Kaucukovnik
Cipher
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
- Messages
- 488
I'd just like to share some ideas going through my head lately and hear what others can say about them.
If you read a book or watch a film, the plot is moving ahead in an interesting way not only through the characters making the right decisions and winning conflists, but as well through error and failure, and different degrees of success/failure.
Every single CRPG is dumbed down compared to this. You didn't accomplish something the way you wanted? Then it's either pre-scripted (thus inevitable) or you did something wrong and probably should reload in order to enjoy the game further.
What I mean is that for example a combat does not necessarily end with either side being dead. The enemy can lose and beg you to let him live. You can lose and do the same. Retreat is possible. And every option should let you benefit somehow so that it is a valid option, not a failure. I mean, you encountered a strong enemy and you managed to stay alive. Killed him? Your combat skill is getting better for sure. Lost but convinced the opponent to let you live? Not only that you can fight better thanks to the experience (not meant as XP), but also your diplomatic skills got some practice.
In similar way screwing a quest could offer you some interesting possibilities later. And the game should assure you in some subtle way that you are getting somewhere, for example some NPC could say that the person you failed to rescue didn't deserve to live anyway in his opinion.
The best thing will be an example. Imagine you are playing a game based on Lord of the Rings. Frodo, your character, is starting a combat with Gollum due to his treacherous nature. A succes in this conflict is defeating him so that he ends up captured or dead - that's what you are trying to accomplish by fighting him. But if he manages to get away, in the end of the quest he becomes helpful. And of course the game should make you aware that either your victory or his withdrawal is possible - maybe through previous battles with insignificant foes, where they also fled sometimes in the same manner.
Maybe that's the key to why so many films and books adapted to games result so poorly. You don't play the twists, you are given them through the pre-scripted story, so that the story feels very artificial. It is the same for games without a model, it's just not that obvious.
Ultimately I'd like to see a game (ideally made by me, of course ) where the events wouldn't be just waiting for the player to make them happen the right way - if you didn't complete a quest, someone else (NPC) could do it, for example. It would be immensely hard to script so many possibilities, but the game world would really come alive.
On the other hand, I'm afraid that the player could feel very unsure and confused. We are too much accustomed to the game expecting optimal gameplay from us.
Do you think such a game would be enjoyable?
If you read a book or watch a film, the plot is moving ahead in an interesting way not only through the characters making the right decisions and winning conflists, but as well through error and failure, and different degrees of success/failure.
Every single CRPG is dumbed down compared to this. You didn't accomplish something the way you wanted? Then it's either pre-scripted (thus inevitable) or you did something wrong and probably should reload in order to enjoy the game further.
What I mean is that for example a combat does not necessarily end with either side being dead. The enemy can lose and beg you to let him live. You can lose and do the same. Retreat is possible. And every option should let you benefit somehow so that it is a valid option, not a failure. I mean, you encountered a strong enemy and you managed to stay alive. Killed him? Your combat skill is getting better for sure. Lost but convinced the opponent to let you live? Not only that you can fight better thanks to the experience (not meant as XP), but also your diplomatic skills got some practice.
In similar way screwing a quest could offer you some interesting possibilities later. And the game should assure you in some subtle way that you are getting somewhere, for example some NPC could say that the person you failed to rescue didn't deserve to live anyway in his opinion.
The best thing will be an example. Imagine you are playing a game based on Lord of the Rings. Frodo, your character, is starting a combat with Gollum due to his treacherous nature. A succes in this conflict is defeating him so that he ends up captured or dead - that's what you are trying to accomplish by fighting him. But if he manages to get away, in the end of the quest he becomes helpful. And of course the game should make you aware that either your victory or his withdrawal is possible - maybe through previous battles with insignificant foes, where they also fled sometimes in the same manner.
Maybe that's the key to why so many films and books adapted to games result so poorly. You don't play the twists, you are given them through the pre-scripted story, so that the story feels very artificial. It is the same for games without a model, it's just not that obvious.
Ultimately I'd like to see a game (ideally made by me, of course ) where the events wouldn't be just waiting for the player to make them happen the right way - if you didn't complete a quest, someone else (NPC) could do it, for example. It would be immensely hard to script so many possibilities, but the game world would really come alive.
On the other hand, I'm afraid that the player could feel very unsure and confused. We are too much accustomed to the game expecting optimal gameplay from us.
Do you think such a game would be enjoyable?