• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Niphty

What do we expect of players in an RPG?

35 posts in this topic

Jocke: Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game

Semi-linear plots DO allow the player to change the story. They do NOT allow the player to change the outcome! I feel they are an extremely powerful tool, when applied properly (meaning not obviously)

Paul: You *must* be a programmer to make a declarative statement such as this:

"Multiple/dynamic stories are possible. Think of the random maping system of diablo. All the maps are playable and none of them cause problems/conflictions with the overall gaming experience. If a dynamic storyboard was designed in principle the same way then it would work!"


Theoretically, a computer could write a story by combining modualr plot points. The story, of course would be crap.

A human being has a lot of "junk data" in his brain... poetic symbolism, metaphor, archetypal themes, sub-concious themes. These things can not be randomly created, because they simply don''t work that way. To create a computer that could write a touching or signifigant story would be creating Artificial Sentience.

Also, it is a mark of a well written story that everything is brought together in a cohesive manner, from minute one to the end. How would you reccommend this in the modular format you reccommend?

I''m not saying it can''t be done. I''m saying it''s not worth doing. Please, don''t try to replace writers with computers. It is as hard a job as any, and you need passion to do it right. You need to know something about yourself and others, stuff you can''t put in a program. You would sooner try to create a program to write software by combining componants of other pieces of software.

I think I''m done.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes please don''t replace me by a computer he can''t do half the things I do.

Desigining modular plots is possible IF every outcome is written.
The computer can find the way you are going and modulate the story the good way.
(don''t know if this sentence make sense)

But the computer won''t be able to use your thinking about the story to enhance the game, to remember a detail and make it a major part of the story...

They are many kind of missing interaction between the player and the computer that prevent good modular storytelling.


ON TOPIC:
I want the player to be able to play a role and to be able to play the role I described them.
I want the player to have fun playing my game and sending me undred mails for another game.

-* So many things to do, so few time to spend *-
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Landfish

Semi-linear plots DO allow the player to change the story. They do NOT allow the player to change the outcome! I feel they are an extremely powerful tool, when applied properly (meaning not obviously)

Paul: You *must* be a programmer to make a declarative statement such as this:

"Multiple/dynamic stories are possible. Think of the random maping system of diablo. All the maps are playable and none of them cause problems/conflictions with the overall gaming experience. If a dynamic storyboard was designed in principle the same way then it would work!"


Theoretically, a computer could write a story by combining modualr plot points. The story, of course would be crap.

A human being has a lot of "junk data" in his brain... poetic symbolism, metaphor, archetypal themes, sub-concious themes. These things can not be randomly created, because they simply don''t work that way. To create a computer that could write a touching or signifigant story would be creating Artificial Sentience.

Also, it is a mark of a well written story that everything is brought together in a cohesive manner, from minute one to the end. How would you reccommend this in the modular format you reccommend?

I''m not saying it can''t be done. I''m saying it''s not worth doing. Please, don''t try to replace writers with computers. It is as hard a job as any, and you need passion to do it right. You need to know something about yourself and others, stuff you can''t put in a program. You would sooner try to create a program to write software by combining componants of other pieces of software.




I''ll cut down my quoting later but for now this is an important thing to note:

I should have been clearer in my previous posts about moduler plots but here goes.

If you take an oil painter and tell him that there will be a revolution called animation in the future the first thing that would go though his mind would be..."I''ve lost my job, what do i do?"

Wrong, he hasn''t lost his job it''s just going to be a new avenue of artistic creativity.

What''s needed that we don''t have is the "Tools" for making modular storyboards.We are trying to use the canvas for making stories animate. It''s a joke and not a very funny one.

I''ll finish here for now so i don''t complicate it.






WE are their,
"Sons of the Free"
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''ve just had a ridiculously simplyfying thought, that was quite sobering to myself, and I hope it has the same effect on you guys:
We expect our players to have fun.

It''s that simple. No more, no less.


Give me one more medicated peaceful moment..
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by MadKeithV

I''ve just had a ridiculously simplyfying thought, that was quite sobering to myself, and I hope it has the same effect on you guys:
We expect our players to have fun.

It''s that simple. No more, no less.


Give me one more medicated peaceful moment..
~ (V)^/) /<é!t/-/ ~



That''s what I have tried to say in these many useless posts. If noone playes your stuff, it''s crap. Like I have said, many good ideas, but if they are not fun they are useless, well except for you.

Whether you simply ignore my posts or then you simply aren''t interested. Well, whatever.

Time comes, time goes and I only am.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arch@on.. first I''d like to point out that Chaotic Good in D&D refers to one who is good in overall beliefs, but chaotic in the ways the go about those beliefs. This is the typical Ranger which Drizzt is ALL of my D&D rangers have been CG. This is a two-level system of alignment. The first level is Good, Neutral, Evil.. the second part of the full alignment. This is your overall beliefs. Good refers to what society sees as being "good". Neutral is believing in balance between good and evils and following your own road. Evil is the "dark" side of things, whatever society considers to be evil. It''s true you could write a game in which the "good" guys model the "bad" guys of current games, and heros and such are forced to find refuge in the wild
The first word is how you carry out your beliefs. You can be Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic. lawful is one who is honorable, a Lawful Evil still has honor and will not strike a foe who is weaponless. Neutral is following one''s own mannor of thinking here. Do it whatever way best suits you at this time. Chaotic is doing things in a shady mannor A chaotic has no problems lying to your face and stabbing you in the back when you turn around if they believe it will help them accomplish their mission.
Therefore, a chaotic good person will lie to someone who is "bad" and perhaps even kill them outright if they believe it helps society Drizzt and most rangers are like this and are also seen as "outcasts" and vigilanties While they''re good, they''re not above resorting to trickery to get the job done!

Now, the idea of infinate plots. I think Landfish is right here in some respects.. but not totally. If the game were to be modular and throw us a curve ball when we least expected it.. then it''d be life Because we all know life isn''t fair. It''s all in how we manage the curve balls, and do we accept striking out gracefully.. or take it hard? There''s a lot to life.. a lot of underlying things we never notice till they happen to hit us
As far as doing a game which models life, long ways off infinate code.. hehe. Anyways, i think the point of games being fun is the main thing we should consider. Not all games will be fun to everyone, but for those we targetted, is this game fun? I''ve played several disappointments lately. Darkstone, while cool looking.. has an overly simple way of running the player and becomes very hack''n slash repetition very fast. Too much graphics, not enough game. Even Lucas Arts'' game Force Commander is like this. Same thing, again and again, with new toys. The computer always attacks when you reach X point or X time. Never any randomness. I used to think these games were fun. Many many racing games have this, too. All the levels start to be similar. You get one computer guy who''s just got the perfect driving record and he whoops you every time until you learn how to wreck him as he laps you Excitebike 64 is very much like this. I''ve been spending time rubbing my fingers numb and to the bone trying to beat that game. Why? because the durn thing has some cool multiplayer options and special tracks. I''ve been playin the soccer with my girlfriend and her brother quite a bit But again, once you learn how to move your fingers correctly, the game''s solved. No more challenges. Someone who''s got low manual dexterity will never beat it, cause you''ve got to move fast It pisses you off greatly when some computer guy just goes flying past you like you''re sitting still, when you''re on full throttle. I mean, honestly.. where do these designer''s get off thinking that making the computer cheat is the only way to beat the player?! I''ll swap out to the rider that the computer was beatin me with, and then the guy i was playin beats me! It''s like it randomly picks one of the riders to gain a bonus to their ability. If you''re not perfect like them.. then you can forget it :/

Ok, i think i''ve rambled enough.. this should help us to focus thoughts on what we really want.. the player to have fun! I think too many programmer''s these days think they have to make the game impossibly hard in order for people to like the game! anyone else think this is WRONG?

J
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gah! Niphty, I love ya man, but you need to master the skills of brevity, follow me? Anyway, keith has it right, more or less. I could pick nits, but screw that. All of these design forum posts are starting to blur together. I don''t even remember which one I''m in right now.

Maybe we ought to initiate a "purge".
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don''t know if anyone has thought about this or not, but what about this idea:

You give the usual "what will you do now" box, and the player chooses what s/he would rather do. The consequences of that choice would not change the main plot (which I think we agree we don''t want to do), but instead create/change sub plots (are these easter eggs?). You get a new enemy/friend, lose a friend, get revenge, spare a foe, etc.

This allows the player to live that role, and still keep the (hopefully) wonderful main storyline intact. It also let''s the player be him/herself (alignments suck), and this should draw the player more into the game (right?).

That would work, right?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I´d say you´re going about this the wrong way. I guess you should ask what the player wants from the RPG.

After all you´re doing games for the players and not the players are playing for the game....

I guess if you go about it your way you´ll end up somewhere along the short story or the sonnett. All art, no life. Never ever forget that games are to be played for fun and sometimes fun is in the simple things (look at diablo).

If you do games for the sake of creating the perfect RPG (can i still use that term here or will i be smitten by some fish or other?) you´re going to nowhere. It may be fun for you but essentially that´s not what it´s about.

Should this go in it´s own thread?....
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From the table-top days to the CRPG the one thing that i dearly miss the most is doing something that catches the DM/GM off guard.

We all remember the story of the weak mage who came across the all so powerful evil mage whom was surrounded in an anti-magic barrier. The weaker good mage casted "reduce size" on the nearby boulder, picked it up and throw it at the evil mage. [squish]

I wish you could do this sort of stuff in CRPG''s, i really miss it.

The problem with CRPG is Bigger IS Better. I hate that, it''s so limiting.


WE are their,
"Sons of the Free"
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites