next »

[Lyx]

Okay, one more post, because i just noticed something significant. Basically, i'm going to go full-circle back to my first post in this thread.

In that post, i pointed out that most linear stories contain no mechanics, no "why". The story may explain the why, but if it happens in a program, the program actually understands nothing about whats going on. Thus, the program mechanics have no clue how to react, if stuff changes. The programmer basically has to constantly hold the hand of the program, and tell it how to deal with every single difference.

Later in that post, i mentioned that in my current project, i make it so that the decision-logic of the AI often (though, not always) does not depend on past events, but instead on the state of the involved characters. Now, the important difference between "event" and "state" in that regard is, that the app doesnt really understand an event - but it can understand and do maths with its state. So, in the case of events, you'd need to deal with every possible combination in the game as a unique exception - you again need to hold the app's hand - with states, you dont, because you can apply a generic decision logic.

Notice a pattern?

Now, with the talk about ecosystems, quests, consequences, plot and so on, i think we are dealing with a similiar pattern. Most current games have nearly no accountability at all. Things appear out of thin air and there is magic everywhere (why does that remind me about modern physics?). What's happening? Well, the programmer again is holding the app's hands, and tells it how to cast the right spells.

Hmmhmm. I wonder what would happen if you wouldn't start "spawning" things out of thin air, to begin with? I wonder what would happen, if instead you defined a limited set of resources for the entire gameworld, then define which products can be created from which resources. Interesting thing here is: You may skip steps via magic - as long as stuff doesnt appear out of thin air (no resources needed). I wonder what would happen if you wouldn't just "cast" stories of "loved ones" out of thin air, but instead programmed right into the game logic that NPCs may fall in love with each other. Furthermore, i wonder what would happen, if you then add need driven tasks to the world, so that things start moving.... hmmmm....

- Lyx

[Glaiel-Gamer]

i made my computer generate a dynamic story

http://spamtheweb.com/ul/upload/140509/47130_pokemaxcaveodyssey.txt

I'd say it's powerful and emotional, wouldn't you?

[Lyx]

LOL

Dont say you were the one commenting on the emily short article on the frontpage? :-P

[Pacian]

You know, lately I've been playing quite a few turn-based strategy games.  Two of these games had the worst integration of story and gameplay I've ever seen.  The bits where I was moving little people around on a grid felt completely unrelated to the bits where characters were talking to one another.  But in another couple of these games, I really felt like in the gameplay sections I was helping these characters to struggle towards their urgent goals.

In both of these cases, the story was completely linear - in the sense that the player has no control over what happens, or what order it happens in (actually, I think one of the games with poor integration had a branching story, but I couldn't get into it enough to find out).  The thing that the games I liked did differently was that, although the gameplay never affected the storyline, the storyline was constantly affecting the gameplay.  If a character turned out to be a traitor, if you were lured into a trap, if someone who'd gone for reinforcements turned up when your back was against the wall, it was all stuff that you had to react to in the game.

I certainly think that games should explore dynamic, interactive narrative.  But I also don't think we should fall into the trap of assuming that players can't genuinely participate in a linear story.