 |
| |
|
FrostyBoy
|
|
|
|
Emperor
of Kiwis
|
Aug 2001
time: 19:39
| |
|
|
I attended the GCA conference 2008 today and yesterday.
Not a lot of interesting stuff, but I wanted to say something about Peter Molyneux's presentation of how to make believable worlds, using Fable 2 as his showcase.
First of all, many of us probably already know he is notorious for talking highly about his games - talking about them as if they're the next best thing since the invention of cars.
So he had one of his minions show us a few of the features in the game, yeah it's quite impressive, but generally its the same old thing, just.. slightly different.
So I talked to him afterwards because I wanted to get across to him that he needs to stop talking so highly about his games, because it causes too much disappointment - let the gamers decide for themselves if its good or not. Besides that, I actually wanted to talk to him about something I think game developers should start doing.
When Half Life came out - gamers realised more than ever, how much better a game can be if it has a deep and interesting story. So for the next 10 years every game had a ****ing story. Everyone's story is deep, interesting, unique, blah blah blah, and I think gamers are sick to death of it.
He was saying that his new game has many branches of the story, but I said to him, look at your "Tree", look at all the branches. To you, there are many paths to follow, but to the gamer, there is only ONE, because the player is only going down one path, no matter what he does, its LINEAR to the player. It's not linear to the developer, because the developer KNOWS the many different paths already.
So I told him, what you should be doing is creating a game where the player actually creates their own story, based on PHYSICS, CAUSE AND EFFECT and CLEVER AI.
Create a world, where everything lives and breaths, tree's grow and die, people are born, they get jobs, they die, they all have emotions and react differently to different circumstances. When you as a player, do something to interfere with the common life, you will cause a domino effect of changes that in essence, create a story. This is your own unique story, that you have no idea how it will end, but what's important is that you are the one who created it, and you KNOW that it's not made up by anyone else. It's completely unique and personal.
For example, lets say we have a path way through a forest. Every Tuesday at 12pm, a caravan wagon passes by carrying food to a small town in the woods. This food is sold on the market, the people buy it and have food for the next week. Lets say you come along and disrupt this somehow, by putting a rock on the path way, the driver doesn't see it, physics kicks in, wagon wheel breaks, driver falls out, over cliff, dies. Wagon never makes it to the village, now all the village people are wondering where is the food, some are angry, some are upset, some are worried. Some try to do something about it, by either finding their own food, or finding out where the food is, etc. Perhaps one of them finds the wagon, thinks someone did it on purpose and vows to find the person who did it and kill him, so now you have a guy after you.
After 1 or 2 weeks of playing, you would have such an incredibly deep story, an incredibly different world than what you started with.
Well, Molyneux didn't say much, but he was trying to figure out how the idea would work, or how to make it work.
===========
Aside that talk, I also attended a talk with a guy who heads mainstream media, or something, I can't remember the exact title, but basically it's all about outsourcing artwork, etc. He was saying that most developers, big and small, now outsource their needed work, especially artwork, because it's hard to find good artists. But he was talking about how people keep forgetting to treat their company like a BUSINESS. But I think that's exactly what's wrong with the industry. Games were successful because they were FUN, if you treat your company like a business, then the game may lose its sole purpose - to be fun. It's an industry that is closely edging on going the wrong way, where only a few developers out there will create games for FUN not for MONEY, and ironically, the bonus of creating fun games, is that you get a LOT of money.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Prince
State Of Denial
|
Apr 2007
time: 05:39
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by FrostyBoy
He was saying that his new game has many branches of the story, but I said to him, look at your "Tree", look at all the branches. To you, there are many paths to follow, but to the gamer, there is only ONE, because the player is only going down one path, no matter what he does, its LINEAR to the player. It's not linear to the developer, because the developer KNOWS the many different paths already. |
I don't understand this paragraph. You seem to be saying that because a player can only go down one path at a time, it makes the game linear. While I disagree with this, I'll grant it for the sake of asking this question: How does your proposal change this? Your proposal may allow for more total and more complex interactions, but ultimately, you still only experience the one path, based on the decisions you've made.
quote:
So I told him, what you should be doing is creating a game where the player actually creates their own story, based on PHYSICS, CAUSE AND EFFECT and CLEVER AI.
Create a world, where everything lives and breaths, tree's grow and die, people are born, they get jobs, they die, they all have emotions and react differently to different circumstances. When you as a player, do something to interfere with the common life, you will cause a domino effect of changes that in essence, create a story. This is your own unique story, that you have no idea how it will end, but what's important is that you are the one who created it, and you KNOW that it's not made up by anyone else. It's completely unique and personal.
For example, lets say we have a path way through a forest. Every Tuesday at 12pm, a caravan wagon passes by carrying food to a small town in the woods. This food is sold on the market, the people buy it and have food for the next week. Lets say you come along and disrupt this somehow, by putting a rock on the path way, the driver doesn't see it, physics kicks in, wagon wheel breaks, driver falls out, over cliff, dies. Wagon never makes it to the village, now all the village people are wondering where is the food, some are angry, some are upset, some are worried. Some try to do something about it, by either finding their own food, or finding out where the food is, etc. Perhaps one of them finds the wagon, thinks someone did it on purpose and vows to find the person who did it and kill him, so now you have a guy after you. |
Some games already do this. True, the number of choices and the number of possible consequences is more limited than you are proposing, but it is a matter of degree, not a matter of you having a revolutionary idea. Nearly every RPG since the mid-90's has claimed to feature this sort of complex interactivity, though obviously results have varied.
|
|
| |
|
FrostyBoy
|
|
|
|
Emperor
of Kiwis
|
Aug 2001
time: 19:39
| |
|
|
I'm not claiming to have a revolutionary idea, but I am claiming that no developer has done what it keeps saying they have done.
They all talk as if the game is open-ended, that you can do anything, but it's not true. The only game that comes to mind that is remotely close is GTA, but the cause and effect is only one level deep.
e.g. Shoot man, he runs away.
But it should be: Shoot man, he runs away home, calls his mum, cries on phone, mum calls police, police go looking for you, police find you, and so on.
There must be a domino effect that doesn't cool down. It just keeps running.
Now it's true that the game will still be linear, but so is your life; what I am trying to say is that non-linear games are irrelevant, a waste of time. Instead of trying to spice up the game by creating different paths, create the game so that your actions, and other people's actions, have an unpredictable, unending path. And you, the player, KNOW that it's not some story created by some idiot in a studio, it's your own unique story, and that is engaging and interesting enough to make the game worth while.
Last edited by FrostyBoy on 20-09-2008 at 04:12
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DrSpike, I'm surprised you don't like FrostyBoy's idea about dynamic environments- I thought you enjoyed NeverWinterNights. That seems to be what FB is suggesting.
It also seems to be a bit like the Sims' dynamic worlds.
It's an interesting idea... and if executed well would take gaming toward a new mini-genre.
I don't know if it would be "good" per se, but it would be a different sort of fulfilling experience that a good deal of people would enjoy... as can be assumed considering the amount of people enjoying the Sims and NWN's sandboxes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Sorry but this is missing his (totally valid) point entirely. He understands the OP argument but points out that even under your proposal the gamer only experiences one set of outcomes (even if there might be more paths overall), so using your definition is linear. |
Hm... But dynamically linear as opposed to decision-tree linear if the designer allowed for randomness in the decisions of NPCs to react toward actions.
I think that's the key to focus on- the idea rather than the exact verbage that FrostyBoy used.
It appears there's something to be grabbed relating to the idea.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ok, maybe I misunderstood what he was saying then.
|
|
| |
|
|
Deity
Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
|
Feb 2001
time: 06:39
| |
|
|
Look, can't we all just accept that FrostyBoy isn't very intelligent and move on?
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
State Of Denial
|
Apr 2007
time: 05:39
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by FrostyBoy
I'm not claiming to have a revolutionary idea, but I am claiming that no developer has done what it keeps saying they have done.
They all talk as if the game is open-ended, that you can do anything, but it's not true. The only game that comes to mind that is remotely close is GTA, but the cause and effect is only one level deep.
e.g. Shoot man, he runs away.
But it should be: Shoot man, he runs away home, calls his mum, cries on phone, mum calls police, police go looking for you, police find you, and so on.
There must be a domino effect that doesn't cool down. It just keeps running.
Now it's true that the game will still be linear, but so is your life; what I am trying to say is that non-linear games are irrelevant, a waste of time. Instead of trying to spice up the game by creating different paths, create the game so that your actions, and other people's actions, have an unpredictable, unending path. And you, the player, KNOW that it's not some story created by some idiot in a studio, it's your own unique story, and that is engaging and interesting enough to make the game worth while. |
Ok, this makes a more sense, but I think it is an idea that won't fly with the majority of gamers (notice I said majority, not all.) The reason? One of the main reasons most gamers play games is to relax. One of the main reasons games are an effective and popular way to relax is because they provide frequent stimulus to the reward centers in your brain. A game gives you a reward every time you accomplish something in a game. These accomplishments have different levels of course, and different corresponding levels of satisfaction at accomplishing them. All game tasks have something in common: a goal is set, and the player must act to achieve it. The problem with your proposal is that with ever-shifting goals, it becomes difficult, or even impossible, to achieve those goals. If you can't achieve the goals, you can't get the "hit" of accomplishment. IF you can't get the hit, you don't like the game.
Also, a good game pretty much requires design, and pre-planned objectives, and not just for the sake of achievablility. The fact that goals are preset is important to the vast majority of players. It is the difference between being placed in an archery range and being told "hit the targets" and being placed in some environment and told "do whatever." Sure, you could pick your own "targets" in any environment, but most people find it more satisfying to achieve a pre-determined objective than one they make up. Also, if there are no pre-set goals, a player most likely will not be able to accurately gauge what is and isn't an appropriate goal to set for his or her self, and furthermore may not know how to manipulate the game engine to cause said goal to even be present.
Long story short: An unending, completely non-linear game is a bad idea, because it ignores the very reason most gamers play games.
|
|
| |
|
|
Technical Assistant
Of the Peanuts Gallery
|
Apr 2004
time: 05:39
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by FrostyBoy
And you, the player, KNOW that it's not some story created by some idiot in a studio, it's your own unique story, and that is engaging and interesting enough to make the game worth while. |
That sounds nice ... but the problem is that game designers are good at what they do (some of them anyway ... sometimes ... ) Game designers make a story that is interesting and keeps you going. An open ended game that just let you play around would have a high risk of being boring, or imbalanced, or just not that fun; because, as with most of us in real life, most people aren't really that interesting - and so their character wouldn't really be that interesting, either. You need a story to keep the player interested - so, while I'm all for the game having meaningful consequences (which I'm sure will happen sooner rather than later, once the hardware catches up adequately, which it pretty much has), games should - and will - continue to be story-based for the forseeable future.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
These accomplishments have different levels of course, and different corresponding levels of satisfaction at accomplishing them. All game tasks have something in common: a goal is set, and the player must act to achieve it. The problem with your proposal is that with ever-shifting goals, it becomes difficult, or even impossible, to achieve those goals. If you can't achieve the goals, you can't get the "hit" of accomplishment. IF you can't get the hit, you don't like the game.
|
In a sense, isn't this what Grand Theft Auto does? It has a storyline, but you can also choose interim goals that respond in a sense to a relatively limited dynamic environment, correct? (As far as I remember from a few chances I had to play the game.)
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
State Of Denial
|
Apr 2007
time: 05:39
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DarkCloud
In a sense, isn't this what Grand Theft Auto does? It has a storyline, but you can also choose interim goals that respond in a sense to a relatively limited dynamic environment, correct? (As far as I remember from a few chances I had to play the game.) |
Not really. Grand Theft Auto's "sandboxness" is highly over-rated, imo. However, let's use GTA as an example of what I was trying to say, in a rather overly long-winded manner. In GTA, if you have an objective, say killing a guy, there | |
|
|
Attachment: 
