Emergence is kind of what we're aiming for in the collaborative game design thread. Our approach doesn't really sound like it will work for you, but I'll describe it just in case.

First, we're not having missions/quests at all. We're aimng for a farly low average gameplay time: 40 hrs for the first play, less for subsequent plays. Instead we're building the game around a game+ feature and intending that players will play through the game anywhere from 2-10 times, making different gameplay choices each time, so that even if they only see 1/4 or 1/3 of the game's plot content on the first play the rest will not be wasted. We described a general plot arc for each gameplay, which will be supported by whichever plot branches the player chooses/earns, and we're working on making an overall plot emerge from the successive gameplays. So we have a fairly small setting to start with, and we will be reusing the setting almost completely, except for modular things like puzzles which can be substituted for new ones, and NPC dialogue will change to match the world's current state.

Quote:Original post by dhasenan
However, it would be nice if you could actually set your own objectives in a game.

Not to nitpick, but you can set your own objectives for any game. Way back during the Atari days, I used to sit there playing Asteroids in a way the makers never intended. I named each of my 4 ships something different. Each ship had a different direction. I'd turn the ship in that direction and accelerate, shooting as fast as I could, and continue until it died. Usually I made up funny things for the ship pilots to say during this process.

I think the point here is that even if the game allows you to set your own goals, they ought to be goals that matter at least as much as the limited choices current games are capable of using. And somewhere there has to be a balance between freedom and confusion. If anything can happen, nothing that happens means anything.

(And yes, I DO like having choices in games. I'd like to see a RPG where everything you do changes the storyline, and there's no "best" ending, just "different" endings, based on what you've done. Maybe you save the princess, but the dragon kills your girlfriend. You just can't go *too* far with it, especially with modern technology.)

Quote:In an emergent game, the player is demanding importance, or at least given it. It's an element of realism, which is more suited, I believe, to FPSs than TPSs. Also, when a player is separated from the world by having an omniscient perspective and an avatar with a limited subset of that perspective, the avatar becomes almost a tool in the hands of the player. It doesn't matter; it's just a sprite on the screen. When I see with the PC's eyes, I can pretend to be him more easily. What affects him affects me.

Personally, I don't care about being important - at least not in this sense. What I want to see in an emergent game is that I have many choices, and that my choices have "real" consequences.

Example: the game's beginning goal is to have me kill the Uber Bad Guy and Save the World. I'm the Young Hero, on an Epic Quest to Avenge My Family/Village/Girlfriend/Dog. Typical RPG.

I encounter the various PCs along the way who will give me clues and directions, offer advice and assist me. Life is good.

But...what if I'm not such a nice person? What if I decide instead of talking to the cute girl who thanks me for saving her from the tyrant's soldiers, I slap her for her stupidity in being out alone? What if I think the Uber Bad Guy has a point, and instead of joining the rebellion I seek them out to kill them?

I'd like to see rebellion leaders come after me. To see the bad guy's troops first try to arrest me, then try to recruit me. I'd like to see my mission change from kill the tyrant to wipe out the rebellion.

But...then what if I, the player, have a revelation mid-way and decide to join the rebellion after the fact? I'd want to see options to talk to the people I capture, maybe have them in turn decide to use me to get to the bad guy. Perhaps I end up killing him after all, in the end.

I don't mind a story starting me at Point A, and ending with Point Z. I'd just like to choose the path that gets me there, in my own way. I hate being nudged from behind, forced to make choices that don't include ones I might WANT to make.

What I want is the illusion of control of the story. Sure, my choices are still limited to a set - but I want that set to be more diverse, reflecting different personalities.

Most - if not all - RPGs hand you the hero's personality on a silver platter. You can choose to be polite, valiant or rude - but you'll still do what you're told like a good little soldier. I want the option to choose a different path, to go against the flow - even if the various branches and tributaries have been pre-determined, just kept hidden from me.

Again, it's the illusion that I'm actually guiding the story that interests me. It would make me feel as if, for once, I'm LEADING the story instead of being tugged along on a leash.

Now, how to go about that without writing several hundred pages of script...that's an entirely different story :)

Quote:You want the illusion of control...how is that different from real control?

Real control is the MMO approach - go where you will, do what you want, what you do today is entirely up to you. Unfortunately they have no real dynamic story, so what you do also affects very little in terms of the world storyline. Which, I suppose, goes back to wanting to feel relevant.

In a scripted story, the game player automatically gives up control. Go here, speak to NPC, fight monster as directed. Move on to next objective. Your path is predictable, you goal as a player is to complete the game - to advance to the next step. There are no "real" choices presented; your choices are "go through door 1" or "go through door 2".

On the other hand, if the same choices were presented in a less obvious way you then give the player an illusion that makes them feel as if they made the decision on their own to go through either door. The old text-based games, i.e. Zork, had the right idea. You spoke to the people you met, you used sentence syntax to "look" at an item, to "speak" to npcs, to "ask NPC about the king" and the AI of the software looked at key words to form an answer. You could "ask old man if he is feeling well", you could "ask old man for a drink". You could even, in a fit of frustration, "kick the old man" (and laugh at the response you received!)

I'd like to see that freedom in a graphical RPG. Maybe part of the problem is that everything is click-move-kill-move; options are presented to you in choices as A, B or C. You're not communicating, you're not "speaking" to the npc - you're choosing an option. It's very robotic. There are times I've felt frustrated and wanted to beat up an NPC, to send them packing, to tell them to shut up and stop following me!

Maybe I don't want to fight the boss in the circus tent. Maybe I'd rather pay someone to steal the item I need from him. Maybe I'd rather pay an assassin to waste him on my behalf. If there are NPCs around the town who, with a little diligence on my behalf, will provide me with these services then suddenly i feel as if I found another way to achieve the goal you, as the designer, wanted me to do - but in my own unique way.

And for doing so, perhaps my faction standing with various parties changes. Maybe I'm no longer known as a merc for hire, but now as a merchant who is looking to rise in power - and pays well for fellow aspirants.

Illusion, because you still get me to achieve a goal. Personal choice, because it's done in a less-obvious way such that I feel as if I made the decision to do it, without you ever needing to push me from behind.

Hmm. Why do I like choices? Probably mainly because of the replayability & realism options you mentioned. I want the game to mean something to me, not just something I piddle with for an hour or 2 and then go watch TV and forget about it. If the game is as simple and predictable as, for instance, Asteroids...well, if I don't have choices, I'll make up my own. I LOVE randomness. This is why almost everything I've programmed so far is a random sentence generator of some type, heh. (How do you combine randomness and goal-oriented play? The only thing I can think of is have random goals that still somehow fit together into a story (how do you DO that???), or complex relationship meters on NPC's that determine what kind of interaction you'll most likely have with them.)

Quote:Also, when a player is separated from the world by having an omniscient perspective and an avatar with a limited subset of that perspective, the avatar becomes almost a tool in the hands of the player. It doesn't matter; it's just a sprite on the screen. When I see with the PC's eyes, I can pretend to be him more easily. What affects him affects me.

I hate 1st person view games because it's harder to tell where you are in relation to things you need to jump on and such. The only way you can tell how far you can go before falling off a platform is by trying it a few times...and falling. However, I have to admit that Metroid Prime is a prime example (no pun intended) of getting more involved in it due to 1st person view. You're not just watching a dude fall into lava, you're falling into lava yourself...with the appropriate "oh crap" reflex. I cringe even just watching my mom play it. I find myself physically dodging as if the bullets and stuff were aimed at me. It creeps me out to the point I can't even make myself want to play the game, heh.

Quote:On the other hand, if the same choices were presented in a less obvious way you then give the player an illusion that makes them feel as if they made the decision on their own to go through either door. The old text-based games, i.e. Zork, had the right idea. You spoke to the people you met, you used sentence syntax to "look" at an item, to "speak" to npcs, to "ask NPC about the king" and the AI of the software looked at key words to form an answer. You could "ask old man if he is feeling well", you could "ask old man for a drink". You could even, in a fit of frustration, "kick the old man" (and laugh at the response you received!)

Remember Maniac Mansion for NES? You constructed sentences to tell your dude what to do at any given point. Shadowgate & Deja Vu were also this way, to a certain extent. Problem with these games was, you had to do everything exactly right to progress, and thus a lot of the game involved trying different combos and failing miserably. The games were set up so that the first playthrough, you took ages and ages to figure out the one right way to proceed, getting frustrated and wanting to throw something at the TV in the process. And then if you managed to finish the game, you could replay the whole thing in an hour just by doing everything right the first time. That might've been fun when we didn't know anything else to compare it to, but it's hardly good game design now.

Something like this could easily be used in a modern RPG, though. Have icons for verbs (look, use, kick, ask, insult, whatever) that could be applied to any object. Also have icons representing subjects you learn about during the game, which could theoretically include monster names and kingdoms and such, and use these while talking to an NPC. HOWEVER, there wouldn't be just one way to solve any given problem.

Say some guards are guarding a gate leading into your typical walled castle. You want to get in. So, you could fight them. You could click icons meaning "USE BAKKA LEAVES ON GUARDS" (bakka leaves being some kind of sleeping drug). If sneaking was available, you might be able to do that providing it was night and/or you'd obscured their vision another way. You could attempt to tie them up without killing them. Or, move over a little ways and "USE GRAPPLING HOOK ON WALL" :)

Now, a word about talking to NPC's. It drives me nuts when you run into one who knows nothing. Ok, maybe what they know isn't applicable to your quest, but should they all be like the townsfolk in Link for NES who just say "I know nothing" all the time? Yuck. So...say you find a farmer named Fred. You talk to him and do icons for "ASK FRED ABOUT KING". Fred says "Ehh, he's a decent enough fellow, I guess. He always buys my pumpkins for Ghost Day." Now, this could either be just random useless info, or maybe you decide "Ok, I'm gonna hide in the cart carrying the pumpkins to the castle and get in THAT way!"

Now I wonder...is a game like this actually doable? :)

/edit: I also hate looking at something and seeing "That isn't important." If it's not important enough to at least get minimal info about, why is it there? I loved in FF2 (US) how even the books had names, heh. Say I'm looking at a simple vase of flowers. I want to either be able to take a flower and give it to some chick, or at least see "A vase full of daffodils." Who knows, maybe daffodils turn out to be important later on.