Quick reply about detecting boring play: (I'll get back to the other stuff later)
Since you know about all the events that happen, you can simply assign each one a value that says how much anti-boredom it is, and how much it might feel to the player like it propels the story forward, towards a resolution. There's a meter for "boredom" and "stallment" (I mean, how much the story is stalled). These values are constantly increasing, and after they reach some thresholds the game can throw an event capable of decreasing the values. The reason for the second value is because you might be stuck in some place, with lots of interesting things going on, but it feels like you're never getting out of there (or you'll never find the murderer).
If gameplay were plot, would there BE story?
Quote:Original post by Wavinator
In a game, the player is supposed to be responsible for success and failure (events outside of his / her control are supposed to be clearly earmarked when they happen). Now the player as Luke would have to be the primary agent of success in these events for it to be a game
In terms of a linear plot, you could equally have the player control R2D2 trying to escape the desert, and after they complete their objective / reach a certain point they are captured. That way the game puts them in the right place so that they meet Luke when you play the next chapter through Luke's perspective (buy a new droid to replace broken one). However, this is the old type of game where you don't get choice over your course of action because the game specifies the start and end point of each section.
Back-chaining events. Define the initial starting condition, which is a spur to action. For example in Shrek, Shrek's swamp fills up with fairytale creatures, this is enough to make Shrek and Donkey go to find someone who can stop this from happening. Which leads them into their main 'quest'.
So the player needs a starting objective that will lead them towards the next main plot event.
So the player needs a starting objective that will lead them towards the next main plot event.
Quote:Original post by WavinatorEven if they're not separated you could pull it trough. Think of the movie Final Destination (good movie for game designers :D).
Just a thought: Isn't the major obstacle to plot happening a certain way player intervention? If this is the case, then don't we want to hinge required plot points on things that are outside the player's control?
For example, let's assume that some character must die. If the player is allowed to always be around the character, then this is chancey. But if, through level design or event sequencing, we separate the player from the character by necessity, then the event can be guaranteed to happen naturally.
Of course, the player could stretch this mechanic until it became really funny and everything came apart by the seams... but this is true of almost every game mechanic out there (I used to do dance choreographies with 8-bit games to make friends chuckle).
The very character you're trying to save could do something silly and get killed if it really *HAS* to die... like trip and fall down a cliff.
Sure it's stupid, but it doesn't feel forced... feels random though but that's the extreme case.
Also reminds me of a SCI-FI story series that I forgot the name for... if anyone remembers there were two factions, one was called the spiders and the other snakes or something like that... and they went trough time changing events. Time would attempt to make the events happen anyway so they had to move a lot of things around so that it was impossible to make them converge. I liked that concept, the game should do that.
Quote:I know the brass ring here is fully autonomous entities that nevertheless still behave in such a way to always create interesting stories. But I also know bright minds have been working on THAT for YEARS (with still no product).not mine. I'm with the "actors for the player's enjoyment" camp... that's why I proposed an AI possessing NPCs.
Quote:I think this, btw, better be a loose framework now that I think about The Thing. If, for instance, someone has to die no matter what, then it has to happen in such a way that the player doesn't just override any gameplay associated with that character once they have foreknowledge.The real problem with The thing wasn't the forced events, it was that relationships were overriden (at least that's what bugged me). Say this guy, you've given him a lot of confidence and weaponry and he's a tough one. A cutscene comes by and then he's a coward again. Blah.
Quote:Before moving on, I think we should break this down. An event is inconsistent because...? It's not expected? Or it breaks established expectations?An event is inconsistent when it makes no sense in the current context. Such as the above brave turning coward suddenly by seeing something that's not as bad as the things he's gone trough before.
gah.. no more quoting.
On the storm: that could work, justifying instead of driving.... you'd still have the plot branch wildly though.
On boring gameplay not stories: could be true. Then there's Trapper Zoid's comment about Quake, which was true for me too. (Quake 1)
About Jotaf's bore/stall meters: interesting. You'd have to have some events that do not move the plot at all, an keep in mind that even fun things if repeated can become boring, so there would have to be a rotation between them.
Quote:Original post by Jotaf
Quick reply about detecting boring play: (I'll get back to the other stuff later)
Since you know about all the events that happen, you can simply assign each one a value that says how much anti-boredom it is, and how much it might feel to the player like it propels the story forward, towards a resolution. There's a meter for "boredom" and "stallment" (I mean, how much the story is stalled). These values are constantly increasing, and after they reach some thresholds the game can throw an event capable of decreasing the values. The reason for the second value is because you might be stuck in some place, with lots of interesting things going on, but it feels like you're never getting out of there (or you'll never find the murderer).
I like the idea of detecting boredom/stallment and throwing events to help alleviate it, but I can't think of a good way for a game to detect the difference between the two (wouldn't both involve not much happening for the player?). Short of connecting wires to measure the player's heart rate, or providing a big red button that says 'Bored!' that is.
This reminds me of an idea I had where the game could keep a record of what kinds of things the player likes to do, and then craft the game accordingly. So if one player spends most of his time solving logic puzzles, then the game could create more challenging puzzles. Or if another player spends her time exploring the game world, then the game could create more interesting locations or voyages.
Another idea on a similar theme was for the game to work out what things the player valued in the game world. So to take that Thing example that Wavinator was using, if you spend your time building up your confidence and equipping your teammate, then the game could deduce that you had some emotional investment in your friend and that losing him would provide a real sense of loss. However, if you ignored your teammate and spend your time using, upgrading and searching for ammo for your flamethrower, you have a greater emotional investment in the weapon and so maybe by losing that you will get a greater sense of loss.
Some TV show that was on in the background of my room last night began to describe Sherlock Holmes, why his stories were so great, etc. Got me to thinking how interesting a game would be where you'd play the role of a detective. It became apparent that the detective game I was picturing was completely undoable, so I don't mind talking about the details of it.
There would be one player, that'd be you as the detective. Everything else of course is an NPC all of which have unbelievable AI. There would be no actual story written by any developer, every case you'd take would come to exist by things that happen to occur within The City with the AI (and you.)
The usual detective game you might pick up today for your console or PC might give you some multiple choice question in which you make a decision, such as asking someone a certain question. This is where things begin to look undoable: instead of the multiple choice concept, how about just typing in a question (or comment, or whatever) and having the AI respond to it, kind of like how A.L.I.C.E. works, although each NPC would have its own "mind" based on its experiences, knowledge, and so forth.
In addition to this natural language processing chatterbot concept, each NPC would have its own life, pre-developed I'd imagine, it would be able to make its own decisions which would be based on past experiences and whatnot, and every NPC would always be doing something, somewhere at all times. The entire AI collective would exist realistically. For example: Jimmy would drive his delivery truck into The City's boundaries, make his stop at Joe's Donut Shop with the ingredients needed to make the morning's supply of glazed donuts. Jason would stop by Joe's Donut Shop to purchase two of those donuts and a cup of coffee, not realizing at the time that he wouldn't have enough money left on him to get a cab ride to work (his chances of realizing this are about 20%, as he hasn't had his cup of coffee yet.) Jason is late to work for the fourth time in two weeks and his boss, John, fires him. This is the third job Jason has lost this year. Jason's girlfriend, Jane, is so furious with him that she leaves him. Jason becomes very depressed, falls back into his alcoholism, tracks down his boss, and murders him. This story was created not by gameplay, but by the AI.
The next morning you get a call and you're on the case. The gameplay takes over the rest of the story, although Jason is still expanding it in some unknown way. You go to the victim's apartment and look around at every object in the room, dust for fingerprints, discuss findings with your partner, etc. You even pull in suspects for interrogation. Time goes by, you've tracked your man down after days or weeks of detective work, and you have a good old fashion car chase, shoot out, or maybe even a shoot out while in the midst of a car chase. Then again, there is always the slim chance that Jimmy forgot to fill up the gas tank and never made it to Joe's in the first place (but of course then Jimmy would be fired and Joe would go out of business.)
So yes, to answer the OP, if gameplay were plot, there would be story. But the idea I have presented might be a bit too much for the technology we have to work with right now.
[Edited by - ferr on June 29, 2005 5:41:49 AM]
There would be one player, that'd be you as the detective. Everything else of course is an NPC all of which have unbelievable AI. There would be no actual story written by any developer, every case you'd take would come to exist by things that happen to occur within The City with the AI (and you.)
The usual detective game you might pick up today for your console or PC might give you some multiple choice question in which you make a decision, such as asking someone a certain question. This is where things begin to look undoable: instead of the multiple choice concept, how about just typing in a question (or comment, or whatever) and having the AI respond to it, kind of like how A.L.I.C.E. works, although each NPC would have its own "mind" based on its experiences, knowledge, and so forth.
In addition to this natural language processing chatterbot concept, each NPC would have its own life, pre-developed I'd imagine, it would be able to make its own decisions which would be based on past experiences and whatnot, and every NPC would always be doing something, somewhere at all times. The entire AI collective would exist realistically. For example: Jimmy would drive his delivery truck into The City's boundaries, make his stop at Joe's Donut Shop with the ingredients needed to make the morning's supply of glazed donuts. Jason would stop by Joe's Donut Shop to purchase two of those donuts and a cup of coffee, not realizing at the time that he wouldn't have enough money left on him to get a cab ride to work (his chances of realizing this are about 20%, as he hasn't had his cup of coffee yet.) Jason is late to work for the fourth time in two weeks and his boss, John, fires him. This is the third job Jason has lost this year. Jason's girlfriend, Jane, is so furious with him that she leaves him. Jason becomes very depressed, falls back into his alcoholism, tracks down his boss, and murders him. This story was created not by gameplay, but by the AI.
The next morning you get a call and you're on the case. The gameplay takes over the rest of the story, although Jason is still expanding it in some unknown way. You go to the victim's apartment and look around at every object in the room, dust for fingerprints, discuss findings with your partner, etc. You even pull in suspects for interrogation. Time goes by, you've tracked your man down after days or weeks of detective work, and you have a good old fashion car chase, shoot out, or maybe even a shoot out while in the midst of a car chase. Then again, there is always the slim chance that Jimmy forgot to fill up the gas tank and never made it to Joe's in the first place (but of course then Jimmy would be fired and Joe would go out of business.)
So yes, to answer the OP, if gameplay were plot, there would be story. But the idea I have presented might be a bit too much for the technology we have to work with right now.
[Edited by - ferr on June 29, 2005 5:41:49 AM]
Quote:Original post by Trapper Zoid
I like the idea of detecting boredom/stallment and throwing events to help alleviate it, but I can't think of a good way for a game to detect the difference between the two (wouldn't both involve not much happening for the player?).
Well, I just described it :) Whenever an event happens, there's a value of anti-boredom or anti-stallment associated with it; they're subtracted from the meters so the game can keep track. Overall, since it's hard to precisely define "boredom" and "stallment", you have to hand-tune them yourself for each event, but it should be obvious and not very hard to do.
Quote:
Another idea on a similar theme was for the game to work out what things the player valued in the game world. So to take that Thing example that Wavinator was using, if you spend your time building up your confidence and equipping your teammate, then the game could deduce that you had some emotional investment in your friend and that losing him would provide a real sense of loss. However, if you ignored your teammate and spend your time using, upgrading and searching for ammo for your flamethrower, you have a greater emotional investment in the weapon and so maybe by losing that you will get a greater sense of loss.
This would definitely have some value in Wav's game! I mean, his world is a kind of a b*tch, and you can lose anything in a heartbeat. This would help alleviate things.
Quote:Original post by ferr
There would be one player, that'd be you as the detective. Everything else of course is an NPC all of which have unbelievable AI.
You're right, UNBELIEVABLE AI :P What you're suggesting is really easy for anyone to throw out, it's similar to the "MMORPG where you can do anything" idea, but implementing it is plain impossible given the current state of technology. It would be a huge amount of work just to point out the flaws in that system :P Maybe you should ditch that and follow Wav's path :)
Quote:Original post by JotafQuote:Original post by Trapper Zoid
I like the idea of detecting boredom/stallment and throwing events to help alleviate it, but I can't think of a good way for a game to detect the difference between the two (wouldn't both involve not much happening for the player?).
Well, I just described it :) Whenever an event happens, there's a value of anti-boredom or anti-stallment associated with it; they're subtracted from the meters so the game can keep track. Overall, since it's hard to precisely define "boredom" and "stallment", you have to hand-tune them yourself for each event, but it should be obvious and not very hard to do.
Sorry, Jotaf, maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been with the word 'difference' and that example I gave. I think that assigning an anti-boredom value to events is a great idea (in my 'dream game' that I am very slowly working towards writing sometime this decade, I was planning on implementing something quite like what you describe). What I don't get is how a computer game can differentiate between 'boredom' (the player being tired of the game) and 'stallment' (the player not progressing anywhere). I can see that it's possible to detect 'stallment', but 'boredom' is very subjective to the players themselves, and unless they have a way to directly tell the game they are bored I can't think of a reliable way to detect it. Unless there's some psycological theory of boredom that I don't know about!
Quote:Original post by Trapper Zoid
Sorry, Jotaf, maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been with the word 'difference' and that example I gave. I think that assigning an anti-boredom value to events is a great idea (in my 'dream game' that I am very slowly working towards writing sometime this decade, I was planning on implementing something quite like what you describe). What I don't get is how a computer game can differentiate between 'boredom' (the player being tired of the game) and 'stallment' (the player not progressing anywhere). I can see that it's possible to detect 'stallment', but 'boredom' is very subjective to the players themselves, and unless they have a way to directly tell the game they are bored I can't think of a reliable way to detect it. Unless there's some psycological theory of boredom that I don't know about!
Well, I'd just use some common sense when tuning those values. But you're right, it should be different for different people. Maybe just like there's a "difficulty" setting, there could be an "action" setting, where these values are scaled towards a more calm game flow, or an action-packed experience with all hell breaking lose and things blowing up all the time.
Tied with a system that tracks down what the player likes to do the most, the things that are thrown at the player would be what he finds the most interesting and thus, would make the game less boring.
This reminds me of another issue, what if the player is really bad at fixing his ship's engine, so he has to keep fixing it all the time, and the game thinks that this is what he likes to do?
From David Gerrold's the World of Star Trek ,
A successful dramatic television series needs (a) a broad-based format about (b) an interesting individual or group of individuals whose responsibilities force them into (c) unusual situation and confrontations, requiring (d) decisive and positive action on the part of the protagonist and his cohorts.
Any successful dramatic series will fulfil these requirements.The *better* it fulfils them, the more likely it is to be a success
Let's define our terms here:
Dramatic, synonymous with conflict. A confrontation is implied. The story is man against -----. Fill in the blank). Man against man, man against nature, man against himself. The protagonist, or hero is prevented from reaching his goal by an obstacle or series of obstacles. The more difficult these obstacles are, the more heroic he has to be in order to overcome them. How he overcomes them tells us what kind of a person he is.
The story is told as a series of climaxes rising in intensity, each more exciting than the one before. Every climax involves a confrontation with an obstacle, until the final climax when either the obstacle or the hero is defeated.
In drama *other* than series television- say a play or a movie- the event that is being told is the most important event in the heroes life. It is the whole reason for the existence of a story about this person. We are not interested in Robinson Crusoe *after* he's rescued we don't care about Dr. Frankenstein after the monster has been killed; we are through with Robert Armstrong the after King Kong topples from the Empire State Building. Only the final confrontation is important - and what the hero learns from it.
What the hero learns from the event is what makes it the most important event in his life. The hero *must learn something* )Or *fail* to learn something, but in that case, the audience has to recognise that he has failed.) Scarlett O'Hara learns that she really does love rhett butler. dorothy learns that you need brains, a heart, and courage and that it's inside you all the time or you never had it at all. oliver learns that Being In Love means never having to say you are sorry.
The story is about the lesson that this person has to learn- and these are the events that teach it to him. Hamlet learns how to make a decision. Oedipus learns humility.
This is the point of *all* drama. It is the sole justification for any play- except on series television.
Or for that matter, in any kind of series. Whether it be Doc Savage, Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes, or James Bond.
In a series the form has to be turned upside down- the events depicted must *not* be the most important events in the hero's life. Otherwise, there's no point in going on with the series. Everything after that would be anti-climactic.
This is the dilemma of series television. On the one hand, the producer must present dramatic stories week after week- on the other, he must not be *too* dramatic. Otherwise, he damages the series as a whole, ending up with ...... (blah,blah,blah) melodrama. [Yes, I can't be bothered to type out the whole of this, just the essential]
The single dramatic element that provokes excitement in a play is this: *your identity is in danger*. All others are merely variations: your life is in danger, your country is in danger, your girlfriend might leave you, .... [etc
] Something threatens to prevent you from being the person you are, or want to be...... He copes with it and learns something about his identity and why it is so precious to him.,,,
But if you endanger the hero's identity week after week [= melodrama+ formula storytelling].
Fortunately[ number of identities + ways of endangering them = unlimited] You don't have to endanger the *hero* every week. You can endanger someone else, someone around him- and it is his responsibility to come to that person's aid. [If has to endanger self too = so much the better]
[good series = where main character = decision maker on other people's lives, decisions *can and should* hurt]
[This is why series television = cops, doctors, cowboys, private eyes, starship captains, spies, lawyers] [Each identity provides services to other human identities so has to be involved with other people, in dramatic situations]
[
P.24 Drama = looking at what it is to be a human being. Get closer to other people by sharing a piece of their lives. AND by learning about others we hope to learn more about ourselves.
Whether a story = true drama or .. melodrama, our reasons for being interested in it remain the same, we are interested in ourselves and how we would react in a similar situation. Hence we look for interesting and unusual situations in our drama, puzzles and exercises with which to test ourselves, problems against which we can measure the strength of our own identities.
We want to be as brave as our Captain Kirks, as cool as our Mr. Spocks ...
If we can't be them, we can still identify with them / dream about being them].
[Things in brackets are paraphrases of what is said].
A successful dramatic television series needs (a) a broad-based format about (b) an interesting individual or group of individuals whose responsibilities force them into (c) unusual situation and confrontations, requiring (d) decisive and positive action on the part of the protagonist and his cohorts.
Any successful dramatic series will fulfil these requirements.The *better* it fulfils them, the more likely it is to be a success
Let's define our terms here:
Dramatic, synonymous with conflict. A confrontation is implied. The story is man against -----. Fill in the blank). Man against man, man against nature, man against himself. The protagonist, or hero is prevented from reaching his goal by an obstacle or series of obstacles. The more difficult these obstacles are, the more heroic he has to be in order to overcome them. How he overcomes them tells us what kind of a person he is.
The story is told as a series of climaxes rising in intensity, each more exciting than the one before. Every climax involves a confrontation with an obstacle, until the final climax when either the obstacle or the hero is defeated.
In drama *other* than series television- say a play or a movie- the event that is being told is the most important event in the heroes life. It is the whole reason for the existence of a story about this person. We are not interested in Robinson Crusoe *after* he's rescued we don't care about Dr. Frankenstein after the monster has been killed; we are through with Robert Armstrong the after King Kong topples from the Empire State Building. Only the final confrontation is important - and what the hero learns from it.
What the hero learns from the event is what makes it the most important event in his life. The hero *must learn something* )Or *fail* to learn something, but in that case, the audience has to recognise that he has failed.) Scarlett O'Hara learns that she really does love rhett butler. dorothy learns that you need brains, a heart, and courage and that it's inside you all the time or you never had it at all. oliver learns that Being In Love means never having to say you are sorry.
The story is about the lesson that this person has to learn- and these are the events that teach it to him. Hamlet learns how to make a decision. Oedipus learns humility.
This is the point of *all* drama. It is the sole justification for any play- except on series television.
Or for that matter, in any kind of series. Whether it be Doc Savage, Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes, or James Bond.
In a series the form has to be turned upside down- the events depicted must *not* be the most important events in the hero's life. Otherwise, there's no point in going on with the series. Everything after that would be anti-climactic.
This is the dilemma of series television. On the one hand, the producer must present dramatic stories week after week- on the other, he must not be *too* dramatic. Otherwise, he damages the series as a whole, ending up with ...... (blah,blah,blah) melodrama. [Yes, I can't be bothered to type out the whole of this, just the essential]
The single dramatic element that provokes excitement in a play is this: *your identity is in danger*. All others are merely variations: your life is in danger, your country is in danger, your girlfriend might leave you, .... [etc
] Something threatens to prevent you from being the person you are, or want to be...... He copes with it and learns something about his identity and why it is so precious to him.,,,
But if you endanger the hero's identity week after week [= melodrama+ formula storytelling].
Fortunately[ number of identities + ways of endangering them = unlimited] You don't have to endanger the *hero* every week. You can endanger someone else, someone around him- and it is his responsibility to come to that person's aid. [If has to endanger self too = so much the better]
[good series = where main character = decision maker on other people's lives, decisions *can and should* hurt]
[This is why series television = cops, doctors, cowboys, private eyes, starship captains, spies, lawyers] [Each identity provides services to other human identities so has to be involved with other people, in dramatic situations]
[
P.24 Drama = looking at what it is to be a human being. Get closer to other people by sharing a piece of their lives. AND by learning about others we hope to learn more about ourselves.
Whether a story = true drama or .. melodrama, our reasons for being interested in it remain the same, we are interested in ourselves and how we would react in a similar situation. Hence we look for interesting and unusual situations in our drama, puzzles and exercises with which to test ourselves, problems against which we can measure the strength of our own identities.
We want to be as brave as our Captain Kirks, as cool as our Mr. Spocks ...
If we can't be them, we can still identify with them / dream about being them].
[Things in brackets are paraphrases of what is said].
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement