quote:Original post by TechnoGoth
That could all be done with the keyboard to move the cursur and a button to select and activate actions.

Or just a mouse... even on a Mac!

quote:Original post by Silvermyst
How about pressing the button IMMEDIATELY after releasing it to cancel?

Changing actions is not an ability that is needed. You either perform the action that at that moment is available, or you don''t. "Do I choose this action, or do I wait a few more seconds, hoping a better action comes up?"

Give gameplay examples of how you''d make that enjoyable.

(I''m still digesting those "dissertations" you sent me on Magic: The Gsthering.)

quote:Original post by Oluseyi
Give gameplay examples of how you''d make that enjoyable.

This is analogous to the system I described, which you seemed rather taken with. Instead of stopping the action to choose an action to perform, your character would prepare for an action, but then think better of it and try something else.

The button, in this case, amounts to a "Do it!" command. Your guy tenses to dive out a window, you hit the button and he does it. He gets ready to climb into a truck, you don''t hit the button, and he changes his mind. There have been a few threads in the past about a game where the player serves as a psychological daimon for the character, and this falls into that category, to an extent.

Sylvermyst''s description of gameplay, "Do I choose this action, or do I wait a few more seconds, hoping a better action comes up?" is an accurate description of the gameplay that I had in mind.

For a game like this to work, it would have to be a series of interruptable "rail" nodepaths. I think that it would not require an unmanageable number of "scripted events", though, since things like combat or exploration could be very open-ended. The Lone Wolf books are an excellent example of this type of game design, although I envision the electronic version as offering far more opportunities to modify your movement through the game world.

This thread has started to include directional controls, as with m3d10n''s idea. People are talking about "going over there" or "getting close to an object". In a one-button game, your faculties for navigation will be seriously limited. Just an observation.

quote:Original post by Iron Chef Carnage
This is analogous to the system I described, which you seemed rather taken with. Instead of stopping the action to choose an action to perform, your character would prepare for an action, but then think better of it and try something else.

The button, in this case, amounts to a "Do it!" command. Your guy tenses to dive out a window, you hit the button and he does it. He gets ready to climb into a truck, you don't hit the button, and he changes his mind. There have been a few threads in the past about a game where the player serves as a psychological daimon for the character, and this falls into that category, to an extent.

Sylvermyst's description of gameplay, "Do I choose this action, or do I wait a few more seconds, hoping a better action comes up?" is an accurate description of the gameplay that I had in mind.

Ah! Thanks for the illumination! That idea rocks - hard!

quote:For a game like this to work, it would have to be a series of interruptable "rail" nodepaths. I think that it would not require an unmanageable number of "scripted events", though, since things like combat or exploration could be very open-ended. The Lone Wolf books are an excellent example of this type of game design, although I envision the electronic version as offering far more opportunities to modify your movement through the game world.

It could be quite intense. Your character would constantly be scanning the environment for objects to use to his advantage,so you'd have to be alert so as not to miss any opportunities. Evaluation would probably be cyclical, but not in order, by which I mean that once all alternatives have been exhausted on a first scan, the character would/might return to look at objects in the order he considers most advantageous (providing a little hint to the gamer), given sufficient time to do so. In the heat of battle, there might be only one opportunity to effect that spectacular victory by employing an exploding tank of Nitrogen gas...

quote:This thread has started to include directional controls, as with m3d10n's idea. People are talking about "going over there" or "getting close to an object". In a one-button game, your faculties for navigation will be seriously limited. Just an observation.

I rather think that the button+directionals games would make for good standard/classic action titles, while the button-alone games would make for much more nuanced blends, usually involving some type of psychology.

[Edit: IMG tag gone wrong...]

[edited by - Oluseyi on March 14, 2004 12:38:27 PM]

quote:Original post by Oluseyi
It could be quite intense. Your character would constantly be scanning the environment for objects to use to his advantage,so you''d have to be alert so as not to miss any opportunities. Evaluation would probably be cyclical, but not in order, by which I mean that once all alternatives have been exhausted on a first scan, the character would/might return to look at objects in the order he considers most advantageous (providing a little hint to the gamer), given sufficient time to do so. In the heat of battle, there might be only one opportunity to effect that spectacular victory by employing an exploding tank of Nitrogen gas...

Agreed. I think that gameplay would range from casual strolling for exploration (la dee da, path into the woods? Nah. Town on hill? Nah. Rustle in bushes? Go check that out. Just a rabbit. Little stream down the hill? Nah...) to intense firefights (Take cover across field? No. take cover behind nearby car? Yes! Threat by truck? No. Threat by house? No. Gas barrels between them? Hell yes! etc.) Maybe a good viewpoint would be something like a first-person view, where your character''s interest would focus on something, say a barrel of gas, and it would flash with the word "Shoot" next to it, and you''d either push the button or not.

I figure you could use many of the same algorithms for this that NPC AI uses, but where they might use a random number to decide what to do, you''d have the button. You could tag things in the world as "cover", or "threat" or "door", or whatever. You could use the same character anims that the NPCs use, and the whole thing would make for a very smooth spectacle, and you wouldn''t be reduced to the stimulus-response gameplay of Dragon''s Lair and the like.

quote:Original post by Iron Chef Carnage
Agreed. I think that gameplay would range from casual strolling for exploration (la dee da, path into the woods? Nah. Town on hill? Nah. Rustle in bushes? Go check that out. Just a rabbit. Little stream down the hill? Nah...) to intense firefights (Take cover across field? No. take cover behind nearby car? Yes! Threat by truck? No. Threat by house? No. Gas barrels between them? Hell yes! etc.) Maybe a good viewpoint would be something like a first-person view, where your character''s interest would focus on something, say a barrel of gas, and it would flash with the word "Shoot" next to it, and you''d either push the button or not.

Sweet!

This is also a designer''s wet dream, as the game operates within tightly defined constraints and all possible combinations are pre-determined. "Here''s your chance to show us just how clever you really are."

quote:I figure you could use many of the same algorithms for this that NPC AI uses, but where they might use a random number to decide what to do, you''d have the button.

Yes, but at higher resolutions and with more options. You wouldn''t want NPC AI to use environmental weapons against the player that the player hasn''t yet become aware of. So, returning to your example above, the NPCs could only shoot the gas barrel after the player had passed on it. There''d be some additional balances, too: if the player shot it, the NPCs would have basically no hope. If the NPCs shoot it, the player then has to take evasive action (ie, it''s not an instant-death scenario for the player, but it is for the NPCs).

quote: You could tag things in the world as "cover", or "threat" or "door", or whatever. You could use the same character anims that the NPCs use, and the whole thing would make for a very smooth spectacle, and you wouldn''t be reduced to the stimulus-response gameplay of Dragon''s Lair and the like.

Oh, yes. This game would end up as the definition of the term "gameworld taxonomy"!

quote:Original post by Oluseyi
That''s pretty cool. Got any screenies or a demo we could take a look at?

I think there isn''t enough of a focus on kid-friendly or kid-oriented entertainment in the hobbyist community, probably because the hobbyists want to entertain themselves first.

Sorry for the delay. We got no screenies nor demos yet, because we''re still under the publisher''s NDA. But that''ll change in two or three weeks.