quote:Original post by Nazrix

Also, I think it would wonderful giving the player info about a situation, and letting the player take the inititive of reacting to it. Like, if info leaks out to the player that the king is going to be assassinated. The player could choose to go to the king to tell him w/ consequences of perhaps the assassins coming after the player. The player could choose to speak to the assassins and help them along w/ other possibilites. The important point of this is that there would not nessessarily be someone telling the player to go protect the king, the player could make decisions based on the info.

I see your point. Rather than having the ''hero'' running errands for some guy you let him decide himself.

But there''s a problem with that, I think. How will you insure that something interesting is happening that the player can react to? What will drive the assasins to try to murder the king in the first place? Unless you have some really amazing AI for all the NPC''s in the game, I see no way to avoid some heavy scripting of events. And to keep events comming you would need even more scripting which would eventually lead you to a linear or semi-linear story. If you do not have this kind of on-going plot-driven scripting your world would eventually be a very dull place where the NPC''s just go around doing basic daily tasks, which would be all their AI could handle.

If you want to make an interesting single-player game I see no alternative to having a story or a plot.

Until now I have seen 3 different classes of ''endings'' for such a story discussed in this thread:

1) Failure

Failure generally happends when your character dies or when you make a (bad) choise which would otherwise make it impossible to reach the (intended) onclusion of the story. Failures can possibly be slightly varied to portray the players progress so far.

A question on interactivity could be to what extend the game should allow failures (if at all). Personaly I hate games where you die because you accidently steped off a cliff or took the wrong doorway or did something else that was not intended. On the other hand I also hate games that keep telling me ''You can''t do that!''

2) Semi-conclusions

Endings where the game reaches the conclusion, but where the conclusion is slightly modified to reflect the path taken to reach it. For example reflecting on the loss of a NPC which could have been avoided by taking another route through the game.

In my experience, these types of endings often detoriates into just being alternate ''Failures''. When trying one of these I don''t feel as if the game really did come to a conclusion, although it (i.e. the final movie) said it did. I think Landfish''es original post was really on the value of these kind of endings, am I right? Do they add to the game or do they just devaluate the ''real'' and final conclusion?

3) THE Conclusion

This would be the real and final conclusion, the climax of the story. It should solve the inital concflict introduced in the opening in such a manner that the player feels some sort of accomplishment and reward, and should not contain ''loose threads'' which urges the player to try over in the same way as the semi-conclusions did. The conclusion could be slightly modified to fit the choosen character/path, but must still be ''fullfilling'' for the player regardless of which of the conclusions the player sees.

The question on interactivity for the final conclusion would be how varied we should allow the conclusionions to be. If the game allowed choosing between different characters to play (male, female or whatever) modifying the ending to reflect that would propaly be a good idea. It would not harm the story or distract from the ''message'' of the game.

But if the central conflict/story/plot evolves around a war between two states the player could potentialy decide to side with the ''wrong'' state and solve the conflict by aiding the ''evil'' king in killing the ''good'' king. Is it desireable to allow this kind of freedom? Should the outcome be classified (and portraied to the player) as a failure? Or as a semi-conclusion? Or should we acknowledge the players choice and make it a full conclusion equal to the intended one even though it would completely contradict the original (intended) ''message'' of the game?

Regards

nicba

Ok, so you want an awesome game, that is linear on the surface, but has a subtle ending change ??

Yes, I know you do? go ahead, you can ask me, I''ll tell ya.... ok I won''t hold it back anymore...

Vampire: The Masqurade.

It is brilliant, if not just for the multiplayer caps. So far I have beat it once, and am going through a second time, and yes, the story is basically the same with some minor dialogue differences. You et to pick certain lines to say at certain points in the cine, which changes what the actors say to you, but you still preform the same actions (i.e. go to vienna and hunt down some kindred) no matter what you say. Basically, it just makes the story more to your liking, using the reasons you pick to preform the actions regardless.

Very very very good. And the ending is slightly different, but has the same overall ending (piece, love, happiness at the end of two fanged teeth).

As for the debate, I like it both ways.

There is nothing wrong with choice, or lack thereof.

As for the Hamlet comparison, bad choice. Think of it this way, you base the idea of everyone dying as the apex of the story, this is not so. The story hits its climax when the ghost first appears to Hamlet, and the plan is laid out. The deaths at the end of the play are mere side effects of the pre-dtermined actions of the players. If you don''t believe me, go read Stoddards "Rosencrantz and Gildenstern" play, which is an exastenial look at Hamlet through the eyes of bystandards.

Honestly, even if Hamlet didn''t die, it was tragic. Even if Ophelia didn''t die, it was tragic. The amjro tragedy is in a wife/mothers and Uncle/Brother''s betrayal, not the death of Hamlet.

That said, all stories can convey moralistic stories to people through choices. Say Hamlet didn''t die, because as I was playing him, my sword skill was kick ass. What does that say?

Basically, the same thing. All his friends are dead, his mother and father dead, it is still tragic, enough that suicide might ensue.

Basically, a good story is a good story, regardless of linear or random. Another point, look at the old choose your own adventure stories. They were brilliant. You could end the story in tens of ways.

Then, of course, there is the master piece known as the Zork series. Wow, this was not linear either, but the ending was basically locked into the same thing for everyone. How you get there is much more interesting to me however. That determines playability.

I have been arguing on the Vampire forums, people are pissed about missing this and that from the game. They complain that Diablo II will kill the V:tM title.

For me, this is a no brainer, litterally. Diablo was great, but tell me, how many times can you go into the dungeon and kill the Butcher? Or Diablo himself? What changes? Is it different? No. And neither will Diablo II. But they will sell millions of copies --- why? Because the story is good.

Doesn''t matter if you got 1000 and 1 choices in your game, or none, if the story compels people to continue playing it, from start to finish and re-start it again, you have a winner.

"Five passengers set sail that day, for a three hour tour, a three hour tour...."

quote:Original post by Landfish

Gojira Tai Mosura!

Make mine a Chow Mein with bamboo shoots.

quote:
All games today are either Linear or Semi-Linear. I''m am sick of people using "Linear Plot" like a dirty word. Guess what? When it comes to single player games, it will be a sad sad day when you can affect a game''s story in any drastic manner.

Hmm, I don''t agree there Many roleplayers on MUDs would say that the interaction between the players can actually create a great story in itself. Just like tabletop roleplaying can.

I agree that multiple endings are pretty crap.

And while I''m here, I''ll add that I thought the ending to Gladiator (the movie) was pretty damned perfect. Just the right dose of uncertainty and despair in the build up, to let you feel that nothing is assured, and a satisfying conclusion, despite all the odds.

quote:Linear plots RULE!

Linear plots rule, but do linear games?

quote:Even better if it gives me the ILLUSION of control (well), but the story MUST BE IN TACT!

Well, a successful illusion is entirely indistinguishable from fact, so I would agree with you there.

I''m gonna refer to my old friend Ultima VII again That game had a pretty linear beginning, and a pretty linear end. The trick is in allowing players to do pretty much what they liked in between, passing certain plot milestones as they went along. Geographic freedom, combined with geographic variety/detail (to hold the interest) is perhaps the best way to give the players freedom within the game as opposed to freedom within the plot.

Start linear, so they can''t ''miss'' the plot. Branch out in the middle. Funnel them back in at the end. We''re not talking a single line of plot, nor a tree of possibilities, more like a network.

quote:
There is a sympathetic reaction that you aren''t usually aware of when playing a game. Especially in Linear plots. The character''s adversity is your adversity, the character''s failure is your failure. The story WILL NOT conitnue if you aren''t involved. Most Square games have confusing, convoluted, downright shallow plots. Why do people love them? Because this Sympathetic reaction can get us obsessed with even the most shallow and cliched stories.

Actually, you''d feel more empathy if you had more control over the character, providing the same things happened to you. The character''s failure is not your failure if you didn''t make the decision that led to that failure. Sometimes ''making that decision'' doesn''t need to be very involving. But there''s nothing worse than games that give you freedom up to a point, then drop you into some cutscene where your character says something totally stupid or uncharacteristic to an NPC, leading to a situation you wouldn''t want to be in. You can channel the players, sure, but force them, and they''ll actually disassociate from the in-game character.

A few friends of mine were not at all scared by the Blair Witch Project simply because the 3 main characters did some stupid things. When someone is very different to yourself, empathy drops (see also: real life racism/sexism/ageism, etc.)

quote:
What happens when you apply that technique to a carefully laid out, linear story? A really good one? I''ll tell you. You die. When the game is over, you feel like you have lived another life, it is the single greatest thing I have ever felt (short of well, y''know).

I played Ultima VII for over a year, on and off. I didn''t play hours and hours every night, but I did play a lot, and I explored a lot of areas that I really didn''t need to, just immersing myself in the world. When I completed it, I was elated and happy, but also a bit lost. Something was lacking, because It Was Over. (Although having the install CD for Ultima VII Part 2 softened the blow, somewhat )

quote:
Flame away! I''m ready.

Oh, you know me better than that, Fishy. No flames here, just a mild warmth from an unknown source.