Haven''t read the whole thread (in a bit of a hurry), but for a good way to get into the sci-fi mood, ask yourself "what if?".
What if there were never any televisions?
What if people could fly?
What if animals could talk?
What if clouds were more solid than they are?
What if etc?
Of course you would probably want "cooler" examples, but that''s the idea. Things like "story" and "characters" are common to every genre (at least, the should be ), and building up a world is a thing most RPG''s, at least, require (to be "truly" immersive and epic)
Good thread. I have just bought Half Life: Opposing Force (and found that it is a lot of fun). But when thinking about it, although it is entertaining and exciting.. it doesn''t *really* explore (m)any themes relevent to the real world. I think that it would be further enhanced if some interesting themes were explored. (Besides government betrayal, and shady research.).
Almost all science fiction in existence is geared exclusively towards stunning us with technology and supernatural events.
In order to make good science fiction, you''ve got to do something else. Asimovs Foundation series doesn''t concentrate on specific technology, it concentrates on what he calls psychohistory - the reduction of the entire of humanity into mathematical equations and using these to accurately predict the future of the universe to a high level of accuracy, for millions of years. The reason the saga is so good is because psychohistory is quite plausible, and Asimov also concentrates on the emotional and human side of this system, the way it affects individuals. The fact that even though the Seldon plan guarantees prosperity for a million years to humanity, the people of the foundation rebel against it, because it requires a hidden, guiding force to control them. The sheer strength of human paranoia makes the people prefer the alternative to the seldon plan, total anarchy and barbarism throughout the universe.
Philip K Dick is the same. In his novel "do androids dream of electric sheep", later to become "blade runner", he reveals that science technology has reached the point where beings almost indestinguishable from humans can be created. In your average sci fi game or novel, the author would stop the actual scifi right there and simply concentrate on combat between the androids and humans. The reason blade runner is a masterpiece is because Dick doesn''t do this. Instead, he concentrates on the emotional and moralistic aspects of the situation. He makes us think careflly, makes us wonder whether the replicants are really evil for rebelling against their creators, or whether it is really the human creators who are depraved, keeping them as downtrodden slaves, and hunting the rebels like vermin, even though the replicants are quite obviously sentient, self aware and intelligent beings. This is stated in the opening prologue.
Later in the story, Rick Deckard (the "protagonist")has his own identity and morality called into question. In the film, we are left wondering whether he is actually a replicant himself. If he is, the implications are horrifying - he has been tricked and decieved into hunting down and killing his own kind, and denied knowledge of his own nature.
Few games do this sort of thing. Deus Ex comes close, with the omnipresent, nagging doubt that the central character''s upgrades will soon make him "obsolete" and an outcast, but from what I''ve seen this is a minor plot point, and is not exploited to it''s full potential.
Freshya''s "what if" is a good place to start thinking up a backstory like these.
Oh, and my own two rules of thumb for sci fi concepts which are "acceptably plausible": you don''t have to prove them correct, there just has to be no possible way of disproving them. If they are completely implausible, liken them to something which is reminiscent of them and can be proven true.
Psychohistory is so believable because it meets both criteria. It follows on from a branch of mathematics which is absolutely true, it''s just on a larger scale. Think of all the dice in a casino. One die is unpredictable, chaotic. If you took into account the trajectory, momentum, friction and aerodynamics of the die and fed them into a massive computer, you''d still be lucky to guess how it would land. If, however, you looked at all the dice in the building, and calculated the probability of winning on each and every throw of all of them, you could calculate a rough estimate of the net flow of money in the system(to the house, of course, that''s how those places work!) The longer you carried out observations, the more accurate your prediction will be. It is the existence of real world examples like this that make psychohistory convincing. In fact, Asimov has picked a winner here, because there are so many real examples of such a broad mathematical concept that he doesn''t even need to point out the comparison in the text. We have experienced it so much that we believe the concept automatically, but we are still awed by the massive increase in scale.
"If you go into enough detail, everything becomes circular reasoning." - Captain Insanity
quote:Original post by Wavinator At the risk of making another End Goblin Genocide type thread, I have to ask: Even with storytelling, how do you convey your ideas and stay true to your form if everything is wrapped in murder-based gameplay?
Those are the challenges: either to stay true to your form even though your gameplay is murder-wrapped (the less impressive), or to stay true to your form by creating gameplay based on something other than murder, and yet entertain your fans.
I like the notion of pursuit. I once thought it would be cool to have a game where the protagonist (ie, you ) is constantly being pursued by [insert tired, overused organizational description here] for [insert even more tired and overused conspiratorial plotline here, which protagonist actually had no part in] with intent to kill. The twist would be that, unlike the "norm" where your peaceful scientist looks for the biggest gun and makes Papa Heinz proud (*cough* Freeman *cough*), your character is abhorrent of violence and weapons. In other words, he wont use a gun (at least not to shoot), even if you pick one up. You need to use your wits and the environment - doors, elevators, alarms, crowds, etc - to escape and stay alive long enough to find out out [insert tired, overused plot climax/ending here].
I think creative thinking will reveal that there are options other than resorting to murder - and very viable ones at that.
Perhaps a good gameplay mechanic for sci-fi games that doesn''t revolve around killing is creation. For example, building a society on an alien world or a game based on nanotech where you use the technology to alter your environment.
It would be cool to have a time travel game in which you would replay a certain scenario and don''t win until you achieve the optimal outcome. The difference would be that, instead of trying to kill the most\best, you would be altering political situations to create a series of interesting "what-if" scenarios.
How about a survival game - like Jack Vance - Planet of Adventure - where the spaceship crashes and you have to make your way in an alien world. Here the game is not about dominating but adapting to the species and geography you encounter. Success is managing to escape from the world or signal in a rescue party.
So - to get back to the first post - the concept is not just hiding, eating and shooting but interacting with the aliens to achieve the aim.
This is the longest thread I''ve ever started. My thread will never die!
Seriously, what means do you have to communicate and deal with the aliens? Any ideas on a diplomatic system that''s better then a simple branching conversation? What if one of the major challenges is learning their language (that would be pretty cool.) The language would probably be pretty simple, (maybe it would be based on symbols instead of speech),but it would still pose a very interesting challenge for the player.
(1) basic survival - what is good to eat and drink - will the bacteria get me?
(2) How do I make my way through a strange environment?
(3) When I meet sentient beings how do I communicate, avoid breaking sacred taboos? What is their attitude to me, hostile? pitying? consdecending? etc.... What is my attitude to them? How can I persuade them to help me achieve my goal?
For example it''s late at night. I go to cut down a tree for firewood and shelter. The tree is sentient. What happens next??
Thus the concept here is about human reaction in the face of the unknown and the ability to survive. Shooting everything in sight just won''t work.
Communication would first be maths based - see Voyager - "I am intelligent because I can do maths" - then language. But even more than that you need the ability to avoid ending up in sime alien zoo.
One of the things that people seem to forget when discussing fiction is that "genre" is a story-telling tool. A genre does not define a story, it is used by the story to get a point across.
That said, if you''re looking for say, a typical shoot-the-little-green-alien-with-a-plasma-gun type story, that would be run of the mill sci-fi. There''s nothing to drive you shooting that little green alien, or even having a plasma gun. A story is about *people*, not technology. The goal of science-fiction is to take a basic assumption(like faster-than-light travel or the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence) and see how it affects real people.
IMHO, a good example of a science-fiction based game is Sid Meier''s Alpha Centauri. In this game, Earth has been completely ravaged by human selfishness. A group of scientists comes up with this bright idea that to save the entire human race, they need to flee earth and take up residence on a planet orbiting the nearest star. This game is not about plasma armor, super tensile solids or chaos theory. This game is about human survival. The technology is just a tool.
A bad example of a science-fiction based game is Duke Nukem. This game is about blasting ugly aliens to bits with high tech weapons to save a bunch of scantily clad blondes. Survival of the human race? Bah, says Duke, let''s kick a** and chew bubble gum.
So in short, science fiction stories are about people reacting to science, not science in and of itself.
), and building up a world is a thing most RPG''s, at least, require (to be "truly" immersive and epic)
