Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
antde2001

How to Revolutionize Gameplay

This topic is 4960 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

I think what the OP means is that gameplay should be more like in pen & paper RPGs where the characters have complete control of what actions they take to advance the plot. The story isn't necessarily different, the game can have a fixed plot, it's just the means to the end that's different.

In traditional console RPGs, the means to the end is usually fixed, for example, you have to kill the dragon to save the princess. But in this system, you could take a virtually infinite number of routes, for example, the player could try sneaking past the dragon, louring it out of it's layer with gold, or even returning a fake princes to the king and running away with the reward. The means is different, but the end is the same.

IMHO, this system could be loads of fun since the player would be required to actually think instead of mindlessly fighting battles and playing mini-games. It could appeal to the old strategy game crowd that the industry seems to have lost hold of (yes, they still exist!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
I think you need to replace "gamers feel dissapointed after they beat a game like GTA because they didn't progress exactly like they imagined they would" with "***I*** feel dissapointed after...". You've stated your opinion, not a blanket statement for how all gamers feel. The fact is, sometimes games actually LOSE points in reviews for giving gamers "countless options to progress to the end of the game", because *most* gamers want some form of a visible linear path to the end of the game. When you throw so many paths at a gamer, its hard to tell which is a path to the end of the game, and which is a sidequest. At any point in the game, a gamer probably wants to know whether he is progressing to his main goal, or just doing a sidequest that will only get him a little exp or an item. Now, two examples:

Morrowind:
This game probably comes the closest to what you're describing, as you can wander about the world aimlessly as long as you choose, and get lost doing so. What this does, however, is divide how gamers feel about this game right up the middle. Ask a few friends what they thought of Morrowind. Some will say they liked the "countless paths to progress", others will say they were turned off by feeling lost in the world or not knowing what to do next. The game wasn't for everyone.

KOTOR:
You had several options to beat the game, but the geography and layout of the quests made sure you almost always knew whether you were on a main quest or side quest. This made the path to the end of the game much more visible. As far as I know, this game did better than Morrowind.

So, in conclusion, some gamers want more of the linear path to the end of the game than others, and you can not say that all gamers feel the same way at the end of a game depending on how linear that game was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Gameplay must be a mental thought created by the gamer and his mind.
...
My idea completely removes defined gameplay and turns it into imaginative expression.

Implementation suggestions please. Anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Argus2
Quote:
Gameplay must be a mental thought created by the gamer and his mind.
...
My idea completely removes defined gameplay and turns it into imaginative expression.

Implementation suggestions please. Anyone?


Oh, it's really simple... first, you create an AI "3d artist", "sound technician", and "level designer" that can create an infinite amount of content for the game in real-time. You also create an AI "game designer" who can create the rules of the game and tell the other AI agents what to do. Then you hook it all up to some kind of neural network or rules-based learning system and have a few million players press "Start Game" and play the randomly generated results for a few years straight, providing feedback to the game AI on whether or not the result is fun. Once the AI has determined the most likely choices, you release the game to the public, and allow the designer AI to use a sophisticated prediction algorithm to figure out exactly what the player wants from the game before the player even knows. No problem! Sounds easier than a tetris clone. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frankly I'm surprised we haven't done VR glasses/helmut and gloves yet. That seems like the next revolution in gameplay. I believe Nintendo has seen this and that's why they have their gyroscopic controllers in development. Granted the only issue would be actually moving in the world, but you can always get the Track & Field pad for the NES if needed [grin]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or better yet, you could just have "New Game" take you to a six-hour questionnaire that determines your interestes and goals, lets you decide things like time period, character design, and the basic plot that you'll be deviating from wildly in the course of your open-ended, sandbox gameplay. Then, it opens the art editor, where you can decie your graphical style and make meshes for each character and object in the world. Then you can tweak your physics, record your own voices and set rules for the online multiplayer mode.

I think I'd rent it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for my own opinion, I view the evolution of gaming just like any other form of media, where progress does not come about in great leaps but rather as a continous process of improvement. We will never notice the revolutionary changes while they happen, but we will see them when we look over our shoulders and can view them at a distance. Thus I believe that it is those small changes in content that over time evolvs gameplay.

And I don't think there is anything bad in that, but rather the way it has to be for us to appreciate the changes made. Really, if you took a guy from 1985, brought him forth in time and presented to him a typical game of today - GTA San Andreas for example, then I don't think that person would be able to appreciate the game as much as we do. Why? Because the learning curve is way too steep. Even if the eventual gaming experience is great there would be too many new things to the gameplay for it to be accessible to this person. But it would certainly be revolutionary to him/her.

I don't know if I lost my point along the way but the sum of it is that even a great game would be a failure if it came about way too long before it's time, and revolutionary games would be very prone to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Iron Chef Carnage
Or better yet, you could just have "New Game" take you to a six-hour questionnaire that determines your interestes and goals, lets you decide things like time period, character design, and the basic plot that you'll be deviating from wildly in the course of your open-ended, sandbox gameplay. Then, it opens the art editor, where you can decie your graphical style and make meshes for each character and object in the world. Then you can tweak your physics, record your own voices and set rules for the online multiplayer mode.

I think I'd rent it.

So you mock my idea, do you? [flaming]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not that it's my job or owt, but i'd like to bring this back on topic a bit with mention of Will Wrights Latest Vision, Spore.

This man is a genius, to me this perfectly represents what cutting edge designers need to be working toward and thinking about. Don't get me wrong, it's going to be acceptable to continue creating games like Tomb Raider and Gran Turismo for years to come, and there is still vast uncharted levels of design to experiment with inside these older frameworks. But the real cutting edge stuff is networked player created experiences.

We've waded this far into it without noticing - MMOG's and Multiplayer team games like CS, are the current generation and think how this kind of game is flooding the market now. Even if games now are primarily single player they often contain some aspects of multiple character control or team management. But they hardly compensate for human interaction, and human expression, isn't that what it all comes down to really?

Games should never become like real life, because real life limits our ability to express and interact. But games that encourage interaction and expression will become classics of the next generation. Or something...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by makeshiftwings
Oh, it's really simple... first, you create an AI "3d artist", "sound technician", and "level designer" that can create an infinite amount of content for the game in real-time. You also create an AI "game designer" who can create the rules of the game and tell the other AI agents what to do. Then you hook it all up to some kind of neural network or rules-based learning system and have a few million players press "Start Game" and play the randomly generated results for a few years straight, providing feedback to the game AI on whether or not the result is fun. Once the AI has determined the most likely choices, you release the game to the public, and allow the designer AI to use a sophisticated prediction algorithm to figure out exactly what the player wants from the game before the player even knows. No problem!


HEY! You stole my idea!!! No good so and so...

[lol]




Seriously, though, is this the month of manifestos? I've just been noticing them popping up more frequently.

They seem to have these same traits:

1) Lack of specific details
2) Strong yen for realism
3) Strong judgement against other gamers / existing genres
4) Vast generalization of gamers
5) Seem to know what all gamers want / what "should be"

So maybe this might be a great post to better understand how to come up with more solid, workable ideas? I've found posting here constantly forces me to focus and drill down past the hazy, feel good abstract into the nuts and bolts. Anyone else have this experience?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!