 technologies to use in MMORPG"?
Re: Revolution
I think perhaps we just have a different interpretation of the word revolution. Because I don't consider the change from yellow page to search engine an revolution. What kind of changes do you call revolution?
I only consider changes that change the roles between entities/agents to be revolutions. For example, a change from Monarchy to Democracy is a revolution because, the role of the citizens change from being ruled over, to ruling themselves.
A digitized, searchable version of yellow page is not a revolution because there is no change in the role.
A game where every player interaction becomes a content creation process is a revolution because it changes the role of a player as a content consumer to a content provider. Google had a game where players match keywords to images. Fold-it is a game on rotating poteins. They are not "hot" game because they are frankly quite boring. But if a game of the same role succeed in gaining major market and cause other game makers to follow, the revolution succeeds.
(In the way I use the term, a revolution is still called a revolution if it fails. As long as it changes the fundamental role among the agents concerned it is an revolution. A revolution is considered successful if it shift the norm.)
Social responsibility is an on-going revolution. It is a revolution where consumer favor companies that are socially responsible, and use their choices as a basis of social change. I wonder whether the gaming industry will be caught in it.
Another on-going revolution is the merge between the education system and the gaming industry. This is a revolution where the interactive industry eliminates the educational system as we know it today.
A third on-going revolution is the merge between government and gaming. This is a revolution where the government is replaced by a more efficient interactive system derived from the technologies of the gaming industry.
Note that I am not saying that these revolutions will be successful in 10 years, in 20 years, or ever. Each of these would take a certain innovation or event that sparks the wide acceptance of the role change. But note that I did not define the revolution based on a technology. I defined it based on the change in the role.
So in conclusion, if I were to present Adaptive System as a spark for an revolution I would proceed like this:
1) Define the current role between the players and game companies
2) Define the alternative role between the players and the game companies
3) Define the technology that will allow the change to happen.
If I were to rephrase your arugment, it would be like this:
A revolution in the role of MMORPG on role-play immersion
A change from relying on the players to perform in-character behaviors to enforcing in-character behaviors.
1) The current situation:
o Characters in MMORPG are allowed to perform out-of-character action
o Players have the freedom to dress one way and consistently behave differently
o The game relies on the players themselves to enforce in-character behavior
2) The altered situation:
o Characters that perform out-of-character actions will have their characters shift to that character automatically
o Players have no freedom to dress one way and consistently behave differently
o The game enforces in-character behavior
3) The enabling technology:
Adaptive system like the one Amazon uses. This system will use the norm between appearance, selection of quests and style of gameplay to determine whether a character is behaving in-character or out-character, and change the opportunities that the game world will give the character.
Your argument would need to show that (1) and (2) are correct, and (3) will work. I think there were comments that (2) is not desired and (3) will not work.
For instance, do you assume that the norm of the players are representative of good role-play behavior? Do you need this assumption for the system to work?
A comment:
MMORPG NPCs are mostly immobile because they need to simultaneously serve multiple players. No one wants to wait, so an NPC that appears to be just standing is talking to 5 players at once. You mentioned a mechanism where NPCs could get scared and run away when a murderer PC approaches. But if that happen, a good PC that comes to the town would see no NPC. You get into a situation where your game either need PVP, so that the good PC can kill the murderer and restore the normal function of the town, or end up having some wacky situation where an NPC stays because the good and evil is in balance, but that allows the evil to kill the NPC, while the good PC must heal the NPC because if he stops healing the game would blame him
[Edited by - Wai on June 3, 2009 9:11:17 PM]
June 03, 2009 10:53 PM
Quote:
Original post by Wai
How would you describe the role of Amazon's adaptive system in their business and how do you draw the analogy between the that an a game company?
I don't.
I am simply showing, through other computer-based consumer demand businesses, how the basic technology is being used with success, and how it is spreading as an advent in computing technology for business solutions to bridge the gap between supply and demand of the product.
This is why I didn't bring up only Amazon, or discuss it by comparison to an MMORPG; it simply is not comparable in it's function beyond to say that it, alike many other consumer systems out or coming out right now, uses a dynamic evolutionary database to track and respond to it's consumers with it's computer interface.
Quote:
I understand that this is not the only way to see the situation. But if you are confident that a system like this would be widely used in the context of a game, then you must have an analogy that let you see the parallel between Amazon and a game company. Otherwise it is just a wild guess.
I only saw the comparison after seeing the advent in computer game discussions and papers striving to achieve more reactionary responses from computer autonomous systems to players and observing some of these surfacing in games themselves.
I didn't look at Amazon and then look at MMORPG's.
I looked at reports (as I like to do) and then looked at some games, and then looked around at the current computational capacity for the use of such systems in the consumer market.
This is when I noticed that indeed, such a structure is being used successfully in the consumer market today, and is growing.
This indicates that it is profitable and affordable to consumer providers.
Obviously, any system used in an MMORPG is going to be more complex, however, and as such causes the projection to be a count of years and not mere months.
Many of the aspects that are the backbone to allowing such a system to exist in an MMORPG have already have had work done on them over a number of years in many different respects and for different reasons.
Quote:
In either case, you have also mentioned that what you proposed, as an approach, is no different from the other 100+ approaches that also have 'potential', and you cannot tell whether it is a fad or a true paradigm shift.
It is possible, and I have said just this.
However, I continue to also state, that if placed into many of the facets that are already being researched and developed in regards to computer intelligence systems, then it will create a paradigm shift; and in some sections of the research, this has already occurred.
Some researchers and experimental developers of computing technology for gaming have begun, for instance, to build systems that monitor player behavior and use neural gas based grid learning to do this. This in turn allows the autonomous character's (ai) to then behave more like a player and less like an intelligently programmed static state autonomous character's or agents.
While still in the research level, this is already a step in the direction of adaptable systems as it observes and analyzes player activity and then responds to it to create it's own choices and actions on a very dynamic level.
(if you want to read about this, search for learning human-like movement behavior for computer games by Christian Thurau.
Some other approaches to the battle against Cheat-Bots (automated player activity) is also laying the foundations of infrastructure for how the databases will collect and analyze player behavior by using the backlogs of the database servers typically used in case a rollback on the server is needed.
(search for detection of MMORPG bots based on behavior analysis, there's a couple different names involved on that one, off the top of my head I only remember Kuan-Ta Chen [easy name to remember]).
And again, you have the interest in social behavior evolution whereby an autonomous agent is placed into a learning environment until it is "full grown" and then released into the system a more diversely developed identity than if it was simply a "spawn". (I'll have to re-dig for that title, but it's a project that the media lab at MIT was doing called AlphaWolf...I think they are still doing work on that project last I recall.)
Also, I see things such as Pandora.com striking interest in the business magazines because of how it uses a very robust adaptive and "genetic" database to create user tailored radio stations using very little input from the customer.
And I see the entire cable television industry moving to True2Way (it was all that was talked about at last years convention) where the separation between what the provider is offering and what the consumer is requesting is becoming shortened considerably in it's response time; especially where VOD server technology is being applied to live feed television (now only starting with systems like time shifting technology).
But also, you can see this in TiVo systems where adaptable systems are valued.
And then of course, there's the video games that I'm playing after reading about the content and reviews of their systems (the one's I've already mentioned) that are pushing the computer game adaptability infrastructure forward in their own right.
So it's all of these things together that causes me to say...you know what...this is going to hit MMORPG's soon.
And considering that MMORPG's are currently concerned with getting players more in contact with the character, I suppose it will probably land in character response by the system to the player first and then to character evolution for the player reactionary from that system.
Quote:
So in what sense is it accurate to label it as a revolution?
It's a revolution like instancing was, but potentially even more.
More to the point, it's a revolution in computing engineering that is going on already.
It is that change to a computer structure that reacts to users by making it's own decisions about it's own concepts of what to do, similarly as players do to each other, that is a revolution.
Think about it this way...
Currently, a ball is thrown against a wall and the ball bounces off of the wall depending on the force of the ball hitting the wall and angles at which it does so.
So the determining factor of the direction that ball will travel after hitting the wall is based entirely on the balls approach.
However, what we are talking about with all of these adaptable systems is the ball being thrown at a beanbag.
When these two objects hit each other, they will react to each other based on their approach and their opposing ball and beanbag's approach.
Now fill a room with balls and beanbags such as these and you have extremely dynamic movements.
Balls will bounce off of beanbags and then off of other balls, and beanbags will bounce off of balls and then off of beanbags, and continued on...
Such is the case for the adaptable systems.
It completely changes the system from a big wall that lots of balls bounce off of, to a large room where you have balls and beanbags that are constantly in motion bouncing off of each other.
In the above examples, the current structure is much like a wall, and the adaptable system's structure is much like the beanbags, and the players are the balls.
So when I say it will be a revolution, it's because the dynamics of what the computing system of autonomous agents will be capable of doing, and what we will be able to allow systems to do for player should we choose to will be profoundly different than what our systems are capable of doing today.
This isn't one plug-n-play component.
This is a massive array of hundreds of components that assemble together to make an adaptive infrastructure.
Quote:
Because I don't consider the change from yellow page to search engine an revolution. What kind of changes do you call revolution?
I would say that not having to go to the library and pull up the public access IP Address yellow pages to find a website and instead only needing a search engine that can find millions of websites for me is a revolution.
That act alone catapulted the usability factor of the internet.
If you still had to use an IP address book, the internet would not be what it is that you use today.
That is a revolution.
Something that changes how things are done and greatly affects the outcome of the social reaction, or use, as a response.
1,007
June 04, 2009 12:07 AM
Re: Advances in AI
Actually I know the examples where the adaptive system is used as part of the AI of enemy, NPC, or the environment. The kind of changes you are talking about includes the following:
o Spore: how a designer can now define only the features of a monster, without worrying about animating a monster by hand. This displaces the role of the animators (which are persons) by the augmented role set of the game engine.
o Fighters: how a designer can define the moves and let the game engine figure out how characters will use the moves. Fights of PvE will be like PvP where the technology is enabled.
o Vendors: when the player character goes to a store, the store will automatically arrange things that the character will likely to buy in the front. (The other items are still there if the player wants to browse thru all of it.)
o Quests: when the player is looking for a quest, the quest manager (which could be an NPC) would automatically tell the player character a news that the player will be interested in. But if the player want a change he can still ask for other options.
o Fashion: designer throw in textures and mesh templates, and the game engine will automatically match them and clothe the generated NPC. The fashions of the NPC could adapt to the fashion of the players in the region, creating fashion shifts over time as styles fade in and out.
o Trade routes: paths that players frequently walk on become roads. When there are roads, NPC vendors use those as trade routes. Paths on areas overrun by monsters deteriorate. NPC trades use alternate routes to get around.
o Trainer: When the player walks to a trainer, the trainer, in a conversation, automatically suggests the next skill that the character should persue. The character can browser other available skills if desired.
o Dance style: The game engine provides elementary dance moves and observe how the players connect the moves and teach the NPCs how to dance.
These are all modular changes a game could have. A game could implement one or all. Were these the kinds of changes you were talking about?
When I read the above, I read additional meaning than simply given the player a convenient way to find the options to support the player's desires. It seemed that you also wanted to make the selection process automatic:
Instead of having the player do the shopping, the character would do the shopping on its own.
I read it this way because if the player has full freedom to make the choices, the change will be instant instead of over time. So when I read 'over time', I thought that you meant the player can no longer make the change instantly. I couldn't tell whether your focus was in presenting the inertia or the convenience, and whether the player can only affect some of the features of the character indirectly through play style, instead of directly by choices.
In my description, the other options are still available, but just not presented first. But I think you had a meaning that if the character had never used a bow the game would not let the character buy an expensive bow (or, the character would refuse to buy an expensive bow, saying "I'm a beginner, I will get this beginner bow.") because the game determines that it is out-of-character for that character. So that option is not-yet-available.
To make that option become available, the character would some how need to grind his way up as described by another poster.
You were arguring that that would create a more immersive environment because there is a difference between the player and the character--The character will refuse option that it finds to be out-of-character, even if the player wants to try it. Your argument was that it would be more immersive.
Actually I know the examples where the adaptive system is used as part of the AI of enemy, NPC, or the environment. The kind of changes you are talking about includes the following:
o Spore: how a designer can now define only the features of a monster, without worrying about animating a monster by hand. This displaces the role of the animators (which are persons) by the augmented role set of the game engine.
o Fighters: how a designer can define the moves and let the game engine figure out how characters will use the moves. Fights of PvE will be like PvP where the technology is enabled.
o Vendors: when the player character goes to a store, the store will automatically arrange things that the character will likely to buy in the front. (The other items are still there if the player wants to browse thru all of it.)
o Quests: when the player is looking for a quest, the quest manager (which could be an NPC) would automatically tell the player character a news that the player will be interested in. But if the player want a change he can still ask for other options.
o Fashion: designer throw in textures and mesh templates, and the game engine will automatically match them and clothe the generated NPC. The fashions of the NPC could adapt to the fashion of the players in the region, creating fashion shifts over time as styles fade in and out.
o Trade routes: paths that players frequently walk on become roads. When there are roads, NPC vendors use those as trade routes. Paths on areas overrun by monsters deteriorate. NPC trades use alternate routes to get around.
o Trainer: When the player walks to a trainer, the trainer, in a conversation, automatically suggests the next skill that the character should persue. The character can browser other available skills if desired.
o Dance style: The game engine provides elementary dance moves and observe how the players connect the moves and teach the NPCs how to dance.
These are all modular changes a game could have. A game could implement one or all. Were these the kinds of changes you were talking about?
Quote:
As this is done, the world and players will react differently to the player and the player will react differently to the world. Even the physical appearances will be evolving based on these choices. A character will grow more muscular as they increase their hard labor, or battle involvement choices. Counter to this, the character will lose muscle mass as they increase choices that are not involved in hard labor or battle involvement. In some games, the look of regrown broken bones and scar marks may emerge on characters, and contain memorable information about a point in time that such things were gained (creating a time-line connection between the player and the character, similar to the concept explored in Spore). Different material to wear, use, and own will cease and become available accordingly to these choices as well. A player may find certain groups of players, missions, or computer players attracted to them for one reason or another involving their continual choices (similarly seen in some respects in Star Wars Galaxies). On a smaller scale, even with in the example of a warrior form of character, the evolution of the character's choices in combat may push more options in training skills and weapon/armor choices that lead from a short sword over to a halberd. Again, completely based on choices that the character is making inside of the combat arena and mixed with all of the other choices as well. The character will literally form around the player's choice of playing style and evolve with any changes in the player's playing style over time. The world will dynamically interact with the player, and the player will look less like a player and more like a character.
When I read the above, I read additional meaning than simply given the player a convenient way to find the options to support the player's desires. It seemed that you also wanted to make the selection process automatic:
Instead of having the player do the shopping, the character would do the shopping on its own.
I read it this way because if the player has full freedom to make the choices, the change will be instant instead of over time. So when I read 'over time', I thought that you meant the player can no longer make the change instantly. I couldn't tell whether your focus was in presenting the inertia or the convenience, and whether the player can only affect some of the features of the character indirectly through play style, instead of directly by choices.
In my description, the other options are still available, but just not presented first. But I think you had a meaning that if the character had never used a bow the game would not let the character buy an expensive bow (or, the character would refuse to buy an expensive bow, saying "I'm a beginner, I will get this beginner bow.") because the game determines that it is out-of-character for that character. So that option is not-yet-available.
To make that option become available, the character would some how need to grind his way up as described by another poster.
You were arguring that that would create a more immersive environment because there is a difference between the player and the character--The character will refuse option that it finds to be out-of-character, even if the player wants to try it. Your argument was that it would be more immersive.
June 04, 2009 12:42 AM
Quote:
Original post by Wai
Were these the kinds of changes you were talking about?
Those are some of the more critical aspects, yes; that is part of what I was talking about.
Quote:
When I read the above, I read additional meaning than simply given the player a convenient way to find the options to support the player's desires. It seemed that you also wanted to make the selection process automatic:
Instead of having the player do the shopping, the character would do the shopping on its own.
Oh no, no...I think doing something like that would devalue the system greatly.
That's actually what the industry spends much of it's time fighting against, so I can't see them supporting auto-player functions.
Reactive choice options is the discussion on the aspect.
Presently, if you order a cake, you only get that cake and your options for eating cake are stuck to just that cake and more of it.
However, the adaptable system would notice you continue to eyeball your friends cake (metaphorically of course, in mechanics this is by acting differently than perhaps your class is expected to act) and so it simply asks, "Would you like some of this other cake?"
It's still up to you to make the choice.
Now, on the other side of it, you may find some choices having consequences that wall you off from other options.
For instance, in Spore, after a certain point...you can't change whether you are carnivore, omnivore, or herbivore; it's now a part of your characteristic.
I believe the developers will make similar thresholds in MMORPG's because you cannot have endless wishy-washy choices forever; at some point, a direction is needed and the simplest method has always been isolation to some degree.
Quote:
So when I read 'over time', I thought that you meant the player can no longer make the change instantly. I couldn't tell whether your focus was in presenting the inertia or the convenience, and whether the player can only affect some of the features of the character indirectly through play style, instead of directly by choices.
I believe it will be a mix of all of these conditions and not one or the other.
Since no one likes being forced into something, I'm confident that players will still have a wide range of "instant" spending options that immediately affect their character.
That said, there will most likely be components that track over time and slowly alter the choices that appear to a player when they go to make choices.
Be this in the skill/feat/action selection, or the market place item options.
Or perhaps where they can live.
Quote:
In my description, the other options are still available, but just not presented first. But I think you had a meaning that if the character had never used a bow the game would not let the character buy an expensive bow (or, the character would refuse to buy an expensive bow, saying "I'm a beginner, I will get this beginner bow.") because the game determines that it is out-of-character for that character. So that option is not-yet-available.
I could see someone making such an extreme system, but I believe such a condition would be based on a threshold that states that you have advanced X far which specializes too much in Y direction of traits and therefore retro-low-level choices are no longer possible.
Kind of like, if Knight is the top of the chart and you are right below that advancement wise, it may not be an option to suddenly go chasing after the ranger's options.
In other games, it still may be possible at a cost; just look at SWG's "forfeit" system of unlearning abilities/skills to go after something else.
So it's hard to say exactly how such restrictions will appear, but if it were me sitting there, the item itself would not be a restriction, but the skills simply wouldn't be offered until you bothered to pick that item up and start using it.
Once that happens, I would see the adaptive system start finding cross-over skill/attribute options that mesh your bow interest with whatever other weapon interest you have shown the system.
So perhaps you will create a horseback Axe swinging Archer in doing so.
Quote:
To make that option become available, the character would some how need to grind his way up as described by another poster.
I think this depends on the model involved.
Like I just showed previous to this quote...three completely different approaches to the same aspect; each with their own issues and benefits.
Quote:
You were arguring that that would create a more immersive environment because there is a difference between the player and the character--The character will refuse option that it finds to be out-of-character, even if the player wants to try it. Your argument was that it would be more immersive.
No...the character wouldn't refuse to use something.
Certain choices would not be offered, or be offered at less of a return, and other would be offered, or be offered at a higher return.
If you pick allot of bloody missions, then bloody missions will offer a higher earning for you the more you do them.
However, this doesn't completely stop you from non-bloody missions, but when available, they are less valued.
But you can still do them and start changing your direction if you want to and eventually it will swing the other way.
This is just an example of the concept using missions.
As we've discussed, there are many aspects that can react and flex, all the way down to the computer character's and mobs themselves.
It really depends on what a developer wants.
Using the market place as an example, if you want to buy a new item that doesn't fit within the paradigm of your archetype, you may be able to in some systems, but you may find that the return in statistics is not quite as lucrative as the other choices more fitting of your archetype.
However, if you continue to use those lower returning items, more options will occur later and those items will start to be more valuable to your statistics.
As described above, you may find a nice balance and effectiveness wielding an axe and bow; who knows.
Exactly how these concepts will show up, I'm not entirely sure because it depends on the overall goal of any one game to meet it's fictional consistency, but things like these will be possible, and to some degree exist.
Another more entertaining concept is the idea of a Sword of Truth/Justice/etc... screaming in howling pain while you hold it because the game has a memory that tracks you as a violent and corrupt/evil character.
Or, perhaps you pick up a weapon that is all about such characteristics and your aptitude for killing allows the weapon to harness your bloodlust and amplify it's power in your hands not by skill or attribute statistics, but by your interests that are tracked in the logs of your history.
That's what I mean by the world will start bouncing off of the player.
1,007
June 04, 2009 03:24 AM
Re:
I think the logic for this particular example is totally reversed. If you are the Emperor's Wife, assassins would offer you more to kill the Emperor. You are so close to the Emperor that if you flip side, you will succeed.
In the current dynamics, if you have never used a bow, and you start using it, your ranged accuracy starts low because you had never leveled it up. The value of using bow is already automatically low because it takes your character longer to kill something due to the low accuracy. You don't need an adaptive system on top of it to make it less valuable in the begining. The effect is already there. It is of lower value because your character simply cannot use it right. What is the role of adaptive system here?
Isn't it more elegant to implement it using the existing action and competence pair?
By action and competence I mean the system where you can choose to use a bow anytime, but whether you would hit the target depends on your skill (player skill) or your character's skill level (ranged level, dexterity, etc...). In this system, you can always choose your action. You cannot choose your aptitude level.
Suppose you are a Paladin. You are a good guy. You never lie. One day, there comes a situation where you think you should lie. This system would allow you to lie, but you probably won't do a good job, because your current level of lying is "F".
If I want immersion, I would simulate the internal thoughts as the player attempt to choose the option [Lie]:
The first time the player clicks on it, the character would respond: "Lie! I will not do that!" And nothing would happen. If the character click on it again, the character would have a respond that considers it more, and on the third attempt the character would lie. Depending on the intelligence and emotional control of the character (stats) and the listener of the lie, the lie may either succeed or fail. In both cases, the character would earn some intelligence point and some emotional control point, and the lying affinity of the character would increase. This means that the next time the player chooses to lie, the character would not respond as skeptically.
This mechanism is no diffient from that determines the miss or hit of an arrow. The difference is that the game needs contextual responds so that the player won't get bored reading the same text over and over. So it is easier to get implemented on actions that aren't verbal. But what is the role of adaptive system here? Or is this the kind of adaptation you were talking about?
The action choices are always present, but the adaptive system only shows the most appropriate choices on the front. The player could still look up the rest. But to perform the choice right the character needs competence in related stats.
Quote:
If you pick allot of bloody missions, then bloody missions will offer a higher earning for you the more you do them. However, this doesn't completely stop you from non-bloody missions, but when available, they are less valued.
I think the logic for this particular example is totally reversed. If you are the Emperor's Wife, assassins would offer you more to kill the Emperor. You are so close to the Emperor that if you flip side, you will succeed.
Quote:
Using the market place as an example, if you want to buy a new item that doesn't fit within the paradigm of your archetype, you may be able to in some systems, but you may find that the return in statistics is not quite as lucrative as the other choices more fitting of your archetype.
However, if you continue to use those lower returning items, more options will occur later and those items will start to be more valuable to your statistics.
In the current dynamics, if you have never used a bow, and you start using it, your ranged accuracy starts low because you had never leveled it up. The value of using bow is already automatically low because it takes your character longer to kill something due to the low accuracy. You don't need an adaptive system on top of it to make it less valuable in the begining. The effect is already there. It is of lower value because your character simply cannot use it right. What is the role of adaptive system here?
Isn't it more elegant to implement it using the existing action and competence pair?
By action and competence I mean the system where you can choose to use a bow anytime, but whether you would hit the target depends on your skill (player skill) or your character's skill level (ranged level, dexterity, etc...). In this system, you can always choose your action. You cannot choose your aptitude level.
Suppose you are a Paladin. You are a good guy. You never lie. One day, there comes a situation where you think you should lie. This system would allow you to lie, but you probably won't do a good job, because your current level of lying is "F".
If I want immersion, I would simulate the internal thoughts as the player attempt to choose the option [Lie]:
The first time the player clicks on it, the character would respond: "Lie! I will not do that!" And nothing would happen. If the character click on it again, the character would have a respond that considers it more, and on the third attempt the character would lie. Depending on the intelligence and emotional control of the character (stats) and the listener of the lie, the lie may either succeed or fail. In both cases, the character would earn some intelligence point and some emotional control point, and the lying affinity of the character would increase. This means that the next time the player chooses to lie, the character would not respond as skeptically.
This mechanism is no diffient from that determines the miss or hit of an arrow. The difference is that the game needs contextual responds so that the player won't get bored reading the same text over and over. So it is easier to get implemented on actions that aren't verbal. But what is the role of adaptive system here? Or is this the kind of adaptation you were talking about?
The action choices are always present, but the adaptive system only shows the most appropriate choices on the front. The player could still look up the rest. But to perform the choice right the character needs competence in related stats.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
Recommended Tutorials
Advertisement