next »

[droqen]

Hmm; that title is awkward. Oh well.

What do you think about games where they are single-player -- but to access the full experience requires other players (to some extent)? You never interact with the other players in the game, but you rely on interactions outside of the game to enhance your experience.

Obviously I have an idea in mind, this idea being a game where as you go through it, you pick up items that maybe nobody else will pick up. The items will be saved as simple text files (with a code to ensure no faking) which can then be shared.

Anyway: thoughts?


Would it be bad to limit players in what they can achieve alone?

Or might it add a sense of being able to help others -- and a sense of bonding between those who can help one another?

[SirNiko]

Your concept isn't clear to me, though I suspect you're being vague on purpose to protect your idea.

Metroid Prime 3 did something precisely like you describe, but it was a bad experience for me. In the game, you collect coupons for completing achievements, like defeating an optional boss or killing a certain number of foes. The coupons have no use to the player who collects them, however. Instead, you must send the coupons to a different player, who can cash them in for cosmetic bonuses like bumper stickers for the spaceship, or a bobblehead that sits on the ship's dash. Personally, I did not find it to be enjoyable. Because my personal friends did not have the game (and if they did, were unlikely to be able to collect enough coupons to trade me) I had to hit up message boards on GameFAQS and make trades with complete strangers. Add to that that you could (and would) trade coupons to somebody and get nothing in return, and it really didn't add anything to the game. However, you could play without the bonuses.

Everyone knows about Pokemon's trading. There were certain pokemon (a number of them, actually) that could only be obtained by trading. Furthermore, there were some pokemon that won't evolve into their most powerful form unless you trade them away. I think everyone has, at some point, gotten together with a friend just to trade pokemon back and forth to ensure both players get one of each pokemon. Some players even just get a second gameboy and trade between two of their own cartridges. For me, it meant trading with a sibling, so it wasn't a bad experience. I would have preferred more options for battling than mandatory trading, personally.

Zelda: Phantom Hourglass operated a little differently, and for me, it was a much more positive experience. You collected various "treasures", like bits of coral and seashells. The game assigned random values to these at start, so you might wind up with one game where coral is worth a ton of gold, and seashells were worth pennies. There was a place where you could put items in pots that you didn't want. After playing a multiplayer match with another player, any items in your pots would be traded with the other player automatically (You could also skip playing multiplayer and just trade to trade too). If you were lucky, the other player might have put in a piece of coral that was worthless to him, but was valuable to you. So, engaging in the trading minigame was fun and useful to earn fast cash. If you didn't have anyone to trade with, you could just skip it and collect the rupees yourself. It was a much more positive experience.

I think you can use these sorts of systems to create camaraderie, although it's important to ensure that the system benefits both players using it. Better yet, make it so the act of 'trading', however it goes, is a fun activity in itself. A good measure I read on another forum suggests that you strip away the reward from the activity, and ask yourself if it's still fun without the reward. If the answer is "no", you should reconsider that specific design.

If you present more specifics on your concept, and what you want to get from it, I can give you some more detailed feedback.

-SirNiko

[droqen]

Those are interesting! Though I'm not sure if I can totally apply them to my current concept, it offers nice insight into where it has been done elsewhere. I feel like this might be at least a bit better, since it's going to be free and you don't have to worry about friends not having it.

Certainly, I can.

The current concept is:
A player has a bunch of levels created for him (uniquely), and there exist (for example) 10 different items, with variable stats. Certain items are required to access some parts of the levels (which would be rather large, and not linear), and without any external items, it's impossible to experience all of the content.

The main gameplay should be relatively solid, if rather static. It will be obvious that you are unable to access some areas, and reaching the very end should be a challenge (hopefully).

When you collect a Treasure, it saves a file on your computer. There isn't a notion of trading so much as there is one of simply sharing. If you get someone to play the game and they find a really special treasure (one you don't have, or one that's simply got high random stats) then you can copy it as many times as you like.

There may be other treasures beyond items you can equip -- possibly ones to even unlock further levels, or to unlock your own levels to be played by someone else? (Maybe. I must admit part of the draw of this idea, to me, is that it will get people to tell their friends to try it -- if just to get their treasures!)

__________

Other idea, while not quite fitting into what I'm talking about:

A game where in-game weather is based off of local weather snatched off of some weather website somewhere. Weather would be a big part of the game.

Would it be limiting to realize to progress to the north you need to wait for a really rainy day (assuming there are alternate interesting places to explore to the west/east/south)? Or would it be worth it for the "oh my god it's raining really hard today, I wonder what that will do"?

[george]

I think it's a good idea in general. I like that about the weather too.

Also, look up Demon Souls.

[gunmaggot]

The Pokemon Mystery Dungeon games incorporate this kind of gameplay, might want to check them out.  If you get ko'd in a dungeon, you can have a buddy remotely 'rescue' you so you don't take as much of a penalty for being revived.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon_Mystery_Dungeon:_Explorers_of_Time_and_Explorers_of_Darkness

[Parthon]

That's an interesting idea.

Would it be just a case of rewarding those that enjoy sharing?
Would soloists be missing out because they have no friends?

The expanded content would have to be non-essential in the first place, just to stop soloists from getting stuck, but beyond that, anything is really possible.

The aim would be to have players end up with more to gain, but nothing to lose, if they shared content. Solo players wouldn't worry about missing out on anything, because the 'bonus' stuff is just that. After they've finished the game as much as they want then they can put it aside, satisfied that it's done. For the ones that have finished the game and want more, they can trade codes with friends to unlock new areas and explore more. They can kill the big secret bosses in the hidden dungeons and get new items unheard of, all of which have nothing to do with the story.

---
Just a quick game idea:

A game where you are a lone(or group) space salvager cleaning up an old space station to take it over. Once you've fought and cleaned up all the areas of the station and restored power to the entire thing the final computer gives you a 20 letter code that you can give to others. When you enter other people's codes into the computer, you get a piece of their space station to attach to yours, one that's got more enemies and goodies in. On top of that it makes your space station bigger and you need to clear the new area and activate the power to it. Then you can get/enter another code.

The trick is that you get to place the piece of their station, but it could be a weird shape or size and you could just reject it and hope for a better code. Or the player could try and get a massive super-stupidly huge space station covering several kms. Each new part could be slightly themed towards a particular type of enemy or item. Even still: Each new part added to the space station makes the code longer.
---

So yeah, there's definately potential.

[jwk5]

Spore comes to mind in this regard since you are usually filling the game world you are playing in with creatures and vehicles and whatnot made by other people.

What I think would be kind of cool is an RPG that is split up into 6 or so different characters' stories. Each story is played by a different player (as a single player game) but the events triggered by one player's progress affect the game world of the other 5 players. They could even go so far as to lay 'traps' for one another (maybe triggering battles and other such events at certain points). The players would never actually be encountered by one another but the NPCs would speak of things they've done.

[droqen]

Eek. Lots of responses

george, thanks. I think I saw a 2d platformer that did something very similar to Demon Souls, except... er, much simplified. It was pretty cool, though I wondered what it would have been like with more depth. Now I'll know o: (except I don't have a ps3 >_>)

gunmaggot, I knew about that -- though I think it'd be rather different, since that relies on demanding a friend's presence, doesn't it? I didn't like the idea very much when I first heard about it and I think the concept of single-player + other-interaction works better more passively (in terms of when people play, anyway). Still, interesting; thanks for bringing it up!

Parthon! I've said this before but I love your design brains, despite that not being a phrase that anybody uses, ever. I feel like if I work too much to keep the soloist happy, the world-expanding experience of one with friends is, at best, limited. I would definitely want to ensure a semi-full game experience (if short) for the person who plays alone, but the expanded content would always be there, teasing the player with "get some friiieeeenndds".
And yes -- since I'd be working on a pretty much everything-is-copyable basis, so there would be only sharing, no trading.
---
And I love it. My god, I love it. I was momentarily doubting it, then I realized I was only doubting my own capability to make it work!
It is moving away from my original concept (where you would get items and possibly some level-unlock items), but it sounds very awesome. Could definitely make weird, variable-shaped space stations, and perhaps it would be impossible to get into some rooms without friend-piece-attachments because they only have doors to the "outside"?
---
Yes, I will have to dwell.

jwk5:
Spore is a really different beast, though I can see where you're coming from. As long as you understand none of the content is "player-made" (in this idea, not Spore), it's all good
& that's not really the same at all o: Interesting, but unrelated. It would be cool, though.

[gunmaggot]

I knew about that -- though I think it'd be rather different, since that relies on demanding a friend's presence, doesn't it? I didn't like the idea very much when I first heard about it and I think the concept of single-player + other-interaction works better more passively (in terms of when people play, anyway). Still, interesting; thanks for bringing it up!

No actual presence is required, but it makes demands on the other player in terms of asking them to go down into the dungeon.  They can do it in their own time, provided you don't get fed up waiting for them to accept the mission.  It's really just giving them another mission, with its own reward, which is what the entire game revolves around.  It's not like Demon's Souls where other players are actually in there with you.  You can also send other players mail with new pokemon/missions/attacks/lawn ornaments etc.

[Caitlin]

I generally dislike when a game is somewhere on the borderline of single-player and multiplayer, but your description sounds promising. The fact that you plan on your game being free makes it easier to convince friends to play and interact, but do you have any way of making sure that people don't just create several different accounts in order to get more bonuses? Or do you care if they do?

[Parthon]

I'd create a requirement of something drastic to get the code, or being allowed to enter codes, like defeating a major boss at least 70% the way through the game, or even having to finish the game first. Perhaps even one code per install, or one code per computer. It really depends on the overall goal of the design of the game really. If it was a more relaxed casual game, I would just let them create multiple codes for themselves.

This definately wouldn't be a game for the completionists, or the solists. They wouldn't be excluded of course, but it wouldn't also be the main demographic. It's definately for the group of people who love the game so much they want to continue playing, even though they have completed it and those people who love sharing the game experience with friends, but not always in a concurrent multiplayer way. I get the impression that this combined group of people is bigger than we think and so very often neglected by game producers.

[droqen]

(Welcome to the TIGplacething, Caitlin o: Bizarre that I would check the new-people thread that one time and then have my thread get your first second, but sort of first post.)

In fact I do! I'll explain that in a sec.

Parthon: There is something of the sort. I know that you brought up requiring the defeating of the whole space station, which would be good, but I was actually thinking one code per computer. My original concept was inspired by Dungeon if you've heard of it by cactus + mr. podunkian.

Basically, the game finds a unique number based on various computery details.

In my case, I'd use that number as the seed for a computer's unique random map generation (it would be saved so it doesn't have to generate it every time, of course, but if you deleted the map file it would just give you the same one)!

Finally, I think that's a very good analysis, Parthon! And though I haven't thought about it much, I think I might just fall into that group of people... On a small tangent (about what you said earlier, the idea in general) giving people the keys (or something like them) to your own personally generated level is an appealing concept, as it lets you share your exact and full experience (except possibly from a different direction) with other people, which is nice. I wonder if I could combine that with sharing items, or if it's even necessary.


One more thing- Caitlin, me too. I think I generally dislike the is it single-player or is it multi-player boundary, but somehow this idea felt so much more right! (I hope you slogged through the above to find the answer to multi-accounts)

[SirNiko]

I think the best way for such a thing is to make it so that a single player can unlock all the content themselves (They'd just make a second account/character/whatever to do it anyway) but make it more efficient to work with a friend. Sort of like the pokemon games where one pokemon was common in one version and rare in the other: if you wanted it in your game and didn't want to be bothered, you could grind until you found one, but it was much easier to catch two common ones and trade one with a buddy.

This was single players can play and have fun, and multiplayers are rewarded for playing together.

I'd resist the urge to outright lock content without a friend (like one code per computer) because people will just go the long way to get around it (emulating a second OS to trick it into giving them another code).

You might even go so far as to make the game include some massive puzzle that will take tons of players working together to solve, such as an area so big, that it's easier to divvy up several players to check different sections and report back what, if anything, they find. Or maybe rarely dropped items that give clues, so players post on a board which clues they have until everyone finds them all and can put them together.

Those puzzles will be meaningless in a month when there's a youtube walkthrough that shows all the answers, but in the short-term it'll be an enjoyable group activity, even if you're only lurking in the background watching other people discover the answers.

-SirNiko

[droqen]

SirNiko, I really like this idea (with bits removed for conciseness):

include some massive puzzle that will take tons of players working together to solve, or maybe rarely dropped items that give clues

But despite the ability to circumvent the system, every system based on external data has to accept it: As just one example, Animal Crossing uses local time data to date events, and age the town and fill it with weeds and such. People frequently mess around with the time data to get to the events that they want.

I would do my best to ensure that every bit of the core gameplay is there without a friend: it's only the extent of it which is limited. I actually kind of like the concept of having something more rare on your side and more common for someone else, though... (but randomly generated)

edit:: There is not really any way for me to totally combat people using the system to artificially get new areas, but my hopes are that if someone does that it will only be for single-player purposes -- in that case, they will be able to, through some effort, experience everything but at the same time I hope they will avoid pumping a whole bunch of "fakes" into the pool of multi-players.


In any case, I may certainly find myself adding rare puzzle pieces that must be put together to get the whole story (or something); I find myself liking that idea a lot, but not as the core component of multiplayer expansion. The single player will hopefully have a relatively full and entertaining, if slightly short, experience.

Thank you for the feedback; I think I'm still dead-set on the multi-player being very relatively expansive.

[X3N]

Pokemon (95% of pokemon available on one version, requires another player to trade).

yes i made the actual % up, pokemon fans