Another way to do it is ofc to make make a really detailed and REALLY SMALL SANDBOX. Take Ultima Underworld 1. Still a perfectly good game, still just 10 or so small levels. Limit the sandbox in a belivable way, and make it detailed. Like a frankensteiny thing in the sewers under a victiorian era London, mingling with the mutants and brave "aboveers" that venture down for example or some such, forging alliences, treaties and deals, all while growing shrooms, hunting tesla-eels and fending off rabit dogpacks.

OR

you can give the player SOMETHING INHERIT to him, something that makes him "vely speschul". Like a presence of some sort inside his mind, nugging him to do its bidding (lost soul, fallen god, spirit that moves through his lineage backwards through time and can tell him alot about his sons future, or any other fantastic inspiried thing you can imagine)

OR

you can get to know a really GREAT AI guy and you can spend 10 years of your lives categorizing how ppl think about stuff, and simplify it into a dynamic AI sufficient to generate a living world as per the Elder Scrolls: Arena ambition. All the shizzle is dynamic but a hard coded (or preapproved, layered on or somehow modified) Main Story Line. And the wheel turns even when the player is not there.

(This last subject fascinates me alot, and someday i'm sure the industry will end up with a big genre from a successfull installation of something like this. Another step in the right direction was Slaves to Armok II: Dwarf Fortress which can be played either as a Dungeon Keeper clone or as a rougelike. Point being it generates an entire world. With history of civilizations and such. /end sidenote)

/rc

I agree with all the other posts. You can give them side quests possible to perform that they can embark on. These side quests can lead them to places where pieces of the main storyline, and while they are there they may embark on the storyline or at least notice it.
Games like World of Warcraft and tons of others, zones intended for your place in progress have quests that lead you into the next zone the developer wants you to carry the story on. You are still given the option of remaining in the zone, but you are gently directed to where you need to go.

There may be another solution within the realm of "timed events".

In addition to branching stories, you also get a branching timeline. The main guy may very well choose to disregard the request for help from the mayor and the wizard, but that will bring more ennemies on the earlier stages of the game, and would ultimately lead in someone else trying to play the hero part, like, maybe, a close relative, or a needed merchant. It is all very fun to wander and herd sheeps if there is a safe place to herd sheeps to. When you have to fight your way through hordes of orcs just to get to the grazing spot, it's not fun anymore.

And if done well, then slashing orcs CAN become fun.

Ok, let me enhance this point. Have you ever tried playing a game of chess from both sides at the same time? This is basically what this middle ground solution requires of you, but in addition, you'll have to create two separate personalities to do so. You will have to design A campaign plan for the evil-doers, and a defense plan for the defenders. A TIMED plan. Failing to accomplish a step in the plan on one side or the other will result in a different branch of the plot tree being activated.

I'll happily grant you that it will require LOTS more work on the designing and plotting and writing part, and make it threefold more for the coders. But when your player will start realizing that what they do and HOW they do it really has an impact over the game, they will be pouring all over it, and it will repay the long work hours.

In addition, you could add a reputation system that would open or close dialogue trees depending on your previous deeds. Maybe someone came to request assistance in saving prisonners while you were trying to get that shining armor that would have gotten you through the spider's lair, and you disregarded it? Or said you would do it later? Well, too bad. Later is too late, for the prisonners have been slain, and that person who came asking for your help was a merchant you might have needed. In addition, one of the prisonners, coming back home, would have proved to be an officer, and would have provided a safe spot to come back to, by defending the city against at least three assaults.

Choices. And consequences.

White Wolf's Exalted gives a fairly acceptable answer to this problem: the player characters have received the 'exaltation' which gives them incredible powers—yet why should they use these powers to change the world?

The answer is that the exaltation is not a random occurence: it's a force which actually seeks out those people who have the will to use it. So, if a character has exalted, then by definition it is an inherent part of his personality that he will use the powers to change the world.

I think the main reason people progress into the story is that more than often it will allow them access to new things, such as weapons, items, armor, new cities, cars, etc. etc. Even in 'sandbox' type games like GTA, if a player wants to play fair, (i.e. not using cheats), in order to get good weapons, better cars, and even venture into new cities/areas, they have to progress the story.

So I think thats the main reason why people feel compelled to play through the story elements, and those that aren't interested will just use cheat codes/trainers to bypass all the bullshit.

"You make the story decisions, and I'll make the gameplay decisions" says the player to the game designer.

People buy story games to experience both a story and a game. The story gives meaning to the game world, but it wouldn't be much of a game world if we didn't have some freedom. You mentioned games that feel like a movie that makes you press the right buttons in order to see the next part. I'll bet that in those games the gameplay decisions were made for you.

Ever played a strategy game? Most tell you to conquer your enemies then leave you to it. Will you build siege equipment and surround your enemy's stronghold? March on the front gates? When those decisions are taken from the player, there’s not much left to play. It's the same in a story game.

Story is what is done. Gameplay is how it's done.

Quote: Original post by Tuphonski
Story is what is done. Gameplay is how it's done.

Yes, that is pretty much how all games are today, nothing the character does really changes the story much, only how(perhaps when as well) things happens is changed by the player.



But how cool would a game be that allows you to change what happens as well.

-MAZ

Games that allow you to affect the story have a certain apeal, but so do games where the story is laid out for you (which I believe is what this topic is about).
My comment about story and gameplay was meant to illustrate that gameplay does not have to be sacrificed for the game to tell a story.

Quote:
I'm a bit stuck here. Writing a story for a game is not the same as writing a novel. In a novel, you can force the main character to do anything. But in a game, the main character is in control of the player, and you don't want to force them.

Ok, let's say the story is a cliche... young peasant boy saves his village from doom and his talent gets discovered by a wizard who sends him on a quest to fulfill the Prophecy that says he will save the world.

Why would the peasant boy believe the wizard? Why would he want to go with him? Why would he want to save the world? Maybe he just wants to herd some sheep in the meadow and sleep all day. Or maybe he wants to be a thief and a gambler. Why would the player even care about the peasant boy, the village in peril, or the old wizard?

lol why not make a game where you 'can' choose to go on the quest to save the world or just herd some sheep, and if you choose the second choice the world will be destroyed within some timespan and the player has to begin a new game because he's killed when de world is destroyed.

-ID