I'm struggling with this idea. Actually I'm struggling with the seemingly complicated nature of it. When having a mission-based game, especially one with a set story, how much do you let events affect the story? For instance, I can have a game with 10 missions. If the tasks for mission 1 are: shoot down the incoming enemies, escort the battleship to the waypoint, and defend a nearby installation, then how do I account for the player failing at one of these tasks? Do I go the linear route and have it affect the next mission? Or do I branch out and give a completely different mission because of 1 or more failures. Another thing that boggles me is the roles of key players. Let's say that mission 1 had an ace pilot leading a squadron. Assume he's attacking the nearby installation. Now you as a rookie should not be able to take down this enemy. But let's say for some freak reason, the player managed to do so. And let's say that this ace pilot was supposed to be in missions 3, 7, and 9. But now you've killed him. How do I allow the story and enemy AI to account for that? Design and even programming-wise this sounds a galactically massive if statement!

Quote:

Original post by Alpha_ProgDes Do I go the linear route and have it affect the next mission? Or do I branch out and give a completely different mission because of 1 or more failures.

Not sure if this story is apocryphal or not but I once heard that Origin's famous branching mission tree in their earlier Wing Commander games was scrapped because players rarely accepted failures. Apparently most players did what I did and played a mission over and over again until they achieved victory, thus never seeing the losing paths.

Quote:

Now you as a rookie should not be able to take down this enemy. But let's say for some freak reason, the player managed to do so.

Games are filled with such inconsistencies. I believe this comes down to testing, with the option of adding some factor (such invulnerability or spawning additional enemies) to make things come out as they should.

You can also design in concepts beyond strict physics, such as attack damage and defensive power. Top Ace's could have the "winning shot" ability that lets them and only them hit a high HP target for a critical blow, just as Luke Skywalker was the only one who could put that torpedo right down that exhaust shaft in Star Wars.

Quote:

And let's say that this ace pilot was supposed to be in missions 3, 7, and 9. But now you've killed him. How do I allow the story and enemy AI to account for that?

Unless you want to add alternate characters I'd ask what the value would be in letting the player kill allies? Just because reality might allow it doesn't mean your game should. If you've determined that ally heroes should be killed but will be necessary then you're going to have to conceive of some sort of replacement gameplay that makes their loss cost something.

One option would be to allow the heroes to die but then dynamically modify the mission difficulty and story/mission text going forward. Another would be to use Wing Commmander's indestructible escape pod technique, where heroes can lose their ship but never be killed even if you're shooting right at them.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes Do I go the linear route and have it affect the next mission? Or do I branch out and give a completely different mission because of 1 or more failures. Not sure if this story is apocryphal or not but I once heard that Origin's famous branching mission tree in their earlier Wing Commander games was scrapped because players rarely accepted failures. Apparently most players did what I did and played a mission over and over again until they achieved victory, thus never seeing the losing paths.

Actually, I was thinking of Wing Commander (1 and 2 specifically) when mulling this through.

Quote:

Quote: Now you as a rookie should not be able to take down this enemy. But let's say for some freak reason, the player managed to do so. Games are filled with such inconsistencies. I believe this comes down to testing, with the option of adding some factor (such invulnerability or spawning additional enemies) to make things come out as they should. You can also design in concepts beyond strict physics, such as attack damage and defensive power. Top Ace's could have the "winning shot" ability that lets them and only them hit a high HP target for a critical blow, just as Luke Skywalker was the only one who could put that torpedo right down that exhaust shaft in Star Wars.

Well I didn't mean for it to sound like a bug in the system. But sometimes people just get lucky. The "winning shot" ability sounds interesting though.

Quote:

Quote: And let's say that this ace pilot was supposed to be in missions 3, 7, and 9. But now you've killed him. How do I allow the story and enemy AI to account for that? Unless you want to add alternate characters I'd ask what the value would be in letting the player kill allies? Just because reality might allow it doesn't mean your game should. If you've determined that ally heroes should be killed but will be necessary then you're going to have to conceive of some sort of replacement gameplay that makes their loss cost something.

I meant enemy ace pilot. I wouldn't allow allies to kill allies. Though, that would make for an wild dynamic in the gameplay

Quote:

One option would be to allow the heroes to die but then dynamically modify the mission difficulty and story/mission text going forward. Another would be to use Wing Commmander's indestructible escape pod technique, where heroes can lose their ship but never be killed even if you're shooting right at them.

I also considered something similar to that for the destruction of key enemy pilots or characters in the game.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes Do I go the linear route and have it affect the next mission? Or do I branch out and give a completely different mission because of 1 or more failures. Not sure if this story is apocryphal or not but I once heard that Origin's famous branching mission tree in their earlier Wing Commander games was scrapped because players rarely accepted failures. Apparently most players did what I did and played a mission over and over again until they achieved victory, thus never seeing the losing paths.

Well you could always add an auto save feature that could save every 10min or so. That way players don't have the ability to restart a mission multiple times without restarting the game from the beginning. Some might not like it at first, but that's not really so bad as long as the losing is not the kind that gives you a permanent game over. If that makes any sense at all.

Quote:

Original post by Alpha_ProgDes... let's say that this ace pilot was supposed to be in missions 3, 7, and 9. But now you've killed him. How do I allow the story and enemy AI to account for that?

What about using revenge actors in such instances?

You killed Omega. Oe noes! Here comes Omega's significant other -- relative, student, teacher, battle-buddy, romantic interest, maybe even Omega's nemesis who has a plot twist interest -- for revenge.

I've never considered that! That would take the game and story in a new direction. But do I only introduce this revenge-optional character if I kill the enemy? The story tree would be huge! But fun!

Quote:

Original post by Alpha_ProgDes I've never considered that! That would take the game and story in a new direction. But do I only introduce this revenge-optional character if I kill the enemy? The story tree would be huge! But fun!

At the risk of being absurd, does cloning exist in your world? You might manage your expanding story tree by having versions step in to fill the void.

Before you laugh, think about how jacked up it would be to be born, somehow have your growth accelerated and your entire life shaped in one direction just so that you could avenge your "father/brother/self." It might require rigid indoctrination and propaganda, especially if the player rose to the level of the Red Baron in terms of renown and skill. And what would happen if a batch started to question their orders?

Better yet, what would it be like to play from their side, say about mid point through the game when the player has had enough skill to become famous? Maybe you'd have these ill-formed, psychologically under-aged killer pilots in adult bodies in terror but compelled to hunt this legendary dragon.

Just a thought.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Not sure if this story is apocryphal or not but I once heard that Origin's famous branching mission tree in their earlier Wing Commander games was scrapped because players rarely accepted failures. Apparently most players did what I did and played a mission over and over again until they achieved victory, thus never seeing the losing paths.

Damned savegames!!! [grin]

I always accepted failure in Tie Fighter for the mission secondary/bonus objectives. Maybe story should be driven by those, or maybe missions should have multiple primary objectives, so you can "win" by escorting a battleship to break through enemy lines and join some sieged forces or you can "win" by running away to some other safe haven, fighting off pursuers along the way.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Unless you want to add alternate characters I'd ask what the value would be in letting the player kill allies? Just because reality might allow it doesn't mean your game should.

Why would you do it? Because sometimes it allows for an awesome feeling of the player really being able to shape the narrative that they're in.

eg. The part in Deus Ex where Agent Navarre orders you to kill someone. Probably 60% of people do so. 30% refuse, and she does it for you. There is a 3rd option...

Everybody should play Deus Ex, if only to see the way in which you actually get some real choices to make, not just a linear story that you get through by winning each episode. In the end it just comes down to some careful contingency management when it comes to object placement and dialogue trees, but the feel of the whole game can change as a result, for the better.

There's a cheat way to make interactive storylines; you just make a linear twin track, and flick people between them depending on the outcomes.

So you have one track where their side is winning the war, and one where it's losing.

If they fail a mission, move them to the losing track if they're not on it. If they succeed a mission, move them to the winning track.

You can either have them skip paired missions on the other track, or save them for later use; so people might play 10 missions ( intro, Win2, Win3, Lose4, Lose5, Win6, Win7, Win8, Win9, Win10 ) or they might play between 10 and 20... (intro, Win2, Win3, Lose2, Lose3, Lose4, Win4... etc).

Each of the missions can be structured appropriately. So, "Win2" might be "Exploit the breakthrough!", "Win8" is "Advance into their homeland!" and "Win10" is "Beseige their capital!"

Whereas "Lose2" might be "Defend the frontier", "Lose5" could be "Protect the retreat" and so on.

With some delicate scenario writing what happens is that the narrative forms in the players head. They will picture, in their minds, where the retreat happens, where the turning points are.

You never say explicitly where the towns are, but just describe "Lose2" as being "Enemy forces are massing around Bloggsville. We must hold the bridge there long enough for the retreating 9th Army to cross it."

It will then fit into the story either as an early set-back or a late one.

You can also have a set of "no difference" missions or "either track" missions. The former don't change which track the player is on, the latter show up on both tracks... so no matter whether you're winning the war or losing it, you play it in slot 5.

The easiest way of handling character deaths might be to tag each mission with characters which must be alive. Carefully structure the tracks so that no pair of matched missions contain the same character. So then if a player has killed General Important in "Win2" and they're needed later on for "Win7", you can just hand them "Lose7" to play which carefully doesn't mention him -- players will just interpret having a defensive scenario turning up as being part of the ebb and flow of the war.