I like some of the ideas here, though the "games currently suck" theme is a little extreme. You have to remember that games coming out right now were started around 2 years ago, when the Athlon (around 600 Mhz) was still new and 64MB RAM was standard. That was what was being aimed at, not 2Ghz NW and 2000+ Athlon XP systems. You have limitations with what you can do with 64MB RAM and 600 Mhz machines. Heck, there are still serious limitations with what you can do with current systems.

That aside, the games don''t "suck". There are checks and balances that have to be implemented in any game. If it costs too much to implement a particular feature or rules set, it has to go.

I do agree though, a complete skill-based system is better than a non-skill based (level) system. Everquest tried to get the best of both worlds and ended up with a halfway solution that is pretty frustrating all around, with it quickly becoming ''levelquest'' or ''lootquest''. UO had some serious issues that some people have addressed here, such as easy skill caps (100.0) and slow atrophy of skills. I think that UOs main problem is that it had a skill cap, or at least one that was attainable. Then they implemented a total skill cap (I believe it was after release) that ended up with a limit on what someone could learn and it became the game of figuring out what the best combination of skills was. Another problem there.

I think that a good system would have caps so high that it would take a rediculous amount of time to attain that skill level and also make each skill a real specialists realm. Sure, you might be able to have a 200 skill in wizardry and a 200 skill in swordsmanship, but would you rather have that or a 300 skill in swordsmanship and be much more effective overall?

Don''t limit the players based upon level (a silly, nearly arbitrary guage of all skills) and don''t limit them based upon total skills. If you use a sword that doesn''t mean that you can''t cast spells well, it just means that you''d better be putting in some serious time to get both of those skills up to a reasonable level. You don''t have to atrophy skills at a rediculously high rate. When''s the last time you actually did any biology? Can you remember what the different types of classifications mean? I can still remember Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species and I haven''t been in school in over a dozen years. Does that mean I can''t pass a simple biology exam? Probably, but does it mean that I don''t know anything about it anymore? Not in the least.

Keep track of the highest skill level and limit the atrophy based upon that rating (like 60% of highest skill level obtained). Don''t limit the other skills, but if someone doesn''t use a skill in say... 3 months game time, give it a 5% atrophy, but still limit the level of atrophy to 60% of the total skill ratings. This will keep the players from being archmage/warlord/assassin/master smithy/master tailor unless they''re powergamers and even then, they''ll be spending so much time working on all 5 of those skill groupings that they really won''t be able to hold a candle to someone who spends literally half the amount of time playing, but only works on combat skills.

Stop trying to make everyone equal, they never will be. Don''t try making everything balance out, it never will either. If you do, people will just spend their time trying to figure out what the best combination is. Simply give them the tools and let them do whatever they want to do. Everything will balance out in the wash.

Back on to UO though, their biggest problem is that there isn''t a requirement for balanced groups of players. 5 warriors are much more effective than a couple of warriors, a rogue type a couple of wizard types. Pick your best combination of skills for one player and that will be the best 5 person group. In other games (EQ or DAoC for example), you need balance in a group to really be the most effective. If you play a group of warriors, someone is going to get beaten down pretty hard and pretty quick, but you''ll be missing the healing to save a butt, you''ll be missing the buffs that your other classes bring to the group and you''ll be missing the big hammer that the wizard types can bring also. A warrior might smack a cleric down in a New York minute, but a warrior without a healer type is up the creek in a party situation or when fighting more than one creature.

There is more to games than just the skills, you need to force groups to balance out for greater effect. If you don''t, you''ll end up with a whole bunch of cookie cutter characters that all end up looking very similar. Not much room for role-playing with that.

Oh yeah, one last pet peeve. DrMol, when you post here, you''re talking to everyone who frequents this board, gamers, programmers, designers and enthusiasts, not just the one person who completely agrees with you. If you want to hold a conversation with him, as someone else said, take it to e-mail. To the person who was name-calling, I would like to think that we''re beyond that by the point we hit this board. I know that there are some people in their teens here, but I rarely see those people doing that, so I think we would all appreciate it if the ''adults'' here could act a little more like adults. Particularly since the ''children'' (using that term loosely and not meaning to insult anyone under the age of 18) her can act like adults.

quote: Original post by OOProgrammer
Lohrno Part 2:
I''m glad that you like my idea(s) about magic use, but I wasn''t really talking about anything in a game. I was responding to DrMol''s request for ideas about how we think magic would work abstractly--not in a game. I don''t really think that it will be possible for any game to ever make use of a player''s mental state in such a way as I described, unless computer''s learn how to read minds.

Actually I had no idea for the computer reading minds, I was thinking that the computer could have a mind. (At least artificially, I''m not talking about anything that could pass a turring test(sp?)) Like maybe based on certain factors, your character accidentally falls in love with someone else''s character. If you want some more control, let the player control the emotional state of their character a little bit. (for the REALLY hardcore roleplayers) But it could even be part
of the storyline, like (ok I started using EQ examples sigh) if you start some quest for some guy, and at the end, he kinda jips
you because you gave him 4 rations instead of 3, your character
might get a bad mood. Or maybe like I said before...something
like this: Your female mage, (because you hang out with your friend, who''s warrior is pretty tall, dark, and handsome) falls in love with said warrior. Now, any attempt to attack something that is bothering said warrior by the mage might be more effective, because she doesnt want anyone hurting her shnookums. It would also decrease the number of crossdressers I''m sure! Hah! Alas, but like I said I think this is really for the truly hardcore roleplayers. I remember something said on a MUD about roleplaying. It went something like this:

"One way of roleplaying well, is to imagine that the character is real, and you are not. You are actually a slave to the character, not visa versa. Everything you do in real life is an effect of your character controlling you."

While thats a pretty scary way to look at it, it''s also a pretty interesting philosophy about roleplaying! =D

-=Lohrno

Basically that''s including some of the areas of personality, preferences and behavior that are included in such things as The Sims. It would be interesting, but you would be hard pressed to convice people to give up clock cycles and memory to incorporate things like that into an RPG. Remember, one of the major draws of RPGs is that you are the boss. I agree that there is a benefit to having a character''s avatar be on more of a "suggestion basis" where you don''t have DIRECT control over them. In fact, this concept was addressed in a sizeable thread around here... either under Game Design or AI.

Dave Mark
Intrinsic Algorithm Development
"Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"

quote: Original post by InnocuousFox
Basically that''s including some of the areas of personality, preferences and behavior that are included in such things as The Sims. It would be interesting, but you would be hard pressed to convice people to give up clock cycles and memory to incorporate things like that into an RPG. Remember, one of the major draws of RPGs is that you are the boss.

Yup! Totally...I dont think people would go for it as cool as I or you might think it is...If I were now building an RPG of some sort, I might actually go to the trouble of trying to get some mainstream surveys and questionaires done. It might be something like the sims, I, >gasp< haven''t played it. The only thing is that you as the player would obviously control the character somewhat too. As in go here, do this, do that...talk to Joe the baker...This idea is not like a movie, it''s kinda like a character that has the emotions of a giga-pet or something like that, which affects its abilities. We may see it in the near future, but I doubt it will be soon. But of course, I think its cool hehe. Like make it so that your characters just think a little bit on their own, and have a little bit of personality. (Which maybe gets created by what the actual player makes them do or say.) Now that would be kinda cool, but of course CPU cycles, bandwidth, complex AI algorhythms, blah blah blah hehe. Maybe it could be simpler, like in Ultima 4 (5?) where they had a fortune teller with cards and choices and everything. But make it transparent to the user. Like it takes your responses to NPCs into consideration the making the personality of your character.

-=Lohrno

quote: Original post by InnocuousFox
I agree that there is a benefit to having a character''s avatar be on more of a "suggestion basis" where you don''t have DIRECT control over them. In fact, this concept was addressed in a sizeable thread around here... either under Game Design or AI.

It was also addressed in a little game called Majesty--sort of a fantasy strategy kingdom building game. As the monarch, you don''t have direct control over anyone in your kingdom. But you can provide motivation for people to do your bidding. Need some protection for your borders? Order the building of a couple of mage towers. With a little luck, the next mages who pass by will decide to take up residence in them. Short of warriors? Build a guild hall for them. Pestered by criminals? Put up some posters advertising a cash reward for them.

I think it would be difficult to do that sort of thing in an rpg. You need direct control over someone''s actions or you aren''t roleplaying--the AI is. What about being a secondary character instead of the main character in a story, and you give the main character advice when they need it and develop a relationship (good or bad) with them?


---------------------------------
"It''s groin-grabbingly transcendent!" - Mr. Gamble, my teacher, speaking of his C++ AP class

Ehhh I don''t like having them on a suggestion basis...It''s not really like having a character anymore, it becomes more like having a pet. It''s kinda like I''d prefer to see a balance between the way it is now, and having a pet. It''s something in-between.

Basically like if your character in the beginning doesnt run from any battles, and then after a long while, you decide to run, maybe he becomes a little depressed for a while because that was the first time he ran, and becomes a little less effective. It also forces people to be a little more persistent in rolelplaying. If however you have the theif that always runs, and he doesn''t for a while, maybe he finds a new self confidence...

Although there are of course many problems with this, like:

Some people don''t necessarily like their characters to have a personality.

Not much chance for really renvening your character. This could be implemented with like a wipe personality button, but thats kinda hacky.

CPU/HD/Bandwidth(?) Considerations

Cost vs Fun factor -- If this is done in the right way, then this becomes less of a concern.

I don''t know, I''d kinda like it if my characters had a little bit more personality. Just as long as it doesnt take total control of course. Also, maybe it would be cool to give the characters facial expressions for their current emotional states. Like if you just ran from a really nasty scary creature, your character would look very white, scared, and sweaty. If on the other hand, you ran from a rat, your character might look annoyed, and frustrated. Or like the mage I was talking about before that fell in love with the warrior, maybe no matter what way you turn her, she won''t look in another direction than at that warrior, and dreamily! =D

-=Lohrno

solinear,

Really, i did misspeak. It more along the lines of the little things that bother me, you are 100% correct, just because some features suck doesnt mean the game does. And these gripes are more or less spread out so no game has more than one or two.

For example.
In a lot of RPG''s the towns are laid out orderly, although IRL, they were very hapahazard affairs, and the roads were just paths that happened to exist beacuse they were the quickestway to go somewhere. Betrayl at Krondor was an excellent exception.
The towns also have flowers gardens (Sometimes, anyway). IRL, there was little desire for flowers, because they had no functional value. That land would be used for herbs. (That is a very minor gripe)
There is very little in the way of livestock. The hills should be littered with sheep, cows, and poultry. For that matter, there is rarely any farmland seen.
The NPCs are willing to let anyone walk into their house, and in some cases, stay there while they go to sleep (if they do that).
If there is a fight, especially one the other guy starts in a town, the NPG guards will almost always go after you, no matter what. So you have to bite back mean responses so you dont get attacked.
Also, the commoners IRL wore browns, not the liveley reds and purples that are commonly seen.

These things are little, but it''s the little things that break immersion. I''d rather have NPCs who dont let me into their home, and guards who save my life once in a while, than more and more importance placed on graphical immersion. If a woman is beautiful in every concivable way, but is a mean lady, then I wouldn''t want to spend more than a few hours with her.

Anyways,
For a more thorough way to track the PC''s emotions (for a way to incorporate the emotions even), I would be willing to give up sacrifice some graphic for that. Although the graphics aren''t nearly as complex as in a FPS, they still are a intensive. I''m not saying I want a game in ASCII, but a few less faces never hurt anybody.
The only thing is, the whole emotional thing would have to be somewhat transparent for the people who wouldnt enjoy that sort of thing. Or maybe an option to turn it off??

I once read somewhere that playing a character in an RPG is like reading a book, and starting all over with a new character was akin to starting a new book before finishing the old. Anyways, I never thought a book that focused primarily ont he character getting stronger so he could fight more to be much interest. I alsways liked books where all the combat (Do you think that all that blood and gore of the everyday adventurer would get to them, maybe sort of shake them) leads up to a change in the character psycologically. Even the Conan books had more than hack and slash.

quote: Original post by DrMol
There is very little in the way of livestock. The hills should be littered with sheep, cows, and poultry. For that matter, there is rarely any farmland seen.

This becomes massively processor intensive. Especially in a MMORPG where everyone in the area needs to be continually updated with the locations and statuses of the animals, large herds (10+) would really tend to bog down a world for only a cosmetic gain. UO had small (3-8) herds of deer and the occasional livestock running about. This wasn''t a big deal, however. Given the current state of technology, however, it is something that must be addressed on a risk/reward benefit. PopTop, in their post-mortem on Tropico, refered to it as a "Gee Whiz" feature. Something which looks cool and you point to once or twice, but after that may not really be worth whatever it is you are sacrificing.

quote:
The NPCs are willing to let anyone walk into their house, and in some cases, stay there while they go to sleep (if they do that).

In order to accomplish this, you need to be able to define the concept of ownership of property. On the surface, it would seem easy to do... House X belongs to person Y. Anyone else is an intruder. However, this really puts a damper on having friends over for dinner... they would also be considered intruders and subject to any restrictions you have defined. Also, there is the idea that a house - aside from locks on the doors - is NOT secure. If you leave it open, why should be people be prevented from entering whether or not you are there? This was an ongoing saga in UO for many months. In the end, they had lockable houses with ownership and a "friend list". You could also evict people that were in your house - but only if you were there. In fact, I believe a friend could evict them as well. Anyway, it''s a bitch to solve so that it covers all the aspects. (Sure is much easier to gripe about what is wrong with games that it is to solve them isn''t it?)

quote:
If there is a fight, especially one the other guy starts in a town, the NPG guards will almost always go after you, no matter what. So you have to bite back mean responses so you dont get attacked.

This was also addressed in UO by way of an "agressor" flag. If you were not currently an agressor and someone attacked you, THEY were flagged as an agressor for a period of time and were therefore fair game for anyone to whack on.

quote:
Also, the commoners IRL wore browns, not the liveley reds and purples that are commonly seen.

People also had billions of different facial features so we could recognize them. Since that level of individual detail is unlikely to be modeled anytime soon, we have to rely on other means to diferentiate between different characters and NPCs. You would really be bitching if everyone in the world looked cookie-cutter similar and it prohibited game play.

quote:
These things are little, but it''s the little things that break immersion. I''d rather have NPCs who dont let me into their home, and guards who save my life once in a while, than more and more importance placed on graphical immersion.

And you can kinda apply Newtonian theory here... for every positive effect, there is a coresponding negative effect. For every reason to create immersion, there may be a corresponding factor as to how that breaks immersion. Something to think about.

quote: I once read somewhere that playing a character in an RPG is like reading a book, and starting all over with a new character was akin to starting a new book before finishing the old. Anyways, I never thought a book that focused primarily ont he character getting stronger so he could fight more to be much interest. I alsways liked books where all the combat (Do you think that all that blood and gore of the everyday adventurer would get to them, maybe sort of shake them) leads up to a change in the character psycologically. Even the Conan books had more than hack and slash.

Again, however, we have the dichotomy between those who want their character to have a soul and those who want to BE the soul of their character. It''s a tough call as to who you are going to please. If, as a game designer, you ride the fence long enough, eventually you will get a fence post up your butt.

Dave Mark
Intrinsic Algorithm Development
"Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"

I don''t know, I think in the future we may see all this, but now
it''s pretty much a no-no (livestock, farmland that actually grows, etc.) Processing alone for AI for 20 cows is intensive. (provided that all they do is not eat, sleep, well actually, that IS all cows do, but it would be nice if they moved too sometimes, and then you start the AI business. (IE where do they move, do they not bump into fences? Are they wary of strange people, etc.) And, while I''d love to see that in an RPG, I think it''s a little too cosmetic.

As far as herbs instead of flowers, and rich colorful costumes and all. Well, this is a fantasy world. People like to see colorful rich atmospheres, and not necessarily villages that look like giant cow stalls with the only colors being greys and browns. I''m a little bit more on the side of the argument in reality vs fantasy on the fantasy side, I think that we don''t need simulations here really. That said, yes, immersion is also important, but that usually comes through filling out the details, and making things seem plausible somewhat. A little imagination is good too! =D Don''t necessarily fill in the details with how our society was back in the 1000sAD. I mean life sucked then, people died of the black plague, and adventure really wasnt that common. Mostly knights and such died from other knights in battle, like soldiers die now. But back to the flower thing...Maybe some people like the house of the apothecary should be growing herbs, and some people should be growing flowers. As far as actually letting people pick them up, and calculating their growth rate, that is not so good. They will be totally bare if you let people take any of them. As if a herd of 100 cows came to the village, and ate all of them! =D

Innoc, I don''t agree with your last statement though about
getting a fence post up your butt! =D I think Game Design, and anything really needs balance. You have to think about everything to come to some conclusions. As far as the emotions, there are about 100 ways to implement said feature. Do most people want it in the first place? Maybe not. But if I were a game designer, and I was going to implement it, I''d make it a feature you can turn on and off, and I''d have some little things with it, so it wouldnt be like you were playing The Sims, and it wouldnt be random babble that didnt make sense either. I''d aim for somewhere in the middle! =D Which is good because people like to be able to choose things, and if they want absolute control over their characters and dont want their characters doing anything without their permissions, ok. But if they want a little bit of soul in their characters, ok too. I think there is usually a happy middle ground, but everything has to be considered. Maybe it IS better sometimes to just take one road or the other. If you meant sit on the fence, like don''t do anything, and just think about things all day, well yea. But I think you meant like try to do something in the middle, which I think is usually a good bet, as people make games not for ourselves, but for a large target audience. I love to criticize, and fantasize and discuss about ideas, but it''s not necessarily Game Design either, and I acknowledge that. What we do now is not necessarily game design, but it is kinda important(and fun! =D). But yea, I think things like herds, and emotions are not processor efficient enough, and beneficial yet to be mainstream. =( So if I were to do something seriously with emotions, I''d take a middle of the road approach. Which targets
more people than one or the other.

-=Lohrno

Regarding emotions in games...

Artificial Emotion: Simulating Mood and Personality



Dave Mark
Intrinsic Algorithm Development
"Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"

Edited by - InnocuousFox on March 5, 2002 1:57:10 PM