Storylines vs nonlinearity
Robert Tweed
throw out a new topic.
What do people think of the use of set storylines in games as opposed to
highly non-linear systems that can't be tied to a storyline?
What about trying to find the middle ground where the story can evolve in
different directions; is there any point in this or does it just result in a
watered down hybrid that is the worst of both worlds?
Do we really care about cut-scenes and intros in games?
Should a game bother to relate itself to a story or should it be about pure
gameplay?
Does the story affect gameplay?
- Robert
Sir Percival (Michael Spall)
news:9mkfja$2psek$1...@ID-99544.news.dfncis.de...
> Since this group is becoming dominated by a couple of threads, I thought
I'd
> throw out a new topic.
good idea!
>
> What do people think of the use of set storylines in games as opposed to
> highly non-linear systems that can't be tied to a storyline?
>
> What about trying to find the middle ground where the story can evolve in
> different directions; is there any point in this or does it just result in
a
> watered down hybrid that is the worst of both worlds?
In general I find a mixture of the two just doesn't work. It gives the
player the illusion of freedom, but severely restricts that freedom, thus in
my mind destroying the point of providing the illusion of freedom.
A well written story that is totally linear is better everytime than a badly
written non-linear game.
On the other hand a well written non-linear game is far superior to a badly
written linear game.
I believe that non-linear games are coming in to the fore, and that
developments in non-linear games will improve. Of course I have a vested
interest, so I'm probably not the best person to ask.
A game that I still play is Frontier, Elite II. This was one of the first
games that couldnt be completed, yet I played it non-stop for well over 2
years.
Half life had me playing every day for 15 days (yes I know exactly how long
it took me to complete the game, I ahd a bet with a mate that nobody could
complete it in two weeks, and I lost by a single day cos I couldnt kill that
pain in the arse alien brain thingy)
Dues Ex again had me playing for about 2 weeks non-stop, then I replayed
through it for antoehr 4 weeks or so trying out a variety of differant
approach's.
Unreal Tournement is still installed on my computer some 9 months after
first playing it, and I play that both multiplayer and with bots in single
player.
To be honest, a good game that is either is good, although I can't think of
a game that combines both non-linearity and a story that I still play,
possibly the baldurs gate series, although they are more linear than
non-linear.
>
> Do we really care about cut-scenes and intros in games?
>
two very differant answers here, firstly cut-scenes,
If well done, and they provide something to the game then yes, however if
you can only watch the cut-scenes then they tend to make me feel as if
despite the choices I've made, this route has been planned for me, and thus
cut-scenes destroy any illusion of freedom that the player may have.
Intros,
Intros are the bane of my life. I like to watch intro's in a game if I
suddenly have an urge to watch a bit of movies, If intros and to some degree
cut-scenes are skipable then I see them as being good. I like the Diablo II
/ Baldurs Gate system whereby you can choose at a later date to watch any
cut-scene or intro that you have already seen. I sat down for about half an
hour one day and watched all the cut-scenes in Diablo II that I had reached.
However usually whilst playing a game I dont approve of them and want to
skip to the action again.
> Should a game bother to relate itself to a story or should it be about
pure
> gameplay?
The only game I have ever seent hat doesnt have a story is Quake. The story
in quake looks like it was written at the last minute, and to be quite frank
I really think it was just added at the end. Quake plays like a Technology
Demo, and it took something like Half-Life to show exactly what could be
done, combining that engine and some people with real story telling
experience.
Ask people which game they prefered in single player and Half Life will win
almost everytime, purely due to the story. Ask people which game they
prefered in multi player and I think Quake will probably win, because the
effects of the story get in the way in a multi player frag fest.
>
> Does the story affect gameplay?
>
Did half Life make you jump? did the story in half life change the way that
you played the game? When you saw the helicopters dropping off troops when
you first leave the base (sorry to anyone who hasnt got that far) did that
change the way that you approached the game, especially when you worked out
how intellegent these guys were!
I'd say that most people would say that the entire rhythm of the game
changes in differant sections of the game, especially in Xen.
> - Robert
>
>
--
Blessed Be
Sir Percival (Michael Spall)
Professional Student and Genius :-)
http://go.to/studentweb
Taren Durbank
the cut-scenes? Or are you being hypocritical and saying story isn't
important, but gameplay is? I'd say the intro and cut-scenes in Diablo 2
contribute the majority of the story.
BTW, have you played Planescape: Torment? The in-game cut-scenes are mostly
only a few seconds, used to give the player a 3D perspective and intro to a
new level/area, which works well because of the 2D limitation of the BI
Engine. These add to the feel, or immersiveness, of the areas.
> Intros,
Joel Wellington
<rob...@killingmoon.com> wrote:
>Do we really care about cut-scenes and intros in games?
As far as story and plot goes they can create interest and provide
background infomation which may be useful in the game.
I dont know if they add to gameplay but they can be cool. Some
classics include the intro to Myth: Fallen lords, Another World,
Carmageddon and Grand Theft Auto 2.
Some good and meaningful cut scenes (in my opinion) include; Command
and Conquer/ Red alert/Dune 2000, Tie Fighter, Dragons Breath (this
game was almost all cut scenes :) ) Under a Killing Moon and the
Fallout series.
In brief, they are nice, they give people jobs and they can be used to
promote the game (rolling demo's)
>Should a game bother to relate itself to a story or should it be about pure
>gameplay?
Depends on the type of game. RPG's yes, FPS doesnt have to, but can.
God games can but also dont have to.
>Does the story affect gameplay?
Absolutely. But it also doesnt have to be there for gameplay to be
good. Take something like Mega lo Mania - no story, no cut scenes, no
story basic graphics, simple interface and menu, basic effects and
just plain fun.
Sir Percival (Michael Spall)
news:9mkt5j$mcp$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> How do you follow the story (as you are playing the game) if you don't
watch
> the cut-scenes? Or are you being hypocritical and saying story isn't
> important, but gameplay is? I'd say the intro and cut-scenes in Diablo 2
> contribute the majority of the story.
No, to assume that the palyer has watched the cut scene's and not provide
any other story clues would be folly, but Diablo II doesnt do this, the
story that you need to know isnt given so much byt eh cut scenes as by what
people say as you talk to differant people around the game.
Admittidly I've not got off of Act II yet, so that might change, but I dont
like to sit and watch a long cut scene if I'm not in the mood for it.
>
> BTW, have you played Planescape: Torment? The in-game cut-scenes are
mostly
> only a few seconds, used to give the player a 3D perspective and intro to
a
> new level/area, which works well because of the 2D limitation of the BI
> Engine. These add to the feel, or immersiveness, of the areas.
Yes, Planescape has brilliant use of the cut-scenes, everything else is
played out in the game itself, but the "feel" as you put it, of each area is
given byt eh cut scenes, and it really does help.
On the other hand I didn't like the cut-scenes in C&C Tiberian Sun very
much, but that might jsut be me.
I was trying to say that some people like cut-scenes, some dont, and you
shoudl always provide a means to skip them, replaying BG1 will never happen
for me because you cant skip so many cut-scenes and they just plain annoy
me.
Incidently in Planescape Torment, did anybody every finish it? I got stuck
in Hell I think it was, where the pillar of skulls was, I could not fight my
way back and the one time that I did manage to get back, I couldnt get out
anyway :-(
>
> > Intros,
> > usually whilst playing a game I dont approve of them and want to
> > skip to the action again.
>
>
Robert Tweed
news:9mks65$2oe6o$1...@ID-97653.news.dfncis.de...
> "Robert Tweed" <rob...@killingmoon.com> wrote in message
> news:9mkfja$2psek$1...@ID-99544.news.dfncis.de...
> > Since this group is becoming dominated by a couple of threads, I thought
> I'd
> > throw out a new topic.
>
> good idea!
^_^
> >
> > What do people think of the use of set storylines in games as opposed to
> > highly non-linear systems that can't be tied to a storyline?
> >
> > What about trying to find the middle ground where the story can evolve
in
> > different directions; is there any point in this or does it just result
in
> a
> > watered down hybrid that is the worst of both worlds?
>
> In general I find a mixture of the two just doesn't work. It gives the
> player the illusion of freedom, but severely restricts that freedom, thus
in
> my mind destroying the point of providing the illusion of freedom.
That's probably true, it certainly doesn't allow the sort of freedom you'd
get in a purely dynamic game system. It is conceivable that a non-linear
story based game could allow for quite a lot of freedom. You could get more
freedom than in say, a standard level-based game. Even though the solution
to each level may be non-linear, the game itself is inherently linear.
> A well written story that is totally linear is better everytime than a
badly
> written non-linear game.
> On the other hand a well written non-linear game is far superior to a
badly
> written linear game.
What about a well writen non-linear story vs a well written linear story?
Does it work?
> I believe that non-linear games are coming in to the fore, and that
> developments in non-linear games will improve. Of course I have a vested
> interest, so I'm probably not the best person to ask.
Undeclared interests eh? ;-)
> A game that I still play is Frontier, Elite II. This was one of the first
> games that couldnt be completed, yet I played it non-stop for well over 2
> years.
Err, what about Elite?
Actually I never played Frontier because I tried a demo and it wouldn't run
properly on my PC (I think it was a 386 at the time). Having read about the
engine it did some groundbreaking stuff (similar but not quite as
groudbreaking as what was done by the original).
I base much of my game design "ethics" on Elite and similar engines. I like
the idea of a virtual world where history can be created as teh game
progresses. If more intelligent memory were added (don't know if this has
been done with the new elites, haven't tried them) then you could produce a
very deep game indeed. Dynamic story generation, generation of "history" by
the actions of the player. I think that is the way to go, but at this time
it may not be possible to generate as strong a storyline this way as one
that is pre-written by a scripter.
> Half life had me playing every day for 15 days (yes I know exactly how
long
> it took me to complete the game, I ahd a bet with a mate that nobody could
> complete it in two weeks, and I lost by a single day cos I couldnt kill
that
> pain in the arse alien brain thingy)
> Dues Ex again had me playing for about 2 weeks non-stop, then I replayed
> through it for antoehr 4 weeks or so trying out a variety of differant
> approach's.
> Unreal Tournement is still installed on my computer some 9 months after
> first playing it, and I play that both multiplayer and with bots in single
> player.
>
> To be honest, a good game that is either is good, although I can't think
of
> a game that combines both non-linearity and a story that I still play,
> possibly the baldurs gate series, although they are more linear than
> non-linear.
One other point is that there are different types of non-linearity. My
personal favourite game of all time (which I still have, and still play) is
Sonic the Hedgehog for the Game Gear (still in working condition!). The
structure of the game is entirely linear, level based and following (a very
pointless) story. However, you can play the game over and over, approaching
it from different directions. You can play for points, times, or bonus
screens (or a combination of these). Each goal requires a different play
strategy, so the game is non-linear.
> > Do we really care about cut-scenes and intros in games?
> >
> two very differant answers here, firstly cut-scenes,
> If well done, and they provide something to the game then yes, however if
> you can only watch the cut-scenes then they tend to make me feel as if
> despite the choices I've made, this route has been planned for me, and
thus
> cut-scenes destroy any illusion of freedom that the player may have.
I get that too. That's why I asked about it.
> Intros,
> Intros are the bane of my life. I like to watch intro's in a game if I
> suddenly have an urge to watch a bit of movies, If intros and to some
degree
> cut-scenes are skipable then I see them as being good. I like the Diablo
II
> / Baldurs Gate system whereby you can choose at a later date to watch any
> cut-scene or intro that you have already seen. I sat down for about half
an
> hour one day and watched all the cut-scenes in Diablo II that I had
reached.
> However usually whilst playing a game I dont approve of them and want to
> skip to the action again.
I like the intro, but only when you first get the game. It adds gives it
some build-up and sets the mood. However, I definitely don't like those
stupid games (mostly console games are guilty of this) that think you should
sit through the intro every time. It's as if they think they have spent so
much money producing the intro that they should force people to watch it and
get their money's worth out of it!
> > Should a game bother to relate itself to a story or should it be about
> pure
> > gameplay?
>
> The only game I have ever seent hat doesnt have a story is Quake. The
story
> in quake looks like it was written at the last minute, and to be quite
frank
> I really think it was just added at the end. Quake plays like a
Technology
> Demo, and it took something like Half-Life to show exactly what could be
> done, combining that engine and some people with real story telling
> experience.
There are plenty of old games (like 80s) that clearly just had a story
bolted on at the last minute. That was in the age that a game was built to
be fun first and every thing else came later. Mostly they were the results
of experiments-gone-right, rather than intentionally engineered. AFAIK the
brief for quake was to take Doom, get Mike Abrash to build a kick-ass
graphics engine, generally soup it up and worry about the bits-n-pieces
later. They already knew they were onto a winner with the format* so they
didn't care about storylines and that sort of thing, it was really just a
series of very large tweaks to an existing game.
* I personally didn't like doom as a game. The structire was identical to
far too many games that had gone before, there was nothing ground-breaking
about it and it seemed stale, unimaginative and purely commercial. However,
at the time of it's release I was in the selling hardware business and I can
say for a fact that Doom sold *a lot* of PCs. In fact, if it hadn't been for
Doom we probably wouldn't have the sort of PC/Microsoft monopoly situation
we have today. no other single program that I am aware of (except maybe 123
in the early days or that sort of thing) has had such a large impact on the
evolution of desktop computer.
> Ask people which game they prefered in single player and Half Life will
win
> almost everytime, purely due to the story. Ask people which game they
> prefered in multi player and I think Quake will probably win, because the
> effects of the story get in the way in a multi player frag fest.
Well, I suppose that simple, repetitive game types work better than more
complex games as multiplayer. This makes a lot of logical sense if you think
about it. For one thing, what's the point of a story in a multiplayer
shooter? In that environment it's all about kill-kill-kill and you don't
need to think about stories or any of that rubbish. In a multiplayer system
the focus is the other players, not the computer. The computer just needs to
create the world, the players can create the "story".
> > Does the story affect gameplay?
> >
>
> Did half Life make you jump? did the story in half life change the way
that
> you played the game? When you saw the helicopters dropping off troops
when
> you first leave the base (sorry to anyone who hasnt got that far) did that
> change the way that you approached the game, especially when you worked
out
> how intellegent these guys were!
Note to self: Play half life past the first scene..... I really need to get
around to this. To be honest I haven't played any recent game in much depth,
I've just been too busy over the past few years to do any serious gaming.
It's only about a year since I got back into the business of writing games.
Still trying to catch up.
> I'd say that most people would say that the entire rhythm of the game
> changes in differant sections of the game, especially in Xen.
Yeah, but is that because of the cut-scenes themselves?
One thing I'd like to raise here is about the cut-scene with the helicopters
and so on described above. Should this be a cut scene or should it be an
in-game event? I think it would carry even more weight if it actually
happened in the game because IMO when the cut-scene begins, there is a
feeling of extraction from the game world and emotional distancing from the
events. If it happens in the game itself then I think it would have a
greater impact on the player.
- Robert
Robert Tweed
Question: When we refer to cut-scenes, so we refer to breifing sections (and
similar sections) as well? I don't think we have so far, but in flight/space
sims I tend to skip all the information, just get straight into the cockpit
and start getting a feel for the controls and handling. Maybe I go back
later at some point, maybe I don't.
What's the view on games that are disjointed like this, where it's not
necessarily a cut-scene as such? Maybe it presents information, as in a
briefings. It may allow you to buy/sell, make modifications or other
strategic decisions. However, they are implimented as cut sections and
separated from the main game. Do we think these are good, bad or ugly? How
are they done well or badly and what makes the difference?
- Robert
Robert Tweed
news:3b8df476....@news.uunet.com.au...
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 05:29:53 +0100, "Robert Tweed"
> <rob...@killingmoon.com> wrote:
>
> >Do we really care about cut-scenes and intros in games?
> As far as story and plot goes they can create interest and provide
> background infomation which may be useful in the game.
> I dont know if they add to gameplay but they can be cool. Some
> classics include the intro to Myth: Fallen lords, Another World,
> Carmageddon and Grand Theft Auto 2.
> Some good and meaningful cut scenes (in my opinion) include; Command
> and Conquer/ Red alert/Dune 2000, Tie Fighter, Dragons Breath (this
> game was almost all cut scenes :) ) Under a Killing Moon and the
> Fallout series.
FYI: My company is *not* named after Under a Killing Moon. I haven't
actually played the game, it's pure coincidence. I did however, name a
previous company Frontier Technologies as a reference to Elite (and also
designed a logo based on the starship Enterprise).
> In brief, they are nice, they give people jobs and they can be used to
> promote the game (rolling demo's)
I'm not asking if they add to the costs or marketing for the game, but if
they add to the game from a player's perspective.
> >Should a game bother to relate itself to a story or should it be about
pure
> >gameplay?
> Depends on the type of game. RPG's yes, FPS doesnt have to, but can.
> God games can but also dont have to.
I don't think you can set such hard-and-fast rules for any genre of game.
> >Does the story affect gameplay?
> Absolutely. But it also doesnt have to be there for gameplay to be
> good. Take something like Mega lo Mania - no story, no cut scenes, no
> story basic graphics, simple interface and menu, basic effects and
> just plain fun.
Plenty of other games that can illustrate that, but are there any where the
cut scences really *add* something to the game (other than a bit of
cinematic scene setting and atmosphere).
- robert
Lars Birkemose
Robert Tweed wrote>...
>What do people think of the use of set storylines in games as opposed to
>highly non-linear systems that can't be tied to a storyline?
Both are needed.
Max Payne is a great game, with a very strong fixed storyline
Falcon4 is another great game, with a complete open structure.
>What about trying to find the middle ground where the story can evolve in
>different directions; is there any point in this or does it just result in
a
>watered down hybrid that is the worst of both worlds?
I think / hope its something we will see combined more.
The Typhoon flightsim from Rage is IMO a good example of a game trying to
implement this.
>Do we really care about cut-scenes and intros in games?
Absolutely.
I barely play Diablo2 for the cutscenes ;O)
>Should a game bother to relate itself to a story or should it be about pure
>gameplay?
>
>Does the story affect gameplay?
A funny thing I noticed about Max Payne.
The storyline is VERY fixed, with the comics running. But the fact that
there is a strong story (even if some thinks its bad) gives me the feeling I
am in more control than I am in ex Quake or similar shooter, probably
because I feel stronger for the character than I ever did for the escaping
prisoner in Unreal, or the silly looking agaent in Deus Ex
Lars
Robert Tweed
> classics include the intro to Myth: Fallen lords, Another World,
> Carmageddon and Grand Theft Auto 2.
Just though one part of this warrants a section all of it's own: Another
World. That was a genuine classic (and there aren't many of those). Now that
I've been reminded of it I need to track down a copy (I've got Flashback but
not AW). Has anyone done another game on a par with Another World?
Another World was such a linear game and yet at the same time it was truly
engaging. Could it be because of the way that the game and the cut-sequences
merged together perfectly? Could it be because of the stylistic purity of
the game that easily distinguishes it as a work of art (a claim that cannot
be made by all games)?
I think that AW could actually be the only game in a genre. It's completely
linear. It's essentially an animated story that you have to complete the
tasks to advance the story. However, it is set apart from that particular
genre by the fact that the in-game action actually advances the story (as
opposed to simply presenting puzzles, obstacles or continue buttons to pause
the story). Also the game world is a real world, so although progression is
linear, you can make mistakes, backtrack and so on. Any thoughts on this
classification (have I made a mistake first off)? Are there other games that
can be classed as the same type, and what is it (or should it be) called?
- Robert
Brandon J. Van Every
"Robert Tweed" <rob...@killingmoon.com> wrote in message
news:9mkfja$2psek$1...@ID-99544.news.dfncis.de...
I'd
> throw out a new topic.
>
> What do people think of the use of set storylines in games as opposed to
> highly non-linear systems that can't be tied to a storyline?
What matters to the player is the quality of a Dilemma. Good Dilemmas keep
the player's interest and make them feel that their decisions actually
matter. The lack of Dilemma makes the player feel he is watching a movie.
If it's a good movie, he'll continue to watch. If it's a bad movie, as is
usually the case with computer games, he'll get restless.
> What about trying to find the middle ground where the story can evolve in
> different directions; is there any point in this or does it just result in
a
> watered down hybrid that is the worst of both worlds?
Evolution has to be controlled by an author, a human being. Each of those
Dilemmas has to actually be good, whether the story is linear or non-linear.
Chalking your hopes to "emergent behavior" is relying on oh-so-much
randomness. Ever done basic research? Ever gone to a library and tried to
find a book on a subject you knew little about? That's randomness in
action. It's boring. It's not tight. It's not digested. It's not an
entertainment product, it's a shirking of responsibility. "Maybe if we roll
some dice, the numbers will come up fun!"
Good Dilemmas take time to write. Linear vs. non-linear is a question of
how much time you've got to author Dilemmas. Non-linear takes more time.
You'd better have an idea of how long your game is going to be, i.e. how
many Dilemmas is the player going to see in sequence. And also how wide
your game is going to be, i.e. how much branching? This is going to give
you some total number of Dilemmas. Do you have time to write all those
Dilemmas?
I think a game that's non-trivially non-linear would be better implemented
as a subscription service. Like a TV serial. You want people to pay you to
provide that ongoing vastness.
> Do we really care about cut-scenes and intros in games?
I liked the intro to Zeus a whole bunch. I often watched it when starting
up the game, and I've never done that for any other game. Admittedly my
love of Greek mythology goes back to childhood. I know who Zeus is, I know
about him battling the Titans. But I think more important was that clip was
pretty well done. Good music, good narration, good plot, good fireworks.
Possibly if cutscenes are designed very explicitly for their coolness value,
they'll get a lot more replay than if they're just made to fill an
obligatory cubbyhole.
> Should a game bother to relate itself to a story or should it be about
pure
> gameplay?
That's a game designer's decision for a specific title. But as bullish as
I've been about storytelling in games in the past, I do think we have a lot
left to achieve simply in terms of abstract game mechanics. Storytelling
has been my vehicle for understanding the pacing of a game, and the pacing
of many games is lousy. Too much simulationism, not enough "What's the
point of this? How can we focus this?"
An example: in 4X planetary conquest games (such as SMAC) you've got lotsa
squares/hexes that you could potentially build cities upon. And generally
people do build a lot of cities. And generally each of these cities has its
own custom list of structures that you've manually built / levelled up
within the city. Well, this is stupid! Planetary surfaces are O(n^2), if
you try to cover them with cities you're going to have a *lot* of cities to
manually build up. The game is guaranteed to bog down and get boring.
Cities shouldn't be built by hand, not if you're trying to deal with the
effects of "civilizing" an entire planet over centuries.
In general, I think our games lack an awareness of the size of the medium,
and how that relates to time. Screenwriters know that generally speaking,
they've got 90 minutes to tell their story, 10 minutes at the beginning to
make their point and hook the audience, etc. We don't know how many map
squares we can have, how many "cool" features our cities and units can have,
how many mouseclicks we have before it all gets boring and stupid. Well,
we've got plenty of specific examples of things that are boring and stupid,
and we have a name for it, "micromanagement." But we don't have a
structure, a strategic principle, to keep us from making the most basic of
silly timewasting mistakes. The game designer says "I'll make a huge planet
with lotsa cool cities and each one will have a funky list of attributes."
Well, you're dead right there.
> Does the story affect gameplay?
It can. But of course it depends on what each is. Remember that the story
occurs in the player's mind. The gameplay may be more tangible, more
amenable to mathematical analysis, but whatever is going on in the player's
mind affects how he deals with the gameplay.
--
Cheers, www.3DProgrammer.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.
Brandon J. Van Every
>
> Question: When we refer to cut-scenes, so we refer to breifing sections
(and
> similar sections) as well? I don't think we have so far, but in
flight/space
> sims I tend to skip all the information, just get straight into the
cockpit
> and start getting a feel for the controls and handling. Maybe I go back
> later at some point, maybe I don't.
I agree that this stuff is a waste of time. The briefing needs to make its
point *really* quickly. Probably the briefing should be one sentence or even
1 phrase, in gigantic print. i.e. "KILL EVERYONE." "Get the cloaking
device." If there has to be more information (and you should question
that), at least make it easy to access the mission objectives later. I
thought Thief had a pretty good approach in that respect. Thief also gave
you maps that had annotations of someone who'd been casing the joint
earlier, so you had some operational info to go on. You didn't need to look
at that immediately either, you could just look at your map again when you
got to a new area.
Doc O'Leary
<rob...@killingmoon.com> wrote:
> What about trying to find the middle ground where the story can evolve in
> different directions; is there any point in this or does it just result in a
> watered down hybrid that is the worst of both worlds?
It can be done, but it obviously isn't easy and most game designers
don't bother to do it well. What seems to work best is having one "big
picture" main goal which essentially marks the end of the game, and you
break it down into some related but otherwise independent sub-goals
(which could be broken down even further). Bonus points if you make
these "sub-games" high on the replayability factor. If you want to
have dependencies, make them intelligent rather than forced (e.g.,
don't make me see the King before I can kill the dragon and get its
tooth; if I happen to run into the dragon while exploring and off it,
"news" should reach the King so that he's thanking me when I arrive the
first time).
> Do we really care about cut-scenes and intros in games?
The player cares if the designer *really* cares. Too often they are
put together for a wow factor, and not to actually advance the plot in
any coherent manner. I'd rather be *doing* neat things than *watching*
neat things, so put it in the game if you can, but if you can't, please
don't interrupt the gameplay unless it really *is* signficant.
> Should a game bother to relate itself to a story or should it be about pure
> gameplay?
Depends completely on the game. Sometimes I like the idea that my
actions in a game are given a greater meaning by adding a plot, but
sometimes I just want some mindless fun.
> Does the story affect gameplay?
In the same way that a script affects a movie. You can make something
like an action movie without a real script, but damn if won't rock more
with a really good script.
TMD
<9mktsg$2n0kf$1...@ID-97653.news.dfncis.de>...
>"Taren Durbank" <tare...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9mkt5j$mcp$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
>
>much, but that might jsut be me.
>
>Blessed Be
>Sir Percival (Michael Spall)
>Professional Student and Genius :-)
>http://go.to/studentweb
>
IMHO the cut-scenes Tiberian Sun were poorly made. Ideas were good.
Tero
Dan Lingman
Medieaval - that set the tone for the rest of the game.
I watched the cinematics the first time through D2. I wish there was a
toggle that would turn them off from now on though - rather annoying to
have to bypass them.
Dan.
Heavy Cat Multimedia Ltd.
Big questions. ^^
Story is important in certain kinds of games. Writing a good story is very
difficult, and the more influence a player has over the outcome, the more
likely it is the story will become internally inconsistent.
I think limited
amounts of freedom within a narrative are possible, provided good planning
takes place during development, but an excellent introduction, character
development, consistent plot and setting, and conclusion are extremely
important, or the quality of the story will suffer.
Just my $0.02
--
Scott
Heavy Cat Multimedia Ltd.
http://www.heavycat.com
http://www.ladystar.net
Taren Durbank
> any other story clues would be folly, but Diablo II doesnt do this, the
> story that you need to know isnt given so much byt eh cut scenes as by
what
> people say as you talk to differant people around the game.
> Admittidly I've not got off of Act II yet, so that might change, but I
dont
> like to sit and watch a long cut scene if I'm not in the mood for it.
To each his own, i guess. Personally, i thought the plain text--with no
accompanying dialogue like in Diablo 1--was pretty boring and i ended up
speed-reading/skipping through most it. I thought the movies were fantastic.
To me they easily contributed most of the story through the use of visual
metaphor, something plain text severely stuggles to offer with brevity.
> Yes, Planescape has brilliant use of the cut-scenes, everything else is
> played out in the game itself, but the "feel" as you put it, of each area
is
> given byt eh cut scenes, and it really does help.
> On the other hand I didn't like the cut-scenes in C&C Tiberian Sun very
> much, but that might jsut be me.
Oh yeah, that was some bad, bad acting. And some of those scenes just
dragged on.
> I was trying to say that some people like cut-scenes, some dont, and you
> shoudl always provide a means to skip them, replaying BG1 will never
happen
> for me because you cant skip so many cut-scenes and they just plain annoy
> me.
Yep i definitely agree, there are few things more annoying than having to
watch and wait for a dull cut-scene to end. BG1 is a good example, too much
metaphor trying to be described by dialogue, quite inefficient and pathetic
i thought.
> Incidently in Planescape Torment, did anybody every finish it? I got
stuck
> in Hell I think it was, where the pillar of skulls was, I could not fight
my
> way back and the one time that I did manage to get back, I couldnt get out
> anyway :-(
You bet i did, it's one of my favourites. :-)
Taren Durbank
(and
> similar sections) as well? I don't think we have so far, but in
flight/space
> sims I tend to skip all the information, just get straight into the
cockpit
> and start getting a feel for the controls and handling. Maybe I go back
> later at some point, maybe I don't.
I consider a cut-scene just some scene that you sit back and watch, i.e. it
plays out without being able to affect it. Technically, i'd say most of the
"big" conversations in Deus Ex are cut-scenes, because even though you can
click to get the next dialogue bit, it's essentially a linear conversation.
Some, however, branch off and i wouldn't call those cut-scenes.
> What's the view on games that are disjointed like this, where it's not
> necessarily a cut-scene as such? Maybe it presents information, as in a
> briefings. It may allow you to buy/sell, make modifications or other
> strategic decisions. However, they are implimented as cut sections and
> separated from the main game. Do we think these are good, bad or ugly? How
> are they done well or badly and what makes the difference?
Breifings in FreeSpace 1 & 2 are done really well. They don't just brief you
on missions but also give background on the ongoing state of the war, i.e.
they integrate story into them.
Taren Durbank
> personal favourite game of all time (which I still have, and still play)
is
> Sonic the Hedgehog for the Game Gear (still in working condition!). The
> structure of the game is entirely linear, level based and following (a
very
> pointless) story. However, you can play the game over and over,
approaching
> it from different directions. You can play for points, times, or bonus
> screens (or a combination of these). Each goal requires a different play
> strategy, so the game is non-linear.
Super Metroid is another cool non-linear game in another sense. You set down
in Crateria and the whole world is accessible from start to finish. You
don't have to play through each level in a strict order, so through a bit of
ingenuity and wall-jumping skill, you can skip past an earlier level to get
some super-gun from a later level, then blast through the earlier level,
etc. Loved that game.
Stephen W. Hey
(except nightmares that are there just for an extra way to gain XP) in this
RPG because NPC's would be promoting a strict story line. Players promote
the story line. You do something and it may work, it may not. It depends on
how much time you spend, how many people are behind you, .... You could
conceivably gain entrance to a house (guild) and take it over. (You have to
work hard of course... but when you take over, you WILL be written into the
history books... You can name the house for a new destiny... whatever).
check it out. You'll be impressed, it's kind of hard to explain, but it's
been done
~Stephen Hey
"Robert Tweed" <rob...@killingmoon.com> wrote in message
news:9mkfja$2psek$1...@ID-99544.news.dfncis.de...
Joel Wellington
>actually played the game, it's pure coincidence. I did however, name a
>previous company Frontier Technologies as a reference to Elite (and also
>designed a logo based on the starship Enterprise).
What are you talking about???
I never made any reference to your company - I didnt know you even
*had* a company. I was using the game as an example of well used cut
scenes to show story.
Robert Tweed
Yeah, I know but I just thought I'd mention it in case anyone spotted the
similarity between the game and my email address.
- Robert
Joel Wellington
>similarity between the game and my email address.
Oh! I never noticed that before!
I was using Under a Killing Moon as an example because I think it has
really meaningful and well used cut scenes.
Sorry about any confusion.
Robert Tweed
I suppose I should really try to find a copy of the game, given the
similarity and the fact that I haven't ever seen it.
- Robert
Joel Wellington
and it had 4 cd's which was quite rare for its time.
Has quasi 3D first person navigation and a humerous storyline with cut
scenes done in full motion video.
I enjoyed it (but its no Trespasser =)))) hehe couldnt resist... )
heres a review with screen shots
http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/zones/reviews/pc/uakm-r.html
Robert Cob
I personally think that you can sucessfully mix both linear and non linear
in a game. I am writing a game now that has a mix of the two. What I am
trying to do is give the player character (it's an RPG BTW) a background and
from that background have it drive the main quest. Say you'r family was
murdered, your main quest is to find the guy who did it. I am going to set
up a whole quest series for each background I can come up with (I have 24
right now). But the entire adventure will take place in a world that is
time driven, that is, the events in the world will continue on even if the
player just sits there for hours on end. The real trick is to not allow the
player to get lost in the shuffel, to make him/her feel important even
though in actuallity he is not.
The best way to do this, I think, is to have events that will happen, such
as a war between two nobles. The PC, on his personal quest will indirectly
or directly change the outcome of the battle, and in most instances, the PC
will somehow realize what a part he has played.
Thats my peice,
and BTW, to leave Baator in Planescape (I think that is what the place was
called), I just made a mad dash to the exit and got back with only a little
damage for all my characters.
l8a
ROB