I'd like to see more emergent gameplay rather than heavily scripted sequence after heavily scripted sequence.
An experience that is different every playthrough and all that.
making a game that is fun to play based on procedural algorithms is almost impossible. there is so much work that goes into making a game fun, and they'd have to playtest every permutation or else run into the Spore Effect (boring)
Naw I was more thinking things like... example time:
You're a dude with a gun and also the gun is for shooting bad guys. You're task it to find the big boss bad guy, or something. It's a vague example! Anyway, after shooting your way into his hideout, you step into the triggerzone and activate the typical confrontation cinematic, which ends with him running away. The big bad would follow a strictly laid out path, usually littered with other bad guys. This is okay, but it means that it's the same all the way through. It'll be pretty much the same experience for everyone, every time.
Is it really necessary to restrict the player so much? True, it follows the script and as such maintains that script's inherent level of fun as gauged by a team of playtesters, maybe, but I'd think it'd be far more fun to let the player sculpt his own experience, allow the player to really inhabit the avatar he or she controls, by allowing choices at every point.
Remember GeoMod? It was that stuff they used for Red Faction, that shitty FPS that is now getting a shitty looking sequel. Everyone was jizzing all over for it. The reason why wasn't just because it was a fancy new tech, but because it carried with it the promise of allowing the player to play the game in his/her own way. That's what I'm talking about.
Spore was shit because it was a shitty game because the underlying mechanics of the gameplay itself were simplistic and severely limited the amount of possibilities that could be explored in the final product.
yeah, it is necessary because they have to program the boss's movement, the AI routines of the enemies you fight along the way, the navmesh they use to tell where the cover in between you and them are, they have to make sure that you have an easily seen and understood route to follow the boss, and above all they have to make it fun to play.
can't get that with random generation.
choices, by and large, confuse the player, because players want to see all of the game and not get locked out of half of it arbitrarily.
GeoMod was kinda shitty anyway, I can't think of one time where i coulduse ti to get around a locked door or soemthing, it basicly served as quick cover for me. Blow a hole in the ground, hide in hole, done and done.
I'd like to see someone attempt a zombie-apocalypse survival themed MMOFPS. A kind of sandbox world where a plague begins and your job is to stay alive as long as you can. Unlike other MMOs, this one simply ends when the entire player base is infected. Theoretically, you could have one Super Badass who finds a great place to hole up and is the last man on Earth.
But this game will never be made, because MMO's aren't supposed to end. It'd be viewed as a bad investment or simply too complicated to ever get off the ground, and really it is. But I can still dream.
i remember blowing holes in the floor and eventually having these walls float in the air with an invisible barrier underneath them - despite the appearance of choice, the developers still had to restrict your movements for pacing purposes - otherwise you could tunnel beneath the entire level. it's about as freeform as half-life.
i remember blowing holes in the floor and eventually having these walls float in the air with an invisible barrier underneath them - despite the appearance of choice, the developers still had to restrict your movements for pacing purposes - otherwise you could tunnel beneath the entire level. it's about as freeform as half-life.
Players should be allowed to sculpt their own experiences. Why should the developer restrict you from digging underneath the level? If the player is the kind of person who wants to do that, let him/her.
you are an interrogation specialist for the police force
everyday you talk to criminals and have to break them down and admit what they did, through the use of threats, bargaining etc
and then the game is you have just retired and you no longer get a police discount at shops but you are an a cops pension so you go around getting food and coffee and such and you gotta break down the kids behind the counter into giving you free upsizes and such
for a perfect score you have to get out of paying a cent for an entire year, including all food and drink, rent, alimony, and fighting a civil lawsuit for brutality charges
yeah, it is necessary because they have to program the boss's movement, the AI routines of the enemies you fight along the way, the navmesh they use to tell where the cover in between you and them are, they have to make sure that you have an easily seen and understood route to follow the boss, and above all they have to make it fun to play.
can't get that with random generation.
choices, by and large, confuse the player, because players want to see all of the game and not get locked out of half of it arbitrarily.
(sorry, missed this post the first time 'round)
I just want to clarify that what I'm talkin' bout here is emergent gameplay, that is to say, situations that arise out of a combination of A.I. routines and player engagement. It is my understanding that procedurally generated content is something different, though they do overlap.
What I'm trying to get at is that I'd rather see dynamic, constantly changing scenarios in games born not from scripts, but rather from A.I. Routines and the player himself. So many games today feel almost on-rails with the restrictions they place on you (Call of Duty is an example I could use, I guess).
Far Cry 2, to me, was an interesting experience in gameplay that was kind of emergent - though hampered by the lack of variety with regard to resolving situations (shoot them, burn them, explode them). There were very few scripted sequences. Additionally, it really didn't give you much to work with on the missions. It just gave you a simple task like "Kill man" and off you go. It was up to you to choose how to get to the guy and how to kill him. One time, I killed a target from my boat with a grenade launcher. It was anti-climatic, sure, but that was a result of my actions, not a result of a script set for by the game for me to follow. Admittedly, Far Cry 2 was kind of flawed (more like Far Drive 2).
Steampunk as a purposed Genre is terrible, I have this arguement near weekly. However, there needs to be more alternate history games, it's always fun to look back and say 'what if'.
Man, Arcanum was pretty damn cool, for the most part.
The execution was undeniably flawed, but there were some great bits in there.
the best parts in half-life 2 were the beginning of the game, the beginning of ravenholm, and when you walk out in that plaza outside the trainstation again in the later part of the game and the resistance is pulling down the breenscreen with ropes. And the Citadel with the blue grav gun was cool in a "rag doll physics and desentigration" kind of way
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
edited February 2009
Every single one.
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
edited February 2009
Especially any involving wearing flash t-shirts.
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
also, the best parts of half-life 2 were episodes 1 and 2
This I will agree with, I could actaully play them form start to end with out wanting to punch myself in the face.
I hated episode 1, because it just ends abruptly without leaving any personal satisfaction over what you'd done, since it stops right after the most repetitive part of the game.
the final battle in Episode 2 kept pissing me off, each time i would get close and something would go wrong and it would all go to hell. Really what I am saying is I can never replay any of the episodes, and i still have yet to beat normal half life 2. I think about 60% done it, but I lack any motivation to play it.
Having to track down the packs of walkers and the taller sentries, while keeping an eye on health, energy, ammo, and those stupid magnussons, all fast enough to prevent any of them from getting to the base, was just a little too much.
Those kind of situations get me overstressed way too fucking easily. From there it stops being a game and just turns into work and isn't any fun at all.
Goatmon on
Switch Friend Code: SW-6680-6709-4204
0
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
edited February 2009
So Fable 2 sucked. Why do I keep trusting Peter Molyneaux? The ending was no ending at all. Soooo anticlimactic.
Metzger Meister on
0
Options
nevilleThe Worst Gay(Seriously. The Worst!)Registered Userregular
Also ideas are a dime a dozen and ultimately don't matter at all.
If you think because you came up with some "new" idea that you'd be a great game designer because of it... well, you're a fucking idiot.
Implementation is the difference between an amazing game and a terrible one. A good idea helps, but it isn't necessary. Mario is a game where you jump on dudes' heads. That's nothing revolutionary, but how they did it was.
neville on
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
edited February 2009
My idea for a game:
You grab a guy and shove his face into the ground at high speeds.
The game is just a series of fight that culminate in how awesome you can shove the dudes' face into the ground.
The boss of the game is David Bowie.
You play as either Vinny Jones or Jason Statham.
All the voicework is done by Morgan Freeman.
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
Also ideas are a dime a dozen and ultimately don't matter at all.
If you think because you came up with some "new" idea that you'd be a great game designer because of it... well, you're a fucking idiot.
Implementation is the difference between an amazing game and a terrible one. A good idea helps, but it isn't necessary. Mario is a game where you jump on dudes' heads. That's nothing revolutionary, but how they did it was.
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
edited February 2009
The execution for my game is amazing.
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
0
Options
nevilleThe Worst Gay(Seriously. The Worst!)Registered Userregular
Also ideas are a dime a dozen and ultimately don't matter at all.
If you think because you came up with some "new" idea that you'd be a great game designer because of it... well, you're a fucking idiot.
Implementation is the difference between an amazing game and a terrible one. A good idea helps, but it isn't necessary. Mario is a game where you jump on dudes' heads. That's nothing revolutionary, but how they did it was.
Posts
Naw I was more thinking things like... example time:
You're a dude with a gun and also the gun is for shooting bad guys. You're task it to find the big boss bad guy, or something. It's a vague example! Anyway, after shooting your way into his hideout, you step into the triggerzone and activate the typical confrontation cinematic, which ends with him running away. The big bad would follow a strictly laid out path, usually littered with other bad guys. This is okay, but it means that it's the same all the way through. It'll be pretty much the same experience for everyone, every time.
Is it really necessary to restrict the player so much? True, it follows the script and as such maintains that script's inherent level of fun as gauged by a team of playtesters, maybe, but I'd think it'd be far more fun to let the player sculpt his own experience, allow the player to really inhabit the avatar he or she controls, by allowing choices at every point.
Remember GeoMod? It was that stuff they used for Red Faction, that shitty FPS that is now getting a shitty looking sequel. Everyone was jizzing all over for it. The reason why wasn't just because it was a fancy new tech, but because it carried with it the promise of allowing the player to play the game in his/her own way. That's what I'm talking about.
Spore was shit because it was a shitty game because the underlying mechanics of the gameplay itself were simplistic and severely limited the amount of possibilities that could be explored in the final product.
can't get that with random generation.
choices, by and large, confuse the player, because players want to see all of the game and not get locked out of half of it arbitrarily.
But this game will never be made, because MMO's aren't supposed to end. It'd be viewed as a bad investment or simply too complicated to ever get off the ground, and really it is. But I can still dream.
Players should be allowed to sculpt their own experiences. Why should the developer restrict you from digging underneath the level? If the player is the kind of person who wants to do that, let him/her.
Why should the player be restricted?
you are an interrogation specialist for the police force
everyday you talk to criminals and have to break them down and admit what they did, through the use of threats, bargaining etc
and then the game is you have just retired and you no longer get a police discount at shops but you are an a cops pension so you go around getting food and coffee and such and you gotta break down the kids behind the counter into giving you free upsizes and such
for a perfect score you have to get out of paying a cent for an entire year, including all food and drink, rent, alimony, and fighting a civil lawsuit for brutality charges
(sorry, missed this post the first time 'round)
I just want to clarify that what I'm talkin' bout here is emergent gameplay, that is to say, situations that arise out of a combination of A.I. routines and player engagement. It is my understanding that procedurally generated content is something different, though they do overlap.
What I'm trying to get at is that I'd rather see dynamic, constantly changing scenarios in games born not from scripts, but rather from A.I. Routines and the player himself. So many games today feel almost on-rails with the restrictions they place on you (Call of Duty is an example I could use, I guess).
Far Cry 2, to me, was an interesting experience in gameplay that was kind of emergent - though hampered by the lack of variety with regard to resolving situations (shoot them, burn them, explode them). There were very few scripted sequences. Additionally, it really didn't give you much to work with on the missions. It just gave you a simple task like "Kill man" and off you go. It was up to you to choose how to get to the guy and how to kill him. One time, I killed a target from my boat with a grenade launcher. It was anti-climatic, sure, but that was a result of my actions, not a result of a script set for by the game for me to follow. Admittedly, Far Cry 2 was kind of flawed (more like Far Drive 2).
Man, Arcanum was pretty damn cool, for the most part.
The execution was undeniably flawed, but there were some great bits in there.
what the hell is this, ye olde england?
it's ravenholm, no 'e'
also, the best parts of half-life 2 were episodes 1 and 2
This I will agree with, I could actaully play them form start to end with out wanting to punch myself in the face.
i still really like half-life 2 but i feel like the level design suffered a little because they actually put detail into the environments
then the episodes fixed that like woah
I hated episode 1, because it just ends abruptly without leaving any personal satisfaction over what you'd done, since it stops right after the most repetitive part of the game.
That climactic battle - man alive, was that an intense setpiece
Having to track down the packs of walkers and the taller sentries, while keeping an eye on health, energy, ammo, and those stupid magnussons, all fast enough to prevent any of them from getting to the base, was just a little too much.
Those kind of situations get me overstressed way too fucking easily. From there it stops being a game and just turns into work and isn't any fun at all.
Most of them. Especially the OP.
Also ideas are a dime a dozen and ultimately don't matter at all.
If you think because you came up with some "new" idea that you'd be a great game designer because of it... well, you're a fucking idiot.
Implementation is the difference between an amazing game and a terrible one. A good idea helps, but it isn't necessary. Mario is a game where you jump on dudes' heads. That's nothing revolutionary, but how they did it was.
You grab a guy and shove his face into the ground at high speeds.
The game is just a series of fight that culminate in how awesome you can shove the dudes' face into the ground.
The boss of the game is David Bowie.
You play as either Vinny Jones or Jason Statham.
All the voicework is done by Morgan Freeman.
handled this on the first page, dog
oh ok, i didn't realize that nobody ever repeated things.
Besides, this whole thread is defeated by that, so people pitching 30 ideas shows nobody is listening to that