GCA Conference 08

[FrostyBoy]

You missed the important part of my post Spike.

[DarkCloud]

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.

[DarkCloud]

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.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
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.

NWN doesn't fit what he said at all.

[DarkCloud]

Ok, maybe I misunderstood what he was saying then.

[Kuciwalker]

Look, can't we all just accept that FrostyBoy isn't very intelligent and move on?

[Seedle]

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.

[snoopy369]

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.

[DarkCloud]

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.)

[Seedle]

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 really aren't that many ways to accomplish it. They have a limited number of places they may be (almost always only one location actually, but sometimes they might be in a car or something.) You can choose to run them over if they are outside, or choose which particular weapon you want to kill them with, but that's about it.

Now, to a certain extent, Frosty's idea can be used to improve this. Having an option to convince the target to leave town, or join your side, or you could join their side and go against whoever sent you to kill them, would be good. The problem is saying it should be completely open-ended, because it can't be.

It can't be completely open-ended, at least for one player. If you had no pre-set conditions, like Frosty suggested, then you would never be directed to a target. No problem you say, you can just pick a target. Fine, but if there are no pre-set elements in the game, then nothing will occur. In order for there to be a game, there must be cause and effect. In order for there to be cause and effect, there must be pre-set relationships between game elements. So there must be some pre-fab, some influence of the designer.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Look, can't we all just accept that FrostyBoy isn't very intelligent and move on?

Gotta have something to post about until the next round of sales # come out, so we can rehash that debate.

[DrSpike]

The Wii is teh winner!

[DarkCloud]

Okay, gotcha Seedle. I didn't realize Frosty wanted things to be that completely open ended.

Thanks for the clarification.

[FrostyBoy]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Look, can't we all just accept that FrostyBoy isn't very intelligent and move on?