Sanity check, please? Am I looking at the cornerstone for a new, engrossing, extensible, and different type of gameplay? Or has the caffeine finally cooked the neurons? Every designer, I think, would love for their players to experience the sense of adventure . Story games definitely want this. Strategy games do with their missions (RTS) or open ended scope (empire games). In fact, any level based game from side scroller to FPS wants to take us on a ride. But there''s a problem. We''re not adventurers, we''re only taskmasters. We''re glorified exterminators. We fetch things. We manage doodads. We solve missions. We do the chore of the adventure, but we''re not adventurers!!!! What''s missing seems to be "the group." The Hero''s Journey''s solo questing aside, most adventuring takes place in the context of a group. Think about your favorite movies or stories: Isn''t it the group that often makes the adventure? How the contrast and conflict? How they handle challenge? In novels ranging from spy tales to fantasy epics to mysteries, this seems to be adventure''s guts. How does this apply to games? I don''t think games are stories. But if we could only nail group behavior as a form of gameplay, I think we''d open up our games to a rich and diverse kind of play that has the same power as fiction to engage and enthrall! The setting wouldn''t matter. You could cover just about any subject: War. Crime. Action. Economics. Politics. Sports. This group gameplay could support them all because it would be about the group''s adventure , NOT ABOUT THEIR CHORES! In fact, for some players this would beat sliced bread: Story and gameplay would be one. As a player, you''d deal with the group in their environments, and interact with them (as a character or detached like in The Sims). The gameplay would be in the diversity of what the group does, how it interacts, and how you participate in or guide them through the adventure. In effect, you''d finally be in the adventure. It seems like this would be something new and different. Right now the shelves are crowded with what are essentially retreads of last year''s games. Would this be something new? (I''d be happy to explain more, but this is too long already. More details later if anyone cares...) -------------------- Just waiting for the mothership...

Well, I care!

No, I really do. There is definately a problem in a lot (if not most) games that you really don''t feel part of anything while you are playing. I guess part of the reason is that the games still have to be geared towards the single-player experience, and AI has not reached a level where your "squadmates" can be simulated or faked to any satisfying degree.


But, I''ll assume for the moment that there is actually enough computing power available to at least fake it in a pleasing way.

What, then, are we trying to fake?

I think it''s the whole "team spirit" thing. Knowing that people depend on you, and you depend on people. Seeing their encouragement when you do well, their support (or laughter) when you do badly. Knowing that the mission will fail if ANY of you fail to do their part properly, but also knowing that the weight is not entirely on your shoulders alone.

Is that about the line you are taking, Wave, or have I missed your point completely?



People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
Mad Keith the V.

quote: Original post by MadKeithV

Is that about the line you are taking, Wave, or have I missed your point completely?

DIRECT HIT!!!!

quote:
There is definately a problem in a lot (if not most) games that you really don''t feel part of anything while you are playing. I guess part of the reason is that the games still have to be geared towards the single-player experience, and AI has not reached a level where your "squadmates" can be simulated or faked to any satisfying degree.

Exactly. AI-wise, the more we ask them to do the harder it is to get it done and the easier it is to make your squaddies look stupid. (So it''s obvious we need to figure out, via gameplay and interface & such, how to not make the AI look stupid).

quote:
But, I''ll assume for the moment that there is actually enough computing power available to at least fake it in a pleasing way.

What, then, are we trying to fake?

I think it''s the whole "team spirit" thing. Knowing that people depend on you, and you depend on people. Seeing their encouragement when you do well, their support (or laughter) when you do badly. Knowing that the mission will fail if ANY of you fail to do their part properly, but also knowing that the weight is not entirely on your shoulders alone.

This is EXACTLY what I''m talking about. But not just "team spirit" viewed through the lense of combat or puzzle solving. Games like Voyager: Elite Force do this now.

I''m talking about "team" interaction as GAMEPLAY.

Two senarios: First, take Star Trek. The industry so far has pretty much butchered the soul of Trek. Rather than the humanist adventure Trek is supposed to be about, we get one damned killing game after another. They are this way partly because the designer focused on the activity (the "chore") part of adventuring, rather than the spirit of adventuring. Because of this, there''s no choice but to make it a repetitive, very "unadventurer-like" action.

So how would you do a Trek game?

Well, Trek is about characters!!! How they conflict and interact with each other, their environment, their principles and values, and the events going on around them. So the gameplay would have to focus on that, not on strategy, puzzle solving or combat. Otherwise, it only wears the SKIN of Trek and is Trek in setting only.

Another example: Saving Private Ryan. How would you turn this into a game? Well, the first (wrong) answer-- if you''re trying to capture the essence of the film-- is to make it a Close Combat knockoff. But that so violates the spirit of the movie that it''s blasphemous. Instead of "War is Hell" we get "War is Fun!!!!"

I think the only good choice would be, again, to focus on character interaction as gameplay.

What comes to me is sort of like a grand extension of The Sims. But rather than the yuppie materialism focus (aka "better living through more expensive appliances") the meat of the game would be character interactions.

BTW, not pretending to have all the answers as far as how this would go. The obvious hurdles are AI and how to represent the information. But it seems to me that this is a start in a direction that could give us deeper, more emotionally satisfying games. We might actually feel like we''re part of a replayable adventure, rather than just stewards of some characters who are supposed to be having one.







--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

I agree to you both! That''s why I like to play multiplayer games: the real interesting stories evolve between the characters! ;-)
So, since I cannot think of any easy solution to this problem in singleplayer right now, I just wanted you to know, I''m on your side!

------------------------------
www.BadEntertainment.net

Okay, lets get the facts together: we''re talking about team play. That means: there''s a group of people involved, rather than one person. At the top level, this group is trying to achieve a common goal, together. If the goal is attained, the GROUP is rewarded, not the individual.

That''s probably a first important point: you must think about the players actions as for the good of the entire group. "Going solo" should be penalised, because you are neglecting the group and diminishing your chances of achieving the goal by diluting the skill pool.

Not working toward the common goal should be penalised as well, and this should be done by the rest of the group. You are again jeopardising the achievement of the common goal through your actions, endangering the group.

Globally, all members of the group are the same in this way. They may have their own motivations for being in it, but they are working towards the same goal with the same penalties and benefits (usually).


I''m thinking that the "Team" acts as a single entity, with different "limbs" (all the members) that have different skills and strengths. Individual personalities matter little to the team (but will spice up the inter-member interactions).


People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
Mad Keith the V.

I think the trend towards more diverse and satisfying gaming experiences is a good one, and one that is growing in strength - finally, people are becoming increasingly jaded towards cutting edge graphics and that sort of thing (people still like that kind of thing, they still want it, but they''re no longer stunned when it comes - they now see past it, into the game).

I''ve just finished reading a book by, um... ...Steven Eriksson I think it was... ...called the ''Deadhouse Gates'' and I was very impressed by the multitude of interesting, diverse characters in the book, and how they developed and responded to the events around them.

What I want in an RPG (or any other character-based genre) is the same kind of complexity and life in the characters that you get in a good fantasy epic (or science fiction, or normal fiction - what ever you like), except of course without the linearity.

I want to play a game where my character''s companions are interesting and genuinely important, where quests aren''t ''find the great sceptre of Ohmaz''agal''drum and take it to the innkeeper at the Glue-sniffing Dwarf inn'', where battles are actually real events (not ''oh look, another 20 goblins - that''s 200 experience with no risk involved!'').

Thanks for giving me an excuse to have that rant.

quote: by Wavinator
They are this way partly because the designer focused on the activity (the "chore") part of adventuring, rather than the spirit of adventuring.

This definitly sums up this topic in one peice. Let''s not forget the old term "Suspension of Disbelief". The way i''m interpreting whats being said here is that you''re not talking about creating a deeper or more hypnotic SoD but rather to change its angle like a director of a movie would do to create a different mood or sensation.

You mentioned the need for ai or something. This is were i''m getting a little confused. Wouldn''t the game designing skill be enough to make a game more team orientated and thus redirect the SoD? It sounds like a lazy way out to just point the finger at another aspect of development like this. This is our job, we can solve it. Wouldn''t you agree Wav, MKV an all?


A designer doesnt need to know everything about code, they just have to have an appreciation for its limitations and how those limitations affect features they may wish to include in their design. - Drew

quote:
You mentioned the need for ai or something. This is were i''m getting a little confused. Wouldn''t the game designing skill be enough to make a game more team orientated and thus redirect the SoD? It sounds like a lazy way out to just point the finger at another aspect of development like this. This is our job, we can solve it. Wouldn''t you agree Wav, MKV an all?

Actually, there''s no AI necessary for decent Suspension of Disbelief in SOME circumstances, but specifically for single-player team-oriented games, there is a DEFINATE need. The computer needs to either simulate or fake a team, in order to make you feel a part of it.
In a multiplayer game, it can be a matter of designing things differently, just adding merits and penalties on the basis of teamplay for instance, instead of on personal advancement. In very simple terms, one thing that could work is getting MORE XP for a quest where you co-operated with several other players, than for doing the same thing by yourself. Or dealing the same XP for a quest to all players involved, regardless of how many players took part (and thus encouraging group play to reduce personal risk).

I think these suggestions might work quite well, specially if a lot of the "XP-generators" or "quests" were players-versus-other players quests. That would generate factions, together with possibly some pre-determined factions (guilds). It could matter that you went questing with the two best knights of the opposing guild. It might be really bad for you, because you won''t be invited on quests for your own guild again, and cross-guild quests are hard to come by.

Just a few quick brainstormed ideas


People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
Mad Keith the V.

quote: by Wavinator
They are this way partly because the designer focused on the activity (the "chore") part of adventuring, rather than the spirit of adventuring.

Funny that you mention this. It''s the same mistake that you are/were doing in your ideas about a trading system.
You concentrated on the chores of trading, rather than seeing it as a part of the whole experience, and that shouldnt be separated, isolated from the rest.
Same for combat, same for dialogs, etc

I think it comes from this scientific approach we tend to have. This sort of modularity we like to see in a system. "OK, we need a combat system, a dialog system, a magic system..." rather than seeing it as a whole.
Of course, if we do that, it''s because this allows us to satisfyingly create interfaces for each module, then put them altogether around a central system (generally the navigation system), and there you go.
For some strange reason (I am being sarcastic here), games that can create a unique, seamless system, tend to be widely acclaimed. See the trend for more point and click interfaces, opposed to old style form sheets with tons and tons of screens to browse through ?

I think the main problem we have is interfaces, and of course the programming power to allow for SoD. We have more and more computer graphics power to allow for visual SoD.
We have better and better interfaces, with "All in one" controls, overlayed HUD style menus, mouse+keys controls...
It''s still not perfect, and tremendously dependant on the types of games, but it''s getting better and better.
The most lacking field is definetely AI. And that''s probably why you''ll have to wait for another good while for any solutions.

I believe, as a programmer, that we have got most of the pieces to solve the puzzle of "interesting and entertaining AI in games", but I yet have to see the fully completed picture
Since I dont like to criticize without knowing, I decided to do my Masters just on that : interesting and active AI partners/enemy in games. We''ll see how far I go in the puzzle...

youpla :-P

Curious, how would you people rate Baldurs Gate in terms of team play. I know that you the player are still acting as a task master in this game but the BG game design did to some extent increase the level of team play by introducing partyplay although the player had to manage everyones task. Are we mainly talking about making the level of control over these menial tasks (fighting and the like) more remote?

A designer doesnt need to know everything about code, they just have to have an appreciation for its limitations and how those limitations affect features they may wish to include in their design. - Drew