Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
Short post this morning cause I'm short on time.
Grant: Mine uses multiple meshes, each made up of multiple sets of polygons. I don't think it would be too difficult to convert my format to your engine.
I'm not entirely sure how the story telling or character developement will work yet, since I haven't got that far. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img] Story-driven at the moment in that quests that forward the story will be most important, and the aim of the game won't be to build up your character. So don't expect an RPG where you have to have the ultimate character to finsih the game. Being able to finish it with any character type and size would be better in my opinion. The character developement for your character will obviously involve the standard RPG stuff, but possibly something more as well. I won't be going for a game where people spend all their time running around hunting monsters to get lots of experience because that's boring. Story is everything. Hell, I don't even know if I'll have experience yet. I'm just babbling. I might have a system where the only way to advance your character is through advancing the story, and how you advance the story defines your character. You never know. I would also like NPCs to play a big role in this sort of game. Not sure how yet. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
Woah, look at the time. Got to run, more later.
------------------
[b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
The Balance provides. The Balance protects.
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
"Game" to me implies "puzzle" or "irrelevant test of skill." I'd also certainly like computer entertainment to pass that stage.
I'd just like to mention a distinction between drama-driven and character-driven. A dramatically driven response to my example would be to identify the evil action and arrange/influence things to make the protagonist suffer for those actions. A character-driven response would be to darken the NPCs thoughts towards my character, possibly causing one or more to act against me. Same result; Mr Protagonist suffers for his deed.
Now, are these the same things? Are they two different implementations of the same basic concept?
[quote]Your goals would have to do with a dramatic situation, instead of just "winning" a game.[/quote]
[i]*Sigh*[/i] How ideal that would be. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img] A planned feature of my first dramatic (or whatever you want to call it) engine will be Movie Mode, where the game is edited (by the computer) into a two hour (or whatever is appropriate) movie showing the most important dramatic occurrences in the game - and from viewpoints other than the main character. (The Director AI could be quite fun to write!)
[quote]Since we are expanding our topics at Firstones, perhaps folks would like to have an area for discussing interactive storytelling, interactive drama, and character AI? What better place to meet than Firstones?[/quote]
Sounds great to me. It would be an area well frequented by myself.
Thanks for the links! Looks like it'd take an age for me to work through them all. I'll keep them for later. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
I've traded a couple of emails with Chris too... although I felt a bit like an urchin talking to a master, never sure if the conversation was beneficial or a pain in the ass to him. In any case, I have no proof of my concepts, so with his wishes of luck, I'll finish my ideas before bothering him any further. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
That yearly gathering would be awesome. I think I'd be drunk with listening to the ideas. I do visit the site quite often (I must go check it again now), and as I say I've read most of his library including the reports.
Let me know if/when the new forum areas open up! (As I say, I don't watch this whole group of forums... too many for a non-B5 fan to look through. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/frown.gif[/img] )
Biggles:
Sorry, didn't realise that. I believed your system had one main mesh with lists of vertices for each bone.
Just thought I'd add something, since Biggles and I have mentioned that we're helping/learning from each other.
Biggles is credited in my game as "Biggles the Normal," for his work on calculating normals of a mesh. He performed the experiments that proved a flaw in my normal calculation algorithm, so we both have it working properly now.
Similarly, I also have a credit for the "Magical Rainbow Sheep." Magical for his ability to point me towards parts of my code that create [b]strange[/b] bugs, and Rainbow because he could get coloured DirectX lighting to work where I could not. ("Sheep" is just his nickname.)
Somehow I have to incarnate Biggles and Sheep into my game when it's properly completed. I could end up with a very dodgy game.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
Both are easy. One of the characters can be a lightsabre-ing sheep, the other can be a guy in a biplane with a lightsabre hanging off the end. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
I think the drama-driven game would prove to be more realistic, as the world (and so the story) as a whole would be affected by your actions. Each character could base how they treat you on a set of variables stored in the world that defines something like your reputation. Perhaps some characters won't have heard of you, so will treat you differently by ignoring the "reputation" value. However, a character driven game would have each character base how they treat you on what they hear about you and what their experiences are like, so there is the ability to have a different reputation with each character in a different way to how a drama one would do it. Am I speaking crap here?
------------------
[b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
The Balance provides. The Balance protects.
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
This is what I mean by the difference between character-driven and drama-driven:
To me "character-driven" seems limited in scope to issues of character development, character conflict, etc.
To me "drama-driven" means that all of the tools of drama, which include character development, are adapted as rules by which the interactive experience goes forward. This adaptation of the tools of drama is of course at the core of my recent article.
So – to bring this home – some examples:
The steps in the evolution of the hero’s journey, as described by Campbell, would be adapted to trigger influence in the interactive experience when pre-flagged events take place, that is - when the hero discovers that the status quo of his world is out of balance, when the hero tries to refuse the call to put things in order, when a mentor chides and supports the hero to accept the challenge, when the hero makes a commitment to the challenge, when the hero looks for allies, when the hero battles gate keepers, when the hero gets to the innermost sanctum of the antagonistic forces, when the hero battles the antagonistic forces and seems to be loosing, to the surprising action the hero instigates to swing things towards a resolution - good or bad - etc.
The goals, biases, and methods of the hero would be derived from dramatic principles, so that a quest would evolve from the attempt the hero makes at obtaining the goal.
The goal itself, and the context of the goal would be derived from classic dramatic situations.
The antagonistic forces would be likewise derived from standard dramatic principles – in other words, the antagonist would have clearly defined goals, biases and methods created to conflict miserably with the intent of the hero.
The interactive experience would be somehow arranged so that specific dramatic material would only be available during an appropriate “act” so that a development of dramatic tension could follow an arc that leads to a climax and resolution – this to guarantee that the experience would never seem “flat” or going nowhere, or pointless. In other words, each step the hero takes should both seem to be leading to the goal, and also leading to greater and greater difficulty.
Etc.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
I feel I may be getting a little out of my depth here. I'm just a programmer. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
I'll have to enlist Randy's help when it comes time to create a story.
------------------
[b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
The Balance provides. The Balance protects.
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
[quote]I think the drama-driven game would prove to be more realistic, as the world (and so the story) as a whole would be affected by your actions. Each character could base how they treat you on a set of variables stored in the world that defines something like your reputation. Perhaps some characters won't have heard of you, so will treat you differently by ignoring the "reputation" value. However, a character driven game would have each character base how they treat you on what they hear about you and what their experiences are like, so there is the ability to have a different reputation with each character in a different way to how a drama one would do it.[/quote]
I believe both cases you gave there are both character-driven. (By my definitions at least.) I'll define my viewpoints in my response to Randy; feel free to read. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
[quote]I feel I may be getting a little out of my depth here. I'm just a programmer.[/quote]
I agree. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img] I'm not trying to be mean though. I can only paddle myself. I get a bit flustered when people like Randy start quoting drama techniques (hero's journey etc). I just try to program what makes sense to me. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
If you want to catch up, my best recommendation is to read the works of Chris Crawford. ( [url="http://www.erasmatazz.com"]www.erasmatazz.com[/url] , click on "Library.") He has a huge amount of storytelling essays there, explaining why branching-story systems don't work, philisophising on systems that [i]might[/i] do the job, etc etc. Definately above the level of "write a short story and insert action scenes between each paragraph."
Randy:
Great response. My turn to provide a definition of character- and drama-driven:
I envisage "character-driven" as an a-life simulation, with various characters making their own plans and living their own life, while interacting with each other. If the simulation is seeded with the protagonist in one state trying to reach another (e.g. killing a bad-guy; rescuing a princess) then the player's goal is to negotiate the simulation until the goal is met.
This could be implemented with intelligent agents and a story-world simulation. It could be fun, but also random and relies on emergant drama to make a successful story. Mr Crawford doesn't believe this would be a successful scheme, and I generally agree, but feel that it would be a very important base on which to build drama.
"Drama-driven" story-telling alters the story-world to fit with some dramatic technique or context. Characters' dialogue is changed/influenced to match the context. Events are fabricated (i.e. triggered on schedule) to enhance the drama.
This is all very well, but it does require a good game base to build on. Most RPGs use the branching conversation with static NPCs technique as a base. (And just don't build on it!) I contend that the intelligent agents form a great base for a drama layer. The drama engine can simply re-arrange, add to, delete from, or force certain parts of the simulation to occur. (Character placement; character actions; etc.)
--End definitions.--
Implementation, of course, is the biggie. [i]Interesting[/i] intelligent agents is a big project. Intelligently adjusting a story-world to drama is another big project.
I agree fully with your hero's journey example. I personally am looking towards George Polti's 36 Dramatic Situations ([url="http://www.gamedev.net/reference/articles/article255.asp"]click here[/url] for a list) as the base for a drama engine, but going through steps very similar to those you listed. i.e. Forcing situations that sit with the theme, situation or idea.
[quote]The interactive experience would be somehow arranged so that specific dramatic material would only be available during an appropriate “act” so that a development of dramatic tension could follow an arc that leads to a climax and resolution – this to guarantee that the experience would never seem “flat” or going nowhere, or pointless.[/quote]
That paragraph reminded me of a great many adventure and RPG games where conversations with NPCs wouldn't change until some milestone was met, upon which time suddenly every NPC had a new conversation tree. (Or an addition to the existing tree.) To be honest, I don't like the scheme at all. (Is this what you were referring to?)
I want to take the character/drama idea a step further in my implementation, and this leads to my disagreement with the Annie/Grampa analog. (I hope you're familiar with it?) Grampa (the computer) sets the theme and most action, where Annie (the player) intercedes with some action choices. I believe the opposite should be true. The player should set the theme, leaving the computer to moderate the action. (How interactive is a Romeo & Juliet game (to use that classic example) if your character is forced to fall in love? Shouldn't the player be allowed to choose his choice of partner, and to decide to abandon his match instead of committing suicide? Shouldn't the computer adjust the world to match whatever theme the player wants to act out?) To that end, the computer has the job of identifying which theme (or dramatic situation from that list I linked to) most matches the player's desires. The simulation is then weighted towards supporting that. That [i]sounds[/i] like a big challenge, but given a good enough base, I believe it should be somewhat easier.
Excuse my spouting. Please tell me to shut up if I'm spurting too much! [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
By the way, if I may ask, what project(s) are you currently working on, Randy?
[i]Edit: Learn to spell, Grant![/i]
[This message has been edited by GrantNZ (edited 10-19-2001).]
First let me say that after reading your reply I get the feeling that we’re actually agreeing more than not, but just coming at the same conclusion from different perspectives.
[quote][b]I agree. I'm not trying to be mean though. I can only paddle myself. I get a bit flustered when people like Randy start quoting drama techniques (hero's journey etc). I just try to program what makes sense to me. [/b][/quote]
Ops. Maybe I assume too much with my examples. But this brings up a good point. The evolution of interactive entertainment will be facilitated by an interdisciplinary approach, and by Renaissance people. I think that the recent trend towards intense specialization in colleges and universities impedes progress in some ways. Though of course I understand that some areas of investigation are so complex that it takes specialization (focused study), it is wise to also have a well-rounded background education, if only to help with creativity – brainstorming – or just an increased appreciation of living.
So – in terms of interactive entertainment, perfect candidates for helping to evolve the art will have not only a specialty in the technical arts of sim creation, but also a background in the arts – or the opposite – a specialty in the arts with a background in the technical aspects. This will facilitate communication across departments, and the cross-fertilization of ideas.
[quote][b]Randy:
Great response. My turn to provide a definition of character- and drama-driven: [/b][/quote]
Go man, go.
[quote][b]I envisage "character-driven" as an a-life simulation, with various characters making their own plans and living their own life, while interacting with each other. If the simulation is seeded with the protagonist in one state trying to reach another (e.g. killing a bad-guy; rescuing a princess) then the player's goal is to negotiate the simulation until the goal is met.
This could be implemented with intelligent agents and a story-world simulation. It could be fun, but also random and relies on emergent drama to make a successful story. Mr Crawford doesn't believe this would be a successful scheme, and I generally agree, but feel that it would be a very important base on which to build drama. [/b][/quote]
Nit-picker here: what is an [i]a-life simulation[/i]? Does this mean a simulation of artificial life? Hee, hee. If so, I think that we can safely say that we want [i]real artificial life[/i], rather than a simulation of artificial life. LOL. Yes, I know I’m a wise ass. :-D
If I implied that drama-driven would be opposed to a simulation base, then I misrepresented myself. Indeed, I think that the best base for interactive drama would be a simulation.
[quote][b]
"Drama-driven" story-telling alters the story-world to fit with some dramatic technique or context. Characters' dialogue is changed/influenced to match the context. Events are fabricated (i.e. triggered on schedule) to enhance the drama.
This is all very well, but it does require a good game base to build on. Most RPGs use the branching conversation with static NPCs technique as a base. (And just don't build on it!) I contend that the intelligent agents form a great base for a drama layer. The drama engine can simply re-arrange, add to, delete from, or force certain parts of the simulation to occur. (Character placement; character actions; etc.)
--End definitions.—[/b][/quote]
I certainly don’t disagree with this, although I would like further discussion of this: “Events are fabricated (triggered on schedule) to enhance the drama.” This summation is more simplistic than what I have in mind.
Just to be clear, “events” needn’t imply pre-produced or non-interactive in a sim world. Instead, events could unfold as a result of the interactions of experiencer (I prefer this to “player” – trying to get away from the idea of “game”) and NPC’s. Always, the intent would be to never pull the experiencer out of the drama – to never remind the experiencer that this simulation of a dramatic situation is artificial.
Instead, the a-world would be set up early, so that the experiencer knows what level of “willingness to suspend disbelief” to take – and then aim to keep the experiencer in a state of altered consciousness for the duration.
When I write of an engine that is based on the tools of drama, I intend an invisible, well-integrated influence, that never communicates a “hand of God” kind of manipulation (unless the drama is about God’s manipulations!).
So, there would be no “events” that “enhance” drama. Instead there would be a constantly evolving experience that is based on the principals of drama. In other words – a “drama sim” featuring digital locations and synthetic actors, into which the experiencer would be inserted. But I think that you’d agree, going by your following statement:
[quote][b]Implementation, of course, is the biggie. Interesting intelligent agents is a big project. Intelligently adjusting a story-world to drama is another big project. [/b][/quote]
[quote][b]I personally am looking towards George Polti's 36 Dramatic Situations…[/b][/quote]
Great idea, and thanks for the link – now part of my interactive storytelling favorites list.
quote:
The interactive experience would be somehow arranged so that specific dramatic material would only be available during an appropriate “act” so that a development of dramatic tension could follow an arc that leads to a climax and resolution – this to guarantee that the experience would never seem “flat” or going nowhere, or pointless.
[quote][b]That paragraph reminded me of a great many adventure and RPG games where conversations with NPCs wouldn't change until some milestone was met, upon which time suddenly every NPC had a new conversation tree. (Or an addition to the existing tree.) To be honest, I don't like the scheme at all. (Is this what you were referring to?) [/b][/quote]
The problem with this scheme is that when the experiencer has used up all possible responses before the next conversation tree is available, and then at this point either gets no response at all (which may not be right for the character of the NPC or for the dramatic moment), or begins to get the same answers all over again (which at best creates an obstinate NPC character), we get into a situation where the program is starting to tell the experiencer that this is, after all, not real – and so the experiencer falls out of the altered state of consciousness, and out of the drama.
In our space combat sim we divided missions into five libraries. The missions in each library were constructed to achieve the dramatic tension and degree of difficulty that was appropriate for five divisions of the sim, which were equivalent to both the traditional idea of “levels” in games, and also a five-act dramatic structure.
The sim engine would constantly check the state of the sim world in order to judge which of the possible missions within an act/level would most closely match the current evolution of the sim world state.
In addition, this missions were not on rails. Instead, “missions” were macro instructions to races by way of re-prioritizing race goals, plus forced limitations on the assets that could be used, plus a forced theater of conflict. How the campaign was to be waged was entirely up to the race, given its “personality”, assets, and current logistical profile.
Story information was imbedded into ship to ship and ship to station communications in the theater of operation. Other previous story information set up the dramatic conflicts by foreshadowing the dramatic situation involved in each of the missions.
I see what we did as a starting point for the creation of a [i]drama sim[/i].
“Missions” could become itineraries for NPC’s or groups of NPC’s, or the experiencer – or, indeed, “missions”, if that idea is appropriate for the drama, says if it has to do with covert activities or something. When all “itineraries”, for example, were completed for an act, the game engine would invisibly move to the “missions”, or “activities”, or “dramatic actions”, of the next act.
Regarding the problem of NPC’s dialogue interactions, and their appropriateness in a dramatic arc:
I understand that there are some very smart programs being created that are able to parse speech (whether typed, clicked, or voiced), and then make original replies based on the information given in the question.
If this kind of a program were worked into the package of possible actions of each important NPC, along with specific dramatic content in libraries of possible dialogue – libraries which are divided into “acts” , and which are attached to each important NPC - then the combination of the ability to create original replies, and the ability to pull dramatic content from the appropriate libraries, should create a synergy, which approaches a life-like character, no matter when that NPC is encountered.
The responses could be modified by a personality profile, so that the response is “colored” by personality traits, so that the NPC “stays in character”.
[quote][b]
I want to take the character/drama idea a step further in my implementation, and this leads to my disagreement with the Annie/Grampa analog. (I hope you're familiar with it?) Grampa (the computer) sets the theme and most action, where Annie (the player) intercedes with some action choices. I believe the opposite should be true. The player should set the theme, leaving the computer to moderate the action. (How interactive is a Romeo & Juliet game (to use that classic example) if your character is forced to fall in love? Shouldn't the player be allowed to choose his choice of partner, and to decide to abandon his match instead of committing suicide? Shouldn't the computer adjust the world to match whatever theme the player wants to act out?) To that end, the computer has the job of identifying which theme (or dramatic situation from that list I linked to) most matches the player's desires. The simulation is then weighted towards supporting that. That sounds like a big challenge, but given a good enough base, I believe it should be somewhat easier. [/b][/quote]
In an ideal world, it would be nice to be able to plop the experiencer into a simulated world that could go in absolutely any direction. You could fall in love with an NPC, or not, or fall in love with her sister, or have unscrupulous intent in mind, and no matter what the sim would respond, and a dramatic situation would be created that would be emotionally involving.
However…
Despite the allure of a limitless simulated world, without the “direction” of dramatic principles (and that, to a certain though stealthy extent, means control), and without the willingness to constrain oneself for the purpose of actually shipping something, one could end up with a boring, over budget, never-shipping epic battle between developers and producers and marketing types, instead of delivering the epic battle to the experiencer.
Drama and artfully engaging storytelling demand control, but that control needn't be obvious, and indeed should be invisible. Let’s be real, we’re simulating life, not creating life. And while we’re at it we’re adding devices to our simulation that will take the experiencer on an emotional roller coaster, while maintaining the illusion of life. We must remember that we are dealing with illusion. From our side the illusion is a series of problems of craft. From the experiencer’s side the illusion is a wonderful dream.
[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 10-19-2001).]
[quote]First let me say that after reading your reply I get the feeling that we’re actually agreeing more than not, but just coming at the same conclusion from different perspectives.[/quote]
Yep, I agree. Especially after reading your most recent post.
[quote]Ops. Maybe I assume too much with my examples.[/quote]
No, it just shows that you're educated and I'm walking around in the dark. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img] You're right, it does take a broad skillbase to plunge into an evolutionary field. (Or at least people who think outside the box.) And that's definately a major reason games aren't progressing too much at the moment. ("IMHO" goes without saying!) People really have gone pretty much as far as they can with the current paradigms.
[quote]Nit-picker here: what is an a-life simulation? Does this mean a simulation of artificial life?[/quote]
Yeah yeah. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img] I'm definately not capable of developing a simulation of life... simulating food and water and air and all the rest of it... but I can get pretty close! Thus, a simulation of artifial life. Hehehe. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/tongue.gif[/img]
[quote]If I implied that drama-driven would be opposed to a simulation base, then I misrepresented myself. Indeed, I think that the best base for interactive drama would be a simulation.[/quote]
You didn't. But I wanted to make the point. I do believe the two ideas (simulation vs drama) are quite opposite, but need to be mixed to accomplish the goal.
[quote]Just to be clear, “events” needn’t imply pre-produced or non-interactive in a sim world. Instead, events could unfold as a result of the interactions of experiencer (I prefer this to “player” – trying to get away from the idea of “game”) and NPC’s. Always, the intent would be to never pull the experiencer out of the drama – to never remind the experiencer that this simulation of a dramatic situation is artificial.[/quote]
"Experiencer" - nice word! But hey, life's a game, so why not play!
To continue the clarification, I agree. My definition of an "event" would be a modification to a character, an alteration in the story-world, or the alteration of a character's plan of action, but done so the act of altering is completely invisible to the character. And pre-production is an element that I wish to avoid completely.
If I may ask, what is your base motivation for the development of [i]true[/i] interactive entertainment? Mine derives from two elements. Firstly, the desire to create a game that I can play without losing surprise. (As opposed to writing an adventure game, where I would already know all the secrets!) Secondly, the desire to play a game that really wants to adjust itself to and interact with me - i.e. boost my ego. To these ends, pre-production is a sin. I want random characters, random stories, random occurrences, random game length, etc etc...
[quote]Instead, the a-world would be set up early, so that the experiencer knows what level of “willingness to suspend disbelief” to take – and then aim to keep the experiencer in a state of altered consciousness for the duration.[/quote]
Perfect.
My game's first area shall be a training room. (The game is half-action (light-sabre duelling) / half-story. The player/experiencer starts as a young Jedi.) The training area will have just one NPC (a Jedi Master), and two or three rooms. The opaque purpose of the training area is to teach the player how to use his light-sabre. The secret purpose is to allow the player to learn interactions with areas and NPCs.
[quote]The interactive experience would be somehow arranged so that specific dramatic material would only be available during an appropriate “act”...[/quote]
Could you explain your definition of "dramatic material" for me please?
[quote]In our space combat sim...[/quote]
A good system, and would work very well within that game context. I didn't realise that "missions" were macro goals. I had assumed that the pre-produced "missions" were similar to Wing Commander missions, with very definite goals and proceedures but in the dynamic battlefield. I suppose I saw the game as Wing Commander with persistant forces and free-flight style missions between important story missions.
Now that I understand it, I definitely like it better!
[quote]I see what we did as a starting point for the creation of a drama sim.[/quote]
Definately. All that's needed now is to generalise it.
My character simulation is aimed at being as generic as possible. Characters have any number of "attributes," where the definitions of an attribute are created by the story-world writer. An attribute could be a physical quantity, a feeling, a skill, [i]anything[/i] deemed important to the story-world creator. A character would have an desired value for each attribute, a profile describing the attribute's change with time or action, and of course a current value. Differences between current and desired values increase a character's stress. Characters can alter a value with certain actions, or decrease the stress from an attribute by conversing about it. (This naturally leads characters to talk about what is most important in their life.)
I'm considering genetic algorithms as a method for a character planning his/her actions. Personality would have an affect on what actions the character would take, or what type of conversation they would hold, but I haven't nutted all that out yet.
I'm also working on a memory system for the characters. (Imagine talking to an NPC about [i]why[/i] they're feeling the way they are, and having them recount the situation.)
My drama engine would simply adjust the actual or desired value of these attributes. A "bad guy" could be given a high "want to mug people" attribute, get dramatically placed near a friend of the player/experiencer, and thus mug that friend. That would drive that friend's attributes in a way that might induce depression. And suddenly the player has a depressed friend on his hands, and an enemy.
It's all just theory at the moment, of course.
[quote]I understand that there are some very smart programs being created that are able to parse speech (whether typed, clicked, or voiced), and then make original replies based on the information given in the question.[/quote]
I must admit that I don't have much hope with natural language systems, at least for the near future. The computer just needs too great an experience base to understand things.
The conversation system that ties in with my character system is based on attributes. A character simply selects an attribute, plan or memory to talk about, a specific topic (e.g. "my [i](insert attribute)[/i] is too low!"), an attitude, and conversation ensues.
It would be a bit dry at first, but as the simulation/drama engines increase in complexity, the conversations will increase in depth.
[quote]In an ideal world, it would be nice to be able to plop the experiencer into a simulated world that could go in absolutely any direction.[/quote]
Exactly. I feel the implementation of Polti's 36 situations would be the best step. Each situation (as you would have seen) has a good number of sub-situations, so implementing each one could take a rather long time, but if implemented in a modular fashion a group of programmers could get there.
(The character system is modular too. Plug 'n' play with attributes and actions.)
[quote]Despite the allure of a limitless simulated world, without the “direction” of dramatic principles (and that, to a certain though stealthy extent, means control), and without the willingness to constrain oneself for the purpose of actually shipping something, one could end up with a boring, over budget, never-shipping epic battle between developers and producers and marketing types, instead of delivering the epic battle to the experiencer.[/quote]
So implement an engine that can handle just one dramatic situation. Add more as needed or wanted. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
It really is a subject more suited to independant developers who don't care about time limits. I can't imagine commercial entities delving deeply until it becomes [i]necessary[/i] to do so.
[This message has been edited by GrantNZ (edited 10-19-2001).]
[quote][b]If I may ask, what is your base motivation for the development of true interactive entertainment? Mine derives from two elements. Firstly, the desire to create a game that I can play without losing surprise. (As opposed to writing an adventure game, where I would already know all the secrets!) Secondly, the desire to play a game that really wants to adjust itself to and interact with me - i.e. boost my ego. To these ends, pre-production is a sin. I want random characters, random stories, random occurrences, random game length, etc etc...[/b][/quote]
My base motivation is to emotionally involve the experiencer – to take him or her on an emotional roller coaster – to make them laugh, cry, become angry, become obsessed, and exalted. This is why I want to get away from the idea of “game”. My motivation isn’t to make someone want to accumulate strength and assets for their character and “win”, but rather to be “moved” and perhaps gain a bit of insight, and of course to spend some time just having fun. In other words, I’d like to create the equivalent sophistication and variety of the best narrative film production, except make it interactive, but in the best way possible – to marry only the best aspects of both mediums. From a personal perspective – I want to get into the holodeck and “believe” the world that I enter for the duration of my experience. And I want to use my holodeck to do and feel things that mundane life doesn’t usually offer – or never offers – like finding a sports version of a UFO one night while on a walk, entering it, and taking off for destinations unknown.
[quote][b] Could you explain your definition of "dramatic material" for me please? [/b][/quote]
I simply mean narrative material that has been designed to support and advance drama.
[quote][b]My character simulation is aimed at being as generic as possible. Characters have any number of "attributes," where the definitions of an attribute are created by the story-world writer. An attribute could be a physical quantity, a feeling, a skill, anything deemed important to the story-world creator. A character would have an desired value for each attribute, a profile describing the attribute's change with time or action, and of course a current value. Differences between current and desired values increase a character's stress. Characters can alter a value with certain actions, or decrease the stress from an attribute by conversing about it. (This naturally leads characters to talk about what is most important in their life.)
I'm considering genetic algorithms as a method for a character planning his/her actions. Personality would have an affect on what actions the character would take, or what type of conversation they would hold, but I haven't nutted all that out yet.
I'm also working on a memory system for the characters. (Imagine talking to an NPC about why they're feeling the way they are, and having them recount the situation.)
My drama engine would simply adjust the actual or desired value of these attributes. A "bad guy" could be given a high "want to mug people" attribute, get dramatically placed near a friend of the player/experiencer, and thus mug that friend. That would drive that friend's attributes in a way that might induce depression. And suddenly the player has a depressed friend on his hands, and an enemy.[/b][/quote]
Very cool. I think that this is a good start. Nevertheless, I would expand the process to include the macro level of the “drama engine”, which invisibly influences the way the experience evolves in order to guarantee a dramatic arc of rising conflict tension, leading to a climax, and then a resolution. I may be misunderstanding, and you may already intend this.
I will be glad when John gets back. He should really be in on this. We've been melding our respective backgrounds on this already, and I'd really like to see what he'd add to our already mighty fine conversation.
[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 10-19-2001).]
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
OK, here we go. I'm going to babble a bit about what I envisage for my game. Much of it may be wrong, or bad, or too much like current stuff, which is what I'm trying avoid since current games suck. Big time. If you see something like that, feel free to correct me. That way I'll get a better system. Also, keep in mind that I am feeling very out of my depth here. I want basically what you want but don't have the knowledge or experience to define it well yet. While you two have taken the plunge into this new field, I have only just left the diving board.
Now that the lengthy disclaimer is out of the way... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
OK, I am going for the role-playing game now, although it could turn into an attribute-less one. I have a basic idea of the overall happenings in the game world, ie what major event(s) is(are) taking place during the period of the story. The general idea is a combo medieval/modern world. It won't be a techno-fantasy world like the one that UO2 was going to be, rather it will be like a modern world without the high technology. Ships still use sails, people still use horses for transport, but they also have things like sewerage (although it probably just gets pumped out to sea or something).
In this world there are essentially three factions. The general population, a faction of people who want the power (and currently have it), and a faction who want those people out. A resistance group, really. The "experiencer" (I like that term) will either be a part of the civilian population dragged into the resistance faction, or would already be a part of the resistance faction. If the start-as-civilian route is taken then the only thing forced on the player throughout the game (we need a new term for that) will be the getting pushed into the resistance thing. After that it's all open ended. New thought coming in: In fact maybe not even that will be forced. Maybe the player could decide which side to join, or join none (although that would be boring). It could be possible to make them join a side by having them get caught up in a fight between the to sides, pick a side to fight for, then have that side attempt to bring them aboard after the fight, and keep trying or kill the experiencer after a while if they say no for the bad side, don't know about the good yet. Anyway, back to the point of the post...
Once the experiencer is in a faction, they would probably start off by being given tasks to perform. The faction should be able to judge their performance at these tasks during game-time and decide what to do with them. For example, if the experiencer does well they might be given harder tasks, or a group of people to command. They might ask for a group of people or people might offer to help out, now that I think of it. Anyway. While all this is going on, the factions will be battling it out, whether the player performs their part or now. Although if they don't they may find some rather pissed off people coming after them. The path of the conflict would continue on, other members of each faction would go about their business, carrying out their actions to achieve their goals and the goals of the factions. Eventually, maybe one faction would win out. If it isn't the experiencer's then they would find themselves hunted (possibly more than before). Since the ultimate aim should be to have your faction win out, then if the rest of your faction ends up dead then the goal could become to recruit civilians and try to continue the work. Or you could just roll over and die. Still need to think about that more I guess... (copy-and-paste backup) OK, next point... I've forgotten my next point. Damn. Still to much stuff going through my mind. Can't design a game and study for exams at the same time...
Ah well, since I'm out of steam far too early, bring on the comments and criticisms! Refine my goals and what I should do, how things work! And remember I'm still just off the diving board over very deep water. So many ideas going round and round in my head... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
PS: If anyone is interested, I already have the entire intro sequence for the game that gives the experiencer the background written in my mind. If you're interested, I'll write it up and post it. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
[edit]For those of you who didn't pick it up, this story idea draws heavily on the "Exiles" trilogy by Melanie Rawn, simply because I like the idea behind those books and thing it has huge potential.[/edit]
------------------
[b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
The Balance provides. The Balance protects.
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
[This message has been edited by Biggles (edited 10-20-2001).]
I think that's a fine starting concept for an interactive experience - the underdog resistance vs. the evil empire (where have I heard that before?). It's classic. People love it.
But what you've said is not focused at all. I’m a firm believer in putting together a very detailed design document before beginning code work. If I were you I'd spend a lot more time defining the details on paper.
If it were me I'd get a basic book on the elements of drama, study it, understand it, and use this background while defining your design document. I'd also study Chris Crawford's material for some out-of-the-box thinking about how interactive entertainment can evolve.
God is in the details.
I was contemplating a massively multi-player design for a time that I never did anything with. The idea was that the experiencer gets plopped down into a city without any background whatsoever. Part of the challenge is to understand what’s going on. Part of the challenge is to figure out who to trust as an ally and who is dangerous. The experiencer never knows what is dangerous, though of course there are obscure clues so that s/he will have a chance to succeed. The experiencer is forced to interact with the environment and with the NPC’s to figure out what’s going on, but doing so is dangerous.
The central conflict is essentially the same as your idea. This city is controlled by an evil corporation – profit is God – people are expendable.
But there’s an underground resistance – power to the people – save the environment.
The experiencer must come to understand the conflict for him/er self, and then decide who to join.
Since everyone in this multi-player environment is represented by an avatar, the experiencers never know if they are encountering an NPC or an avatar of another experiencer. Since experiencers can join either side of the struggle, you could well end up with experiencers fighting, tricking, and baiting either other – along with the synthetic actors, who are all doing the same thing.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
Just a heads up: [url="http://www.gamedev.net/reference/design/features/lowlevel/"]http://www.gamedev.net/reference/design/features/lowlevel/[/url] . Saw that link on GameDev.net not 5 minutes ago. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
The idea of a world where you can't tell the AIs from the real people is a MMORPG designer's wetdream. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img] It would also be very fun to play in.
Personally, I am against developing MMO games. I resent the idea that I have to dial up to an ISP or have a high speed but expensive connection just to play the game. I am a huge fan of the single player experience. I buy games based on single player instead of multiplayer, which is just a side-benefit.
As for my idea: I admit that it does need a lot more design work, but that's just something that has been sitting in my head for a while. Currently I am working on the graphics part of the engine, and I'm following a very tight path towards developing this game. My first goal is to prove to myself that I am capable of creating a game. To do this I am going to make a very simple car racing game. When that goes I'll begin proper design work on the RPGish game. That way I will know that I'm not trying to do something beyond my abilities. Proper drama is still quite new to me. I have an incredible imagination (people tend to have to tap me to get my attention cause I day dream too much), but putting that imagination to good use is still a skill I am developing.
Damn, time's up. Got to go study now. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/frown.gif[/img] Will babble more later. In the mean time, more comments? Still waiting on yours, Grant. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
------------------
[b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
The Balance provides. The Balance protects.
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
[i]Disabling smilies so I can use heaps of them as punctuation but still be able to post[/i]
Alrighty. This will be a long post. I've got a lot to catch up on (I've been out most of the weekend).
Randy:
Nice motivations. :) I suppose mine are similar. I want to start from some initial state of my choosing then explore it.
[i]Mental note:[/i] Make character and drama engines very expandable. They're gonna [i]need[/i] to be - I'm sure with every new initial state I choose, I'll need to have many additions to allow for the possibilities I want to explore.
[quote]... narrative material that has been designed to support and advance drama.[/quote]
How would this material be implemented? Are you thinking of pre-made dramatic pieces (such as scripted speeches or preprepared (heh) branching conversations; prepared scene outlines; scripted bad-guy actions)? Or abstract guidelines fitting a certain dramatic impulse (such as "Act II: Ensure experiencer has a rival, a location goal, and a friend who could grow to be a story-long companion")?
Actually, don't worry too much about answering that. I've forgotten the context in which I originally asked. :)
[quote]Very cool. I think that this is a good start. Nevertheless, I would expand the process to include the macro level of the “drama engine”, which invisibly influences the way the experience evolves in order to guarantee a dramatic arc of rising conflict tension, leading to a climax, and then a resolution. I may be misunderstanding, and you may already intend this.[/quote]
Thank you. :o)
You're right, I do already intend that. The character system that I explained is just the base for the drama engine to work on. I agree that the "macro" drama must be included. I guess that would explain Chris Crawford's dubiety ("to be dubious"? hehe) on agent systems - they don't inherently encourage drama.
[quote]I will be glad when John gets back. He should really be in on this. We've been melding our respective backgrounds on this already, and I'd really like to see what he'd add to our already mighty fine conversation.[/quote]
Absolutely. :) There's nothing to fuel a discussion like four people with four viewpoints. (I'm glad you're still involved here, Biggles; too many people regard interactive drama as too much effort for a game, and end up with a game just like all the others. Keep posting! :o) )
I'm feeling excited. :D It's great to be in an environment where we can discuss something that I'm passionate about.
Biggles:
[quote]If you see something like that [wrong; bad; too much like current stuff], feel free to correct me.[/quote]
[i]*Turns on pedantic-and-picky mode.*[/i] I'm going to make comments that don't attack your ideas, but point out the possible pit-falls. Quite a few comments will just be rehashing things that I've read. To be honest, I think your idea is good already (certainly much better than most I've seen!).
[quote]While you two have taken the plunge into this new field, I have only just left the diving board.[/quote]
Heheh. [i]*Grant starts inventing his own brand-new, horribly-inefficient but probably-does-the-job swimming stroke, whilst Randy combines several strokes based on a great swimming education. Grant puts more effort in so he doesn't get left behind!*[/i]
[quote]The general idea is a combo medieval/modern world. It won't be a techno-fantasy world like the one that UO2 was going to be, rather it will be like a modern world without the high technology.[/quote]
(Based on my readings:) That can be rather dangerous. The player won't really know what to expect, faced with a mix of two familiar concepts. It's a case of not knowing what to expect next (will the next situation involve low-technology or hi-technology)? This goes against the well-supported idea of familiarising the player with the game world as fast as possible, allowing immersion without confusion or unfair surprise.
Let's say the experiencer wants to travel to a different city. He can't guarantee it will be a fast journey (car/train/plane) or a slow one (horse and cart/by foot). So he can't plan ("goodbye friends, I'll be back in a day or a month depending on current technology").
Um, ignore that example. (You said later in your post "people still use horses for transport.") But the idea is still relevant.
(Not based on my readings:) That said, anything can work if it's done well.
[quote]If the start-as-civilian route is taken then the only thing forced on the player throughout the game (we need a new term for that) will be the getting pushed into the resistance thing.[/quote]
How about "interactive story?" Or just "story?" I dunno. :)
For "good" interactivity, there's really only two options. Firstly, the game starts after the character is forced into the resistance. Secondly, the drama is very carefully orchestrated to strongly encourage the experiencer to sign up. (Perhaps the character's suburb is raided by the bad guys (maybe seeking a rebel leader, and willing to kill anyone in the area until he's found?) and his family killed. He's rescued by the rebels and offered a position... and what else is he going to do.
I guess the drama engine needs to enforce more and more "coincidental" crosses with characters from both sides, weakly at first (watching a bad guy hurt someone innocent) and growing in importance (leading to family members dieing in the battles). Few experiencers will refuse to join a side.
[quote]Once the experiencer is in a faction, they would probably start off by being given tasks to perform.[/quote]
Sounds like borrowing the army organisation/planning ideas described by Randy and John would be a good idea. ;)
[quote]Since the ultimate aim should be to have your faction win out, then if the rest of your faction ends up dead then the goal could become to recruit civilians and try to continue the work.[/quote]
A system open-ended enough to cope with this would be very complicated. Or surprisingly simple. All depends on your implementation.
The further you can get away from forced story scenes, the easier this will all be to put into place.
[quote]So many ideas going round and round in my head...[/quote]
Let 'em pour out. :D Our input will refine your ideas, and your input will teach us some new ones. :o)
Back to Randy:
[quote]I think that's a fine starting concept for an interactive experience - the underdog resistance vs. the evil empire (where have I heard that before?). It's classic. People love it.[/quote]
It even has rebel scum. ;)
[quote]But what you've said is not focused at all. I’m a firm believer in putting together a very detailed design document before beginning code work. If I were you I'd spend a lot more time defining the details on paper.[/quote]
I agree with this very strongly. (I happened to advise another game developer to do this, not too long ago.)
Biggles, this is what I suggest you do:
There's a lot of good design doc templates around on the web. Get one. Understand the reasons for all the sections. Go through it and fill all the sections out. Write at least two paragraphs for every section, more if you can. Detail is essential. It's not setting things in stone - design docs can change hugely during development. But having it out there is good. Then go back through the entire document and add more. Add more detail to points. Expand. Explain.
Some people end up with several hundred pages. (Of course that normally includes implementation details too, which neither of us can fully write at this stage. But the important thing is that the vision is fully explained.) Writing the document, and having to explain things in such detail, can really formalise and define the vague ideas that most people start with.
[quote]I'd also study Chris Crawford's material for some out-of-the-box thinking about how interactive entertainment can evolve.[/quote]
[b]Definately.[/b]
[quote]The idea was that the experiencer gets plopped down into a city without any background whatsoever. Part of the challenge is to understand what’s going on.[/quote]
(Based on my readings, (much like some of my opinions with Biggles above):) Ouch. That can be a really nasty start to a game. The game designer has a good knowledge of the game world, so why shouldn't the player? It needs a very good reason for the droppage (e.g. The Nomad Soul - the player's soul inhabits people from another world), and it requires a long period of play where the player has to learn everything and figure everything out. Disorientation to the max. Quite uncomfortable. Oh, and it can kill replayability too. (If badly done, most of the game is involved with learning things, so it's hopelessly simple second time around.)
Then again, as with before, if done right it will work.
[quote]The experiencer is forced to interact with the environment and with the NPC’s to figure out what’s going on, but doing so is dangerous.[/quote]
Similar problem. The player is discouraged from exploring. The player will either use the save/load features extensively, or resist exploration and remain ignorant of the game world for much of the game. Nasty.
Sorry, I'm not trying to idea-bash. But, as entertaining and appealing as the concept is, in practise it can be devoid of much fun. Especially in a multiplayer environment where experienced players know a [i]lot[/i] more than the new ones.
[quote]... the experiencers never know if they are encountering an NPC or an avatar of another experiencer.[/quote]
You'll have AI that can beat the Turing Test? ;) If there's [i]any[/i] complex form of conversation involved, players will know immediately. And because of the problems of natural language understanding, I believe that will be the case for a good many years yet. (Natural language is impossible without a good experience of the world. Computers won't have that for [i]ages.[/i])
Damn, that was quite a negative response. Sorry. :o(
[i]Posting this now - Biggles (over ICQ) says that he wants to start reading. I shall continue in the next post.[/i]
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
Tick... tick... tick...
I'm not getting any younger here, Grant. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
------------------
[b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
The Balance provides. The Balance protects.
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
Ok, continuing my last post to respond to Biggles:
##### Beginning rant about the article Biggles linked to. If you don't want my boring opinion of it, skip to the next # section. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img] #####
Interesting link there... although I must say the author is a bit naive. He's essentially saying that making the game more interactive and responsive will make it more enjoyable. This is correct. He then claims that making it responsive is easy. This is [i]horrendously[/i] wrong.
How does the computer realise that stealing a pair of socks is unusual for a burglary? This assertion can only be made if the computer understands burglary - in this case, understands the normal value removed from a house illegally. That's fine - the designers could in-build the "expected" burglary proceedures and have people talk about deviations from the norm.
But the author also claims the world should be free enough to let the player do a range of things. Which means the computer has to thoroughly understand each possibility in order to respond interestingly. And if the world is free enough that the player can be creative, the computer needs to react in a similarly creative way to understand exactly what the player [i]intended[/i] when he broke in like a burglary but left money behind like a charity. It's a hopelessly complex task (with current technology).
##### And now for something completely different. #####
[quote]Personally, I am against developing MMO games. I resent the idea that I have to dial up to an ISP or have a high speed but expensive connection just to play the game. I am a huge fan of the single player experience. I buy games based on single player instead of multiplayer, which is just a side-benefit.[/quote]
I agree. Although if the game was created as Randy intends, you could play it single-player and not really notice the difference. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
[quote]I have an incredible imagination (people tend to have to tap me to get my attention cause I day dream too much), but putting that imagination to good use is still a skill I am developing.[/quote]
Want an idea for an interesting project? (Warning: Requires philosophical thought.) Try and figure out how your imagination works. Figure out general guidelines and rules for recreating an imaginative process. If you can do that, you can create an algorithm that works on a database of experiences and creates drama.
Maybe "imagination" takes a whole range of ideas and pairs them up against each other until an attractive combination is formed. Maybe it takes a situation in life and tests various outcomes until something attractive is found. I don't know; I haven't thought about it much. But it'd be a great start for desigining a story-telling engine.
It is occasionally said (in forums) that replying to your own post is a sure sign of madness.
Well who's arguing? [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
I said, last post:
[quote]But the author also claims the world should be free enough to let the player do a range of things. Which means the computer has to thoroughly understand each possibility in order to respond interestingly. And if the world is free enough that the player can be creative, the computer needs to react in a similarly creative way to understand exactly what the player intended when he broke in like a burglary but left money behind like a charity. It's a hopelessly complex task (with current technology).[/quote]
Rereading this made me think about [i]true[/i] artificial intelligence. Chances are, even a clever computer won't be able to figure out why you smashed a guy's window and dumped gold over his floor. So why not ask the player? True artificial intelligence should be able to learn from what the player does.
I'll have to think deeply about this. Character planning and conceptualising will have to be flexible to respond to new stimulous, rather than fixed to plan only within the world that the computer understands.
Which could imply that the planning process would well be suited as a genetic programming task. Or, perhaps the world definitions themselves need to be intelligent in themselves, enough to respond to the experiencer's whim.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
Our "turns"?
[quote]
Heheh. *Grant starts inventing his own brand-new, horribly-inefficient but probably-does-the-job swimming stroke, whilst Randy combines several strokes based on a great swimming education. Grant puts more effort in so he doesn't get left behind!*
[/quote]
Don't make me laugh. You'll ruin my dive. :D
I think you completely mis-interpreted what I meant by the combo world. To a casual observer, the world appears to be medieval. This is what the player would see and what they would begin to expect. Overall, this is what the world is. People ride horses, they fight with swords (or maybe magic to follow a far-to-often-used route), if you're rich you might have a sewer in your house that would probably be just a large pipe going to the nearest cliff with no pumps or anything like that. But as they continue through the game they will occasionally come across [b]ideas[/b] that are closer to our own civilisation than that of a medieval world. Things like a centralised goverment, keeping tabs on the current population, courts, etc. As you said (in ICQ), the Romans had this, so were they modern? In that sense, they were. I guess you could say this is a medieval roman world. But in many ways it isn't. It's all very hard to define perfectly at this point. They player will learn what to expect because the world will be consistent. There will not be anything like areas where people spend their time digging fields by hand while another area of the world spends its time playing with rocket ships. That kind of world just doesn't work, especially when it's meant to be all one world.
The idea of the drama engine gradually forcing the player towards one side or the other is what I intended. What side would depend on what side they went with in that fateful first encounter, which would be where the whole thing begins.
A good starting point would be to have the player spend some time wandering around, or give them a job, or something like that. They would hear rumours of these "resistance" people, sometimes for, sometimes against. They would hear how some people don't like what the government is doing (note that the goverment is essentially controlled by the Bad GuysTM, and so would be doing Bad ThingsTM to the common people). They might even hear rumours of a faction of people controlling the government from the shadows (why is it always from the shadows?) and that this is why the goverment is being rather NastyTM.
Then one day they would encounter a small skirmish between the two sides, or the bad side attacking a house, or something like that. There could be a number of possible things that could happen along these lines. The player could choose to help out one side or the other, or just ignore it. If they ignore it similar events will continue happening to force the player to one side or the other, right up to the family-being-killed thing that Grant mentioned. Eventually, if they player continues ignoring, they might get caught in the crossfire. Then it's join a side or get killed, which would be rather unwanted for most players. If they help out a side, that side might then ask the player to join, or they might ask for a favour like a delivery or something, or they might run off, ignoring the player, in which case the more-events route would begin. If the player refuses to join they may become an enemy of that side (wow this is getting branchy, but all branches go to one of three places), or they might just be left until the next such event. The reason for these events growing in magnitude and occurance would be growing unrest in the world.
Anyway, eventually the player would end up on one side or the other, whether they want to or not. If they don't want to be on that side, they could always defect, but don't expect the other to trust them instantaneously. :) There would be a good chance of the side they defected from killing them before they can join the other.
What happens once they join a side will take more thinking about... more on that later I guess, though you're very welcome to provide ideas.
I guess that much of the start of the game would be like that new Midgard game being made. The player would have a role in life, and would carry it out until they get pulled into the conflict.
Making a system that can cope with the player being the only one left then going around recruiting people would be difficult to create, but a hell of a lot of fun to play. In current RPGs, you can ask certain people to join you and if certain conditions are met they will. Imagine being able to ask anyone at all to join you, even a 4-year-old child, and they'll decide based on their impression of you and what you want to do, like what side you are on for example.
Somewhere along the line the game is going to have to end. Having the player get killed is not an ending, because then they could just reload the game. There has to be a goal in the game. The player's faction winning would be one, but that may not be possible after a point. Once again, more thinking needed.
[quote]
It even has rebel scum. ;)
[/quote]
Hell yeah! Every game needs rebel scum! :D
[quote](Based on my readings, (much like some of my opinions with Biggles above):) Ouch. That can be a really nasty start to a game. The game designer has a good knowledge of the game world, so why shouldn't the player? It needs a very good reason for the droppage (e.g. The Nomad Soul - the player's soul inhabits people from another world), and it requires a long period of play where the player has to learn everything and figure everything out. Disorientation to the max. Quite uncomfortable. Oh, and it can kill replayability too. (If badly done, most of the game is involved with learning things, so it's hopelessly simple second time around.)[/quote]
I find I have to agree in part here. It could be very repetitive the second time through, because the player would already know everyone. This is more like a normal adventure game. What you would need would be to have something random going on in the world, and random NPCs around. I'm sure you've thought of that though.
[quote]Want an idea for an interesting project? (Warning: Requires philosophical thought.) Try and figure out how your imagination works. Figure out general guidelines and rules for recreating an imaginative process. If you can do that, you can create an algorithm that works on a database of experiences and creates drama.[/quote]
I'll leave that to Randy. Maybe when I can make games I'll do that. :)
Enough babbling for now. Grant is getting impatiant. :D You did have all weekend you know...
------------------
[b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
The Balance provides. The Balance protects.
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
Ok, I'm going to reply to Biggles as I read what he posted. Now this is [i]never[/i] a good idea with forums, but I need to get to bed (I'm two hours late already). So expect inconsistancy, incomprehendability, and inconsistancy! ;)
[quote]Our "turns"?[/quote]
To post.
[quote]I think you completely mis-interpreted what I meant by the combo world...[/quote]
I see now. I thought you meant a bizarre mix of technology types. The terms "modern" and "sewars" together made me thing of (funnily enough) modern sewars, and that implies pumps, which imply power sources, and so on.
[quote](wow this is getting branchy, but all branches go to one of three places)[/quote]
Branches are the bane of true interaction. Note that this is just the introduction to the game, and it's already getting branchy. Imagine things later on.
Design things so that branches aren't needed. Any "if-then" options ("if player doesn't respond to mild threats, then get family killed," etc) should be limited to [i]very[/i] special cases only. Design things so that the standard engine produces the effect you want.
Kind of like placing the player in control of a neutral space fighter in a "hot" zone in the B5 game. The battle's naturally going to heat up there - both sides have goals in that sector. The player will get caught up in it or run a very long way away. Similarly, base a resistance HQ nearby the experiencer's residence. Things will naturally take their course. (It could result that the character's family gets killed off right from the start. That's ok. Each game will be different. :) )
It's good to write the branching list of possibilities. Just don't implement things that way. Use it to design an engine that can handle each and every one of those possibilities.
Similarly with defection etc. Design the engine to incorporate trust. Analysis of the experiencer's choices will be needed.
That's all I want to say really. The idea is great. Just don't implement it in a traditional manner.
[quote]I guess that much of the start of the game would be like that new Midgard game being made. The player would have a role in life, and would carry it out until they get pulled into the conflict.[/quote]
The danger is that having a role in life can be quite boring if the engine isn't built to enhance it. That was part of the reason I stopped producing the Carrier Command game. (For everyone apart from Biggles: A game of life simulation aboard fighter carriers in space, similar to Wing Commander except the player is in charge.) Much of the game would be boring, because the player would just be playing life on board. Skipping past the boring elements would screw with the simulation. Lose-lose situation. :(
[quote]Somewhere along the line the game is going to have to end.[/quote] My suggestion is to limit the scope of the conflict. Rather than a resistance tackling the whole Bad Guy® troupe, limit the confrontation to resistance HQ on Bad Guy® division. This has several advantages:
[list]
[*] There's room for a sequal. (This is better than it sounds. Stories that end with "and they all lived happily ever after" can be a bit abrupt.)
[*] The player doesn't have to "win." The sequal could import the character/situation from the end of the game. Whether it's success or loss, the main story can still go on.
[*] There will be fewer people involved, which will strengthen the role-playing aspects (potentially). Having a band of ten men can be more interesting than a troupe of two hundred. Things become more personal, hooking the experiencer in. Scope is there for more personal themes rather than just battle strategy and leadership roles. (I'm generalising heavily.) More importantly (perhaps), forces that are too sizable can reduce the role-playing game to a simple strategy game. ([i]Edit: Added this example:[/i] The original Dune game is a perfect example. Small band of people (Atreides) recruits natives to wipe out the capitalist pigs. Great adventure play until the war really starts against the Harkonnen, at which point it becomes a simplistic strategy game and little else. It got too big. (Still fun, but not as interesting any more.))
[/list]
Ahh, that'll do for now. :)
[quote]I find I have to agree in part here. It could be very repetitive the second time through, because the player would already know everyone. This is more like a normal adventure game. What you would need would be to have something random going on in the world, and random NPCs around. I'm sure you've thought of that though.[/quote]
Even with random NPCs and events, it could be too simplistic second-time around, knowing what the (general) situation is and what things mean.
I must say that it is possible to actually [i]enhance[/i] the second playing if you are [i]very[/i] skillful with the world and drama. [b][i]Very.[/i][/b]
[quote]I'll leave that to Randy. Maybe when I can make games I'll do that.[/quote]
It won't be necessary for the car game, but I'd definately advise that you give it some thought before the next project. Major concepts need to be practically nailed before starting implementing a specific game. (But that's what you're saying, so why am I typing all this? Yeah, I'm tired. :) )
[quote]Enough babbling for now. Grant is getting impatiant. :D You did have all weekend you know...[/quote]
I just wanted to see how fast you'd be after complaining at my "slowness!" And my weekend was very full, I had very little time at home. So deal with it. ;)
[This message has been edited by GrantNZ (edited 10-21-2001).]
[quote]Originally posted by Biggles:
[b]Just a heads up: [url="http://www.gamedev.net/reference/design/features/lowlevel/"]http://www.gamedev.net/reference/design/features/lowlevel/[/url] . Saw that link on GameDev.net not 5 minutes ago. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
[/b][/quote]
I appreciate the author's concept of "low level story" as a way to create re-playability.
He is tied to the idea of interactive entertainment being a "game", it seems to me. That's okay, but different from my focus. I find the idea of "game" too limiting in the creation of my wet dream - interactive drama.
While he gives one little example of how to implement "low level story" mostly it's an article having to do with his personal POV - in other words, not very substantial, and therefore not very useful to me.
For instance he spends very little time in talking about how to make low level story emotionally involving, beyond the surprise that what the experiencer does actually has an effect on the game state, which is an obvious need, to me.
Regarding your response to my suggestions about your game idea, I hope that you know that I wasn't putting you down in any way whatsoever, rather, simply offering advice - which, of course, you are free to consider or ignore. :-)
I admire your willingness to go about your tasks pragmatically, and your willingness to make sure that you don’t get in over your head. That’s more than I can say for some so-called professional designers I’ve come in contact with. J
[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 10-21-2001).]
[QUOTE][b]Want an idea for an interesting project? (Warning: Requires philosophical thought.) Try and figure out how your imagination works. Figure out general guidelines and rules for recreating an imaginative process. If you can do that, you can create an algorithm that works on a database of experiences and creates drama.
Maybe "imagination" takes a whole range of ideas and pairs them up against each other until an attractive combination is formed. Maybe it takes a situation in life and tests various outcomes until something attractive is found. I don't know; I haven't thought about it much. But it'd be a great start for desigining a story-telling engine. [/b][QUOTE]
Holly guano, Batman. That’s enough fuse to blow up twenty brains!
Hmmmmm. My thinking cap will need longer duration cams, maybe taller velocity stacks, to say nothing of high octane oatmeal – and a bigger cooling fan.
Expanding on your idea, it may be fun to look at the (at least) two ways that the brain processes information – in a linear, calculating way – and in a pattern-making process – linear and holistic processes complimenting each other in a synergy system.
What does that mean in terms of an engine? Maybe the engine is bicameral. Maybe it does what computers do best on one side, but on the other works to discover patterns (in actions, in a database of experience, etc.). The two sides work independently to come up with several possible routes for implementation of material. In the final part of the processes, the best or closest match between what the linear side and the pattern-making side came up with, when compared to the current game-state, is what is implemented. (Author panting).
[quote]Originally posted by GrantNZ:
[b]I said, last post:
Rereading this made me think about [i]true[/i] artificial intelligence. Chances are, even a clever computer won't be able to figure out why you smashed a guy's window and dumped gold over his floor. So why not ask the player? True artificial intelligence should be able to learn from what the player does.
[/b][/quote]
Maybe the experiencer has an NPC sidekick, mentor, guide, pest, etc. While seeming to the experiencer to be simply a friend and/or ally, in fact this character is a way for the engine AI to question the experiencer. It's sort of like Q is under cover as your friend, but without you knowing it is manipulating your experience based on your actions and expectations.
And finally... getting back to that game idea I never did anything with.
Criticisms noted.
The kernel idea comes out of my own interest in being a stranger in a strange land. I'd like the mental challenge of figuring out what's going on - in terms of who's in back of events that I witness - and in terms of what is their motivation.
This interactive experience wouldn't be frustrating in the way mentioned, because the environment of the experience would be realistic, consistent (thank you Biggles), and most importantly, intuitive. In other words, getting around in the world wouldn't be difficult - it would be as one would expect. The challenge is in figuring out why events happen, and what those events mean. In other words, there's a difference between interface (simply - intuitive), and interactive narrative (you must figure out what's going on and make a commitment to one side or the other).
The challenge for the developer is to find clever, interesting, fun, challenging ways to constantly engage the experiencer so that it is not possible to be non-interactive.
For instance, you must defend yourself. And for your own safety, it would be best to have allies. So you must act.
NPC's will be compelling in the way they relate their side and personal perspective of what's going on. The conflicting goals on both sides will be understandable and reasonable. It could be that only one side has that honorable quest - or not. But because the experience is designed to be "in your face" - you must act.
And by acting you are drawn in. And because the actions of all involved, and the construction of the narrative material, and because the conflict is well designed from a dramatic POV, and because the characters are drawn by dramatic principles to be compelling, the experience will keep the experiencer emotionally involved.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
That actually sounds quite similar to what I am attempting, although in my one the player will have a basic idea of the overall conflict at the start from the intro sequence to the game. Their challenge at the start would be more to work out each side's motivations and decide which one to join.
Been thinking a bit about scope here: I could probably limit the scope a bit by making the engine drag the player into the resistance side only, rather than give them a choice of sides. That would ease developement the first time through.
But I need to do some more thinking before I post another long reply, so till then...
------------------
[b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
The Balance provides. The Balance protects.
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
Just a short post tonight. I'm too tired to discuss every point raised. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img] And I'm probably too tired to say anything worth saying.
Randy:
[quote]For instance he spends very little time in talking about how to make low level story emotionally involving, beyond the surprise that what the experiencer does actually has an effect on the game state, which is an obvious need, to me.[/quote]
Very true, and well spoken.
[quote]Hmmmmm. My thinking cap will need longer duration cams, maybe taller velocity stacks, to say nothing of high octane oatmeal – and a bigger cooling fan.[/quote]
The reason I suggested the "interesting project" is that is exactly how [i]I[/i] work on solving design issues - find the raw processes that drive things.
[quote]Expanding on your idea, it may be fun to look at the (at least) two ways that the brain processes information – in a linear, calculating way – and in a pattern-making process – linear and holistic processes complimenting each other in a synergy system.[/quote]
That immediately makes me think "use both neural networks and genetic algorithms at the same time." Something I shall keep in mind (and probably discard - I don't like NNs much).
[quote]What does that mean in terms of an engine?...[/quote]
It means we need to spend a [b]lot[/b] more time designing the thing. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img] I'm just glad that it's so far in my future at this stage. (I want to complete the action elements of my game before proceeding to the interesting bits.)
[quote]Maybe the experiencer has an NPC sidekick, mentor, guide, pest, etc.[/quote]
That's exactly what I'm planning. It will be especially useful if the experiencer decides to plan anything (attack, strategy for converting civilians to the resistance, whatever) - he'll probably need/want to explain his plan to his allies. But it will be equally useful for gauging experiencer reactions to dramatic elements. If the character says "yeah I'm good, and how are you?" immediately after losing his girlfriend to a movie star, he probably wasn't all that attached, and following that theme would be rather pointless.
Et cetera. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
[quote]And finally... getting back to that game idea I never did anything with.[/quote]
I won't comment any more on it, mainly because I still don't like the idea. (Although your continued explanations do make it sound better) Similarly, I don't like driving sims. There's the occasional driving sim that I do enjoy though, if they happen to be well made and accommodate my general quirks. So don't take offense. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
Anyway, more comment from me won't be more profound than what I've already said. So I'll shut up.
(BTW, I like the foundations for the ideas. It's just the setting that irks me.)
On to Biggles:
[quote]I could probably limit the scope a bit by making the engine drag the player into the resistance side only, rather than give them a choice of sides. That would ease developement the first time through.[/quote]
Unless you can develop the engine so that resistance forces and Bad Guys® are controlled in the same way. In that case, it doesn't matter where the experiencer goes.
JackN:
[quote]You guys talk too much...[/quote]
You don't talk enough. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
Time for a rest. Five hours sleep is silly.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
Yeah, it's way too much.
Jack: You could always join in. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
[quote]It means we need to spend a lot more time designing the thing. I'm just glad that it's so far in my future at this stage. (I want to complete the action elements of my game before proceeding to the interesting bits.)[/quote]
Same here. Get the fundamentals down, then the story stuff will be far easier to test properly. Although quite how one would test something like this thouroughly without spending months playing it through over and over again I don't know. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
[quote]Unless you can develop the engine so that resistance forces and Bad Guys® are controlled in the same way. In that case, it doesn't matter where the experiencer goes.[/quote]
I suppose that is how it should work. NPCs should look like they are players, and the player should fit in like an NPC. That way the story would continue advancing no matter which side the player was on, even if they were neutral. For example, if they kept refusing to join a side then the two sides would still continue their conflict and the escalating events designed by the engine to pull the player into one side would be a part of this conflict, with the conflict and the drag-in events growing larger at the same time to give reason to them being there. Otherwise it would seem that the player was being targetted personally for no apparent reason.
One big problem has just occured to me now: How to implement this game world, which seems to require a large number of NPCs, on a current computer? That would be far far too much AI going at once. Maybe most of the NPCs would not have their own AI, but would instead be controlled almost directly by the drama engine. Only key NPCs would then have their own AI, and would just be given goals by the drama engine. Then their AI would take over to achieve those goals.
------------------
[b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
The Balance provides. The Balance protects.
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
Comments
Grant: Mine uses multiple meshes, each made up of multiple sets of polygons. I don't think it would be too difficult to convert my format to your engine.
I'm not entirely sure how the story telling or character developement will work yet, since I haven't got that far. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img] Story-driven at the moment in that quests that forward the story will be most important, and the aim of the game won't be to build up your character. So don't expect an RPG where you have to have the ultimate character to finsih the game. Being able to finish it with any character type and size would be better in my opinion. The character developement for your character will obviously involve the standard RPG stuff, but possibly something more as well. I won't be going for a game where people spend all their time running around hunting monsters to get lots of experience because that's boring. Story is everything. Hell, I don't even know if I'll have experience yet. I'm just babbling. I might have a system where the only way to advance your character is through advancing the story, and how you advance the story defines your character. You never know. I would also like NPCs to play a big role in this sort of game. Not sure how yet. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
Woah, look at the time. Got to run, more later.
------------------
[b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
The Balance provides. The Balance protects.
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
"Game" to me implies "puzzle" or "irrelevant test of skill." I'd also certainly like computer entertainment to pass that stage.
I'd just like to mention a distinction between drama-driven and character-driven. A dramatically driven response to my example would be to identify the evil action and arrange/influence things to make the protagonist suffer for those actions. A character-driven response would be to darken the NPCs thoughts towards my character, possibly causing one or more to act against me. Same result; Mr Protagonist suffers for his deed.
Now, are these the same things? Are they two different implementations of the same basic concept?
[quote]Your goals would have to do with a dramatic situation, instead of just "winning" a game.[/quote]
[i]*Sigh*[/i] How ideal that would be. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img] A planned feature of my first dramatic (or whatever you want to call it) engine will be Movie Mode, where the game is edited (by the computer) into a two hour (or whatever is appropriate) movie showing the most important dramatic occurrences in the game - and from viewpoints other than the main character. (The Director AI could be quite fun to write!)
[quote]Since we are expanding our topics at Firstones, perhaps folks would like to have an area for discussing interactive storytelling, interactive drama, and character AI? What better place to meet than Firstones?[/quote]
Sounds great to me. It would be an area well frequented by myself.
Thanks for the links! Looks like it'd take an age for me to work through them all. I'll keep them for later. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
I've traded a couple of emails with Chris too... although I felt a bit like an urchin talking to a master, never sure if the conversation was beneficial or a pain in the ass to him. In any case, I have no proof of my concepts, so with his wishes of luck, I'll finish my ideas before bothering him any further. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
That yearly gathering would be awesome. I think I'd be drunk with listening to the ideas. I do visit the site quite often (I must go check it again now), and as I say I've read most of his library including the reports.
Let me know if/when the new forum areas open up! (As I say, I don't watch this whole group of forums... too many for a non-B5 fan to look through. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/frown.gif[/img] )
Biggles:
Sorry, didn't realise that. I believed your system had one main mesh with lists of vertices for each bone.
Biggles is credited in my game as "Biggles the Normal," for his work on calculating normals of a mesh. He performed the experiments that proved a flaw in my normal calculation algorithm, so we both have it working properly now.
Similarly, I also have a credit for the "Magical Rainbow Sheep." Magical for his ability to point me towards parts of my code that create [b]strange[/b] bugs, and Rainbow because he could get coloured DirectX lighting to work where I could not. ("Sheep" is just his nickname.)
Somehow I have to incarnate Biggles and Sheep into my game when it's properly completed. I could end up with a very dodgy game.
I think the drama-driven game would prove to be more realistic, as the world (and so the story) as a whole would be affected by your actions. Each character could base how they treat you on a set of variables stored in the world that defines something like your reputation. Perhaps some characters won't have heard of you, so will treat you differently by ignoring the "reputation" value. However, a character driven game would have each character base how they treat you on what they hear about you and what their experiences are like, so there is the ability to have a different reputation with each character in a different way to how a drama one would do it. Am I speaking crap here?
------------------
[b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
The Balance provides. The Balance protects.
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
To me "character-driven" seems limited in scope to issues of character development, character conflict, etc.
To me "drama-driven" means that all of the tools of drama, which include character development, are adapted as rules by which the interactive experience goes forward. This adaptation of the tools of drama is of course at the core of my recent article.
So – to bring this home – some examples:
The steps in the evolution of the hero’s journey, as described by Campbell, would be adapted to trigger influence in the interactive experience when pre-flagged events take place, that is - when the hero discovers that the status quo of his world is out of balance, when the hero tries to refuse the call to put things in order, when a mentor chides and supports the hero to accept the challenge, when the hero makes a commitment to the challenge, when the hero looks for allies, when the hero battles gate keepers, when the hero gets to the innermost sanctum of the antagonistic forces, when the hero battles the antagonistic forces and seems to be loosing, to the surprising action the hero instigates to swing things towards a resolution - good or bad - etc.
The goals, biases, and methods of the hero would be derived from dramatic principles, so that a quest would evolve from the attempt the hero makes at obtaining the goal.
The goal itself, and the context of the goal would be derived from classic dramatic situations.
The antagonistic forces would be likewise derived from standard dramatic principles – in other words, the antagonist would have clearly defined goals, biases and methods created to conflict miserably with the intent of the hero.
The interactive experience would be somehow arranged so that specific dramatic material would only be available during an appropriate “act” so that a development of dramatic tension could follow an arc that leads to a climax and resolution – this to guarantee that the experience would never seem “flat” or going nowhere, or pointless. In other words, each step the hero takes should both seem to be leading to the goal, and also leading to greater and greater difficulty.
Etc.
I'll have to enlist Randy's help when it comes time to create a story.
------------------
[b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
The Balance provides. The Balance protects.
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
He's busy with his own!
hah hah!
[quote]I think the drama-driven game would prove to be more realistic, as the world (and so the story) as a whole would be affected by your actions. Each character could base how they treat you on a set of variables stored in the world that defines something like your reputation. Perhaps some characters won't have heard of you, so will treat you differently by ignoring the "reputation" value. However, a character driven game would have each character base how they treat you on what they hear about you and what their experiences are like, so there is the ability to have a different reputation with each character in a different way to how a drama one would do it.[/quote]
I believe both cases you gave there are both character-driven. (By my definitions at least.) I'll define my viewpoints in my response to Randy; feel free to read. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
[quote]I feel I may be getting a little out of my depth here. I'm just a programmer.[/quote]
I agree. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img] I'm not trying to be mean though. I can only paddle myself. I get a bit flustered when people like Randy start quoting drama techniques (hero's journey etc). I just try to program what makes sense to me. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
If you want to catch up, my best recommendation is to read the works of Chris Crawford. ( [url="http://www.erasmatazz.com"]www.erasmatazz.com[/url] , click on "Library.") He has a huge amount of storytelling essays there, explaining why branching-story systems don't work, philisophising on systems that [i]might[/i] do the job, etc etc. Definately above the level of "write a short story and insert action scenes between each paragraph."
Randy:
Great response. My turn to provide a definition of character- and drama-driven:
I envisage "character-driven" as an a-life simulation, with various characters making their own plans and living their own life, while interacting with each other. If the simulation is seeded with the protagonist in one state trying to reach another (e.g. killing a bad-guy; rescuing a princess) then the player's goal is to negotiate the simulation until the goal is met.
This could be implemented with intelligent agents and a story-world simulation. It could be fun, but also random and relies on emergant drama to make a successful story. Mr Crawford doesn't believe this would be a successful scheme, and I generally agree, but feel that it would be a very important base on which to build drama.
"Drama-driven" story-telling alters the story-world to fit with some dramatic technique or context. Characters' dialogue is changed/influenced to match the context. Events are fabricated (i.e. triggered on schedule) to enhance the drama.
This is all very well, but it does require a good game base to build on. Most RPGs use the branching conversation with static NPCs technique as a base. (And just don't build on it!) I contend that the intelligent agents form a great base for a drama layer. The drama engine can simply re-arrange, add to, delete from, or force certain parts of the simulation to occur. (Character placement; character actions; etc.)
--End definitions.--
Implementation, of course, is the biggie. [i]Interesting[/i] intelligent agents is a big project. Intelligently adjusting a story-world to drama is another big project.
I agree fully with your hero's journey example. I personally am looking towards George Polti's 36 Dramatic Situations ([url="http://www.gamedev.net/reference/articles/article255.asp"]click here[/url] for a list) as the base for a drama engine, but going through steps very similar to those you listed. i.e. Forcing situations that sit with the theme, situation or idea.
[quote]The interactive experience would be somehow arranged so that specific dramatic material would only be available during an appropriate “act” so that a development of dramatic tension could follow an arc that leads to a climax and resolution – this to guarantee that the experience would never seem “flat” or going nowhere, or pointless.[/quote]
That paragraph reminded me of a great many adventure and RPG games where conversations with NPCs wouldn't change until some milestone was met, upon which time suddenly every NPC had a new conversation tree. (Or an addition to the existing tree.) To be honest, I don't like the scheme at all. (Is this what you were referring to?)
I want to take the character/drama idea a step further in my implementation, and this leads to my disagreement with the Annie/Grampa analog. (I hope you're familiar with it?) Grampa (the computer) sets the theme and most action, where Annie (the player) intercedes with some action choices. I believe the opposite should be true. The player should set the theme, leaving the computer to moderate the action. (How interactive is a Romeo & Juliet game (to use that classic example) if your character is forced to fall in love? Shouldn't the player be allowed to choose his choice of partner, and to decide to abandon his match instead of committing suicide? Shouldn't the computer adjust the world to match whatever theme the player wants to act out?) To that end, the computer has the job of identifying which theme (or dramatic situation from that list I linked to) most matches the player's desires. The simulation is then weighted towards supporting that. That [i]sounds[/i] like a big challenge, but given a good enough base, I believe it should be somewhat easier.
Excuse my spouting. Please tell me to shut up if I'm spurting too much! [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
By the way, if I may ask, what project(s) are you currently working on, Randy?
[i]Edit: Learn to spell, Grant![/i]
[This message has been edited by GrantNZ (edited 10-19-2001).]
[quote][b]I agree. I'm not trying to be mean though. I can only paddle myself. I get a bit flustered when people like Randy start quoting drama techniques (hero's journey etc). I just try to program what makes sense to me. [/b][/quote]
Ops. Maybe I assume too much with my examples. But this brings up a good point. The evolution of interactive entertainment will be facilitated by an interdisciplinary approach, and by Renaissance people. I think that the recent trend towards intense specialization in colleges and universities impedes progress in some ways. Though of course I understand that some areas of investigation are so complex that it takes specialization (focused study), it is wise to also have a well-rounded background education, if only to help with creativity – brainstorming – or just an increased appreciation of living.
So – in terms of interactive entertainment, perfect candidates for helping to evolve the art will have not only a specialty in the technical arts of sim creation, but also a background in the arts – or the opposite – a specialty in the arts with a background in the technical aspects. This will facilitate communication across departments, and the cross-fertilization of ideas.
[quote][b]Randy:
Great response. My turn to provide a definition of character- and drama-driven: [/b][/quote]
Go man, go.
[quote][b]I envisage "character-driven" as an a-life simulation, with various characters making their own plans and living their own life, while interacting with each other. If the simulation is seeded with the protagonist in one state trying to reach another (e.g. killing a bad-guy; rescuing a princess) then the player's goal is to negotiate the simulation until the goal is met.
This could be implemented with intelligent agents and a story-world simulation. It could be fun, but also random and relies on emergent drama to make a successful story. Mr Crawford doesn't believe this would be a successful scheme, and I generally agree, but feel that it would be a very important base on which to build drama. [/b][/quote]
Nit-picker here: what is an [i]a-life simulation[/i]? Does this mean a simulation of artificial life? Hee, hee. If so, I think that we can safely say that we want [i]real artificial life[/i], rather than a simulation of artificial life. LOL. Yes, I know I’m a wise ass. :-D
If I implied that drama-driven would be opposed to a simulation base, then I misrepresented myself. Indeed, I think that the best base for interactive drama would be a simulation.
[quote][b]
"Drama-driven" story-telling alters the story-world to fit with some dramatic technique or context. Characters' dialogue is changed/influenced to match the context. Events are fabricated (i.e. triggered on schedule) to enhance the drama.
This is all very well, but it does require a good game base to build on. Most RPGs use the branching conversation with static NPCs technique as a base. (And just don't build on it!) I contend that the intelligent agents form a great base for a drama layer. The drama engine can simply re-arrange, add to, delete from, or force certain parts of the simulation to occur. (Character placement; character actions; etc.)
--End definitions.—[/b][/quote]
I certainly don’t disagree with this, although I would like further discussion of this: “Events are fabricated (triggered on schedule) to enhance the drama.” This summation is more simplistic than what I have in mind.
Just to be clear, “events” needn’t imply pre-produced or non-interactive in a sim world. Instead, events could unfold as a result of the interactions of experiencer (I prefer this to “player” – trying to get away from the idea of “game”) and NPC’s. Always, the intent would be to never pull the experiencer out of the drama – to never remind the experiencer that this simulation of a dramatic situation is artificial.
Instead, the a-world would be set up early, so that the experiencer knows what level of “willingness to suspend disbelief” to take – and then aim to keep the experiencer in a state of altered consciousness for the duration.
When I write of an engine that is based on the tools of drama, I intend an invisible, well-integrated influence, that never communicates a “hand of God” kind of manipulation (unless the drama is about God’s manipulations!).
So, there would be no “events” that “enhance” drama. Instead there would be a constantly evolving experience that is based on the principals of drama. In other words – a “drama sim” featuring digital locations and synthetic actors, into which the experiencer would be inserted. But I think that you’d agree, going by your following statement:
[quote][b]Implementation, of course, is the biggie. Interesting intelligent agents is a big project. Intelligently adjusting a story-world to drama is another big project. [/b][/quote]
[quote][b]I personally am looking towards George Polti's 36 Dramatic Situations…[/b][/quote]
Great idea, and thanks for the link – now part of my interactive storytelling favorites list.
quote:
The interactive experience would be somehow arranged so that specific dramatic material would only be available during an appropriate “act” so that a development of dramatic tension could follow an arc that leads to a climax and resolution – this to guarantee that the experience would never seem “flat” or going nowhere, or pointless.
[quote][b]That paragraph reminded me of a great many adventure and RPG games where conversations with NPCs wouldn't change until some milestone was met, upon which time suddenly every NPC had a new conversation tree. (Or an addition to the existing tree.) To be honest, I don't like the scheme at all. (Is this what you were referring to?) [/b][/quote]
The problem with this scheme is that when the experiencer has used up all possible responses before the next conversation tree is available, and then at this point either gets no response at all (which may not be right for the character of the NPC or for the dramatic moment), or begins to get the same answers all over again (which at best creates an obstinate NPC character), we get into a situation where the program is starting to tell the experiencer that this is, after all, not real – and so the experiencer falls out of the altered state of consciousness, and out of the drama.
In our space combat sim we divided missions into five libraries. The missions in each library were constructed to achieve the dramatic tension and degree of difficulty that was appropriate for five divisions of the sim, which were equivalent to both the traditional idea of “levels” in games, and also a five-act dramatic structure.
The sim engine would constantly check the state of the sim world in order to judge which of the possible missions within an act/level would most closely match the current evolution of the sim world state.
In addition, this missions were not on rails. Instead, “missions” were macro instructions to races by way of re-prioritizing race goals, plus forced limitations on the assets that could be used, plus a forced theater of conflict. How the campaign was to be waged was entirely up to the race, given its “personality”, assets, and current logistical profile.
Story information was imbedded into ship to ship and ship to station communications in the theater of operation. Other previous story information set up the dramatic conflicts by foreshadowing the dramatic situation involved in each of the missions.
I see what we did as a starting point for the creation of a [i]drama sim[/i].
“Missions” could become itineraries for NPC’s or groups of NPC’s, or the experiencer – or, indeed, “missions”, if that idea is appropriate for the drama, says if it has to do with covert activities or something. When all “itineraries”, for example, were completed for an act, the game engine would invisibly move to the “missions”, or “activities”, or “dramatic actions”, of the next act.
Regarding the problem of NPC’s dialogue interactions, and their appropriateness in a dramatic arc:
I understand that there are some very smart programs being created that are able to parse speech (whether typed, clicked, or voiced), and then make original replies based on the information given in the question.
If this kind of a program were worked into the package of possible actions of each important NPC, along with specific dramatic content in libraries of possible dialogue – libraries which are divided into “acts” , and which are attached to each important NPC - then the combination of the ability to create original replies, and the ability to pull dramatic content from the appropriate libraries, should create a synergy, which approaches a life-like character, no matter when that NPC is encountered.
The responses could be modified by a personality profile, so that the response is “colored” by personality traits, so that the NPC “stays in character”.
[quote][b]
I want to take the character/drama idea a step further in my implementation, and this leads to my disagreement with the Annie/Grampa analog. (I hope you're familiar with it?) Grampa (the computer) sets the theme and most action, where Annie (the player) intercedes with some action choices. I believe the opposite should be true. The player should set the theme, leaving the computer to moderate the action. (How interactive is a Romeo & Juliet game (to use that classic example) if your character is forced to fall in love? Shouldn't the player be allowed to choose his choice of partner, and to decide to abandon his match instead of committing suicide? Shouldn't the computer adjust the world to match whatever theme the player wants to act out?) To that end, the computer has the job of identifying which theme (or dramatic situation from that list I linked to) most matches the player's desires. The simulation is then weighted towards supporting that. That sounds like a big challenge, but given a good enough base, I believe it should be somewhat easier. [/b][/quote]
In an ideal world, it would be nice to be able to plop the experiencer into a simulated world that could go in absolutely any direction. You could fall in love with an NPC, or not, or fall in love with her sister, or have unscrupulous intent in mind, and no matter what the sim would respond, and a dramatic situation would be created that would be emotionally involving.
However…
Despite the allure of a limitless simulated world, without the “direction” of dramatic principles (and that, to a certain though stealthy extent, means control), and without the willingness to constrain oneself for the purpose of actually shipping something, one could end up with a boring, over budget, never-shipping epic battle between developers and producers and marketing types, instead of delivering the epic battle to the experiencer.
Drama and artfully engaging storytelling demand control, but that control needn't be obvious, and indeed should be invisible. Let’s be real, we’re simulating life, not creating life. And while we’re at it we’re adding devices to our simulation that will take the experiencer on an emotional roller coaster, while maintaining the illusion of life. We must remember that we are dealing with illusion. From our side the illusion is a series of problems of craft. From the experiencer’s side the illusion is a wonderful dream.
[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 10-19-2001).]
Yep, I agree. Especially after reading your most recent post.
[quote]Ops. Maybe I assume too much with my examples.[/quote]
No, it just shows that you're educated and I'm walking around in the dark. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img] You're right, it does take a broad skillbase to plunge into an evolutionary field. (Or at least people who think outside the box.) And that's definately a major reason games aren't progressing too much at the moment. ("IMHO" goes without saying!) People really have gone pretty much as far as they can with the current paradigms.
[quote]Nit-picker here: what is an a-life simulation? Does this mean a simulation of artificial life?[/quote]
Yeah yeah. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img] I'm definately not capable of developing a simulation of life... simulating food and water and air and all the rest of it... but I can get pretty close! Thus, a simulation of artifial life. Hehehe. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/tongue.gif[/img]
[quote]If I implied that drama-driven would be opposed to a simulation base, then I misrepresented myself. Indeed, I think that the best base for interactive drama would be a simulation.[/quote]
You didn't. But I wanted to make the point. I do believe the two ideas (simulation vs drama) are quite opposite, but need to be mixed to accomplish the goal.
[quote]Just to be clear, “events” needn’t imply pre-produced or non-interactive in a sim world. Instead, events could unfold as a result of the interactions of experiencer (I prefer this to “player” – trying to get away from the idea of “game”) and NPC’s. Always, the intent would be to never pull the experiencer out of the drama – to never remind the experiencer that this simulation of a dramatic situation is artificial.[/quote]
"Experiencer" - nice word! But hey, life's a game, so why not play!
To continue the clarification, I agree. My definition of an "event" would be a modification to a character, an alteration in the story-world, or the alteration of a character's plan of action, but done so the act of altering is completely invisible to the character. And pre-production is an element that I wish to avoid completely.
If I may ask, what is your base motivation for the development of [i]true[/i] interactive entertainment? Mine derives from two elements. Firstly, the desire to create a game that I can play without losing surprise. (As opposed to writing an adventure game, where I would already know all the secrets!) Secondly, the desire to play a game that really wants to adjust itself to and interact with me - i.e. boost my ego. To these ends, pre-production is a sin. I want random characters, random stories, random occurrences, random game length, etc etc...
[quote]Instead, the a-world would be set up early, so that the experiencer knows what level of “willingness to suspend disbelief” to take – and then aim to keep the experiencer in a state of altered consciousness for the duration.[/quote]
Perfect.
My game's first area shall be a training room. (The game is half-action (light-sabre duelling) / half-story. The player/experiencer starts as a young Jedi.) The training area will have just one NPC (a Jedi Master), and two or three rooms. The opaque purpose of the training area is to teach the player how to use his light-sabre. The secret purpose is to allow the player to learn interactions with areas and NPCs.
[quote]The interactive experience would be somehow arranged so that specific dramatic material would only be available during an appropriate “act”...[/quote]
Could you explain your definition of "dramatic material" for me please?
[quote]In our space combat sim...[/quote]
A good system, and would work very well within that game context. I didn't realise that "missions" were macro goals. I had assumed that the pre-produced "missions" were similar to Wing Commander missions, with very definite goals and proceedures but in the dynamic battlefield. I suppose I saw the game as Wing Commander with persistant forces and free-flight style missions between important story missions.
Now that I understand it, I definitely like it better!
[quote]I see what we did as a starting point for the creation of a drama sim.[/quote]
Definately. All that's needed now is to generalise it.
My character simulation is aimed at being as generic as possible. Characters have any number of "attributes," where the definitions of an attribute are created by the story-world writer. An attribute could be a physical quantity, a feeling, a skill, [i]anything[/i] deemed important to the story-world creator. A character would have an desired value for each attribute, a profile describing the attribute's change with time or action, and of course a current value. Differences between current and desired values increase a character's stress. Characters can alter a value with certain actions, or decrease the stress from an attribute by conversing about it. (This naturally leads characters to talk about what is most important in their life.)
I'm considering genetic algorithms as a method for a character planning his/her actions. Personality would have an affect on what actions the character would take, or what type of conversation they would hold, but I haven't nutted all that out yet.
I'm also working on a memory system for the characters. (Imagine talking to an NPC about [i]why[/i] they're feeling the way they are, and having them recount the situation.)
My drama engine would simply adjust the actual or desired value of these attributes. A "bad guy" could be given a high "want to mug people" attribute, get dramatically placed near a friend of the player/experiencer, and thus mug that friend. That would drive that friend's attributes in a way that might induce depression. And suddenly the player has a depressed friend on his hands, and an enemy.
It's all just theory at the moment, of course.
[quote]I understand that there are some very smart programs being created that are able to parse speech (whether typed, clicked, or voiced), and then make original replies based on the information given in the question.[/quote]
I must admit that I don't have much hope with natural language systems, at least for the near future. The computer just needs too great an experience base to understand things.
The conversation system that ties in with my character system is based on attributes. A character simply selects an attribute, plan or memory to talk about, a specific topic (e.g. "my [i](insert attribute)[/i] is too low!"), an attitude, and conversation ensues.
It would be a bit dry at first, but as the simulation/drama engines increase in complexity, the conversations will increase in depth.
[quote]In an ideal world, it would be nice to be able to plop the experiencer into a simulated world that could go in absolutely any direction.[/quote]
Exactly. I feel the implementation of Polti's 36 situations would be the best step. Each situation (as you would have seen) has a good number of sub-situations, so implementing each one could take a rather long time, but if implemented in a modular fashion a group of programmers could get there.
(The character system is modular too. Plug 'n' play with attributes and actions.)
[quote]Despite the allure of a limitless simulated world, without the “direction” of dramatic principles (and that, to a certain though stealthy extent, means control), and without the willingness to constrain oneself for the purpose of actually shipping something, one could end up with a boring, over budget, never-shipping epic battle between developers and producers and marketing types, instead of delivering the epic battle to the experiencer.[/quote]
So implement an engine that can handle just one dramatic situation. Add more as needed or wanted. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
It really is a subject more suited to independant developers who don't care about time limits. I can't imagine commercial entities delving deeply until it becomes [i]necessary[/i] to do so.
[This message has been edited by GrantNZ (edited 10-19-2001).]
My base motivation is to emotionally involve the experiencer – to take him or her on an emotional roller coaster – to make them laugh, cry, become angry, become obsessed, and exalted. This is why I want to get away from the idea of “game”. My motivation isn’t to make someone want to accumulate strength and assets for their character and “win”, but rather to be “moved” and perhaps gain a bit of insight, and of course to spend some time just having fun. In other words, I’d like to create the equivalent sophistication and variety of the best narrative film production, except make it interactive, but in the best way possible – to marry only the best aspects of both mediums. From a personal perspective – I want to get into the holodeck and “believe” the world that I enter for the duration of my experience. And I want to use my holodeck to do and feel things that mundane life doesn’t usually offer – or never offers – like finding a sports version of a UFO one night while on a walk, entering it, and taking off for destinations unknown.
[quote][b] Could you explain your definition of "dramatic material" for me please? [/b][/quote]
I simply mean narrative material that has been designed to support and advance drama.
[quote][b]My character simulation is aimed at being as generic as possible. Characters have any number of "attributes," where the definitions of an attribute are created by the story-world writer. An attribute could be a physical quantity, a feeling, a skill, anything deemed important to the story-world creator. A character would have an desired value for each attribute, a profile describing the attribute's change with time or action, and of course a current value. Differences between current and desired values increase a character's stress. Characters can alter a value with certain actions, or decrease the stress from an attribute by conversing about it. (This naturally leads characters to talk about what is most important in their life.)
I'm considering genetic algorithms as a method for a character planning his/her actions. Personality would have an affect on what actions the character would take, or what type of conversation they would hold, but I haven't nutted all that out yet.
I'm also working on a memory system for the characters. (Imagine talking to an NPC about why they're feeling the way they are, and having them recount the situation.)
My drama engine would simply adjust the actual or desired value of these attributes. A "bad guy" could be given a high "want to mug people" attribute, get dramatically placed near a friend of the player/experiencer, and thus mug that friend. That would drive that friend's attributes in a way that might induce depression. And suddenly the player has a depressed friend on his hands, and an enemy.[/b][/quote]
Very cool. I think that this is a good start. Nevertheless, I would expand the process to include the macro level of the “drama engine”, which invisibly influences the way the experience evolves in order to guarantee a dramatic arc of rising conflict tension, leading to a climax, and then a resolution. I may be misunderstanding, and you may already intend this.
I will be glad when John gets back. He should really be in on this. We've been melding our respective backgrounds on this already, and I'd really like to see what he'd add to our already mighty fine conversation.
[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 10-19-2001).]
Now that the lengthy disclaimer is out of the way... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
OK, I am going for the role-playing game now, although it could turn into an attribute-less one. I have a basic idea of the overall happenings in the game world, ie what major event(s) is(are) taking place during the period of the story. The general idea is a combo medieval/modern world. It won't be a techno-fantasy world like the one that UO2 was going to be, rather it will be like a modern world without the high technology. Ships still use sails, people still use horses for transport, but they also have things like sewerage (although it probably just gets pumped out to sea or something).
In this world there are essentially three factions. The general population, a faction of people who want the power (and currently have it), and a faction who want those people out. A resistance group, really. The "experiencer" (I like that term) will either be a part of the civilian population dragged into the resistance faction, or would already be a part of the resistance faction. If the start-as-civilian route is taken then the only thing forced on the player throughout the game (we need a new term for that) will be the getting pushed into the resistance thing. After that it's all open ended. New thought coming in: In fact maybe not even that will be forced. Maybe the player could decide which side to join, or join none (although that would be boring). It could be possible to make them join a side by having them get caught up in a fight between the to sides, pick a side to fight for, then have that side attempt to bring them aboard after the fight, and keep trying or kill the experiencer after a while if they say no for the bad side, don't know about the good yet. Anyway, back to the point of the post...
Once the experiencer is in a faction, they would probably start off by being given tasks to perform. The faction should be able to judge their performance at these tasks during game-time and decide what to do with them. For example, if the experiencer does well they might be given harder tasks, or a group of people to command. They might ask for a group of people or people might offer to help out, now that I think of it. Anyway. While all this is going on, the factions will be battling it out, whether the player performs their part or now. Although if they don't they may find some rather pissed off people coming after them. The path of the conflict would continue on, other members of each faction would go about their business, carrying out their actions to achieve their goals and the goals of the factions. Eventually, maybe one faction would win out. If it isn't the experiencer's then they would find themselves hunted (possibly more than before). Since the ultimate aim should be to have your faction win out, then if the rest of your faction ends up dead then the goal could become to recruit civilians and try to continue the work. Or you could just roll over and die. Still need to think about that more I guess... (copy-and-paste backup) OK, next point... I've forgotten my next point. Damn. Still to much stuff going through my mind. Can't design a game and study for exams at the same time...
Ah well, since I'm out of steam far too early, bring on the comments and criticisms! Refine my goals and what I should do, how things work! And remember I'm still just off the diving board over very deep water. So many ideas going round and round in my head... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
PS: If anyone is interested, I already have the entire intro sequence for the game that gives the experiencer the background written in my mind. If you're interested, I'll write it up and post it. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
[edit]For those of you who didn't pick it up, this story idea draws heavily on the "Exiles" trilogy by Melanie Rawn, simply because I like the idea behind those books and thing it has huge potential.[/edit]
------------------
[b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
The Balance provides. The Balance protects.
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
[This message has been edited by Biggles (edited 10-20-2001).]
I think that's a fine starting concept for an interactive experience - the underdog resistance vs. the evil empire (where have I heard that before?). It's classic. People love it.
But what you've said is not focused at all. I’m a firm believer in putting together a very detailed design document before beginning code work. If I were you I'd spend a lot more time defining the details on paper.
If it were me I'd get a basic book on the elements of drama, study it, understand it, and use this background while defining your design document. I'd also study Chris Crawford's material for some out-of-the-box thinking about how interactive entertainment can evolve.
God is in the details.
I was contemplating a massively multi-player design for a time that I never did anything with. The idea was that the experiencer gets plopped down into a city without any background whatsoever. Part of the challenge is to understand what’s going on. Part of the challenge is to figure out who to trust as an ally and who is dangerous. The experiencer never knows what is dangerous, though of course there are obscure clues so that s/he will have a chance to succeed. The experiencer is forced to interact with the environment and with the NPC’s to figure out what’s going on, but doing so is dangerous.
The central conflict is essentially the same as your idea. This city is controlled by an evil corporation – profit is God – people are expendable.
But there’s an underground resistance – power to the people – save the environment.
The experiencer must come to understand the conflict for him/er self, and then decide who to join.
Since everyone in this multi-player environment is represented by an avatar, the experiencers never know if they are encountering an NPC or an avatar of another experiencer. Since experiencers can join either side of the struggle, you could well end up with experiencers fighting, tricking, and baiting either other – along with the synthetic actors, who are all doing the same thing.
The idea of a world where you can't tell the AIs from the real people is a MMORPG designer's wetdream. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img] It would also be very fun to play in.
Personally, I am against developing MMO games. I resent the idea that I have to dial up to an ISP or have a high speed but expensive connection just to play the game. I am a huge fan of the single player experience. I buy games based on single player instead of multiplayer, which is just a side-benefit.
As for my idea: I admit that it does need a lot more design work, but that's just something that has been sitting in my head for a while. Currently I am working on the graphics part of the engine, and I'm following a very tight path towards developing this game. My first goal is to prove to myself that I am capable of creating a game. To do this I am going to make a very simple car racing game. When that goes I'll begin proper design work on the RPGish game. That way I will know that I'm not trying to do something beyond my abilities. Proper drama is still quite new to me. I have an incredible imagination (people tend to have to tap me to get my attention cause I day dream too much), but putting that imagination to good use is still a skill I am developing.
Damn, time's up. Got to go study now. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/frown.gif[/img] Will babble more later. In the mean time, more comments? Still waiting on yours, Grant. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
------------------
[b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
The Balance provides. The Balance protects.
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
Alrighty. This will be a long post. I've got a lot to catch up on (I've been out most of the weekend).
Randy:
Nice motivations. :) I suppose mine are similar. I want to start from some initial state of my choosing then explore it.
[i]Mental note:[/i] Make character and drama engines very expandable. They're gonna [i]need[/i] to be - I'm sure with every new initial state I choose, I'll need to have many additions to allow for the possibilities I want to explore.
[quote]... narrative material that has been designed to support and advance drama.[/quote]
How would this material be implemented? Are you thinking of pre-made dramatic pieces (such as scripted speeches or preprepared (heh) branching conversations; prepared scene outlines; scripted bad-guy actions)? Or abstract guidelines fitting a certain dramatic impulse (such as "Act II: Ensure experiencer has a rival, a location goal, and a friend who could grow to be a story-long companion")?
Actually, don't worry too much about answering that. I've forgotten the context in which I originally asked. :)
[quote]Very cool. I think that this is a good start. Nevertheless, I would expand the process to include the macro level of the “drama engine”, which invisibly influences the way the experience evolves in order to guarantee a dramatic arc of rising conflict tension, leading to a climax, and then a resolution. I may be misunderstanding, and you may already intend this.[/quote]
Thank you. :o)
You're right, I do already intend that. The character system that I explained is just the base for the drama engine to work on. I agree that the "macro" drama must be included. I guess that would explain Chris Crawford's dubiety ("to be dubious"? hehe) on agent systems - they don't inherently encourage drama.
[quote]I will be glad when John gets back. He should really be in on this. We've been melding our respective backgrounds on this already, and I'd really like to see what he'd add to our already mighty fine conversation.[/quote]
Absolutely. :) There's nothing to fuel a discussion like four people with four viewpoints. (I'm glad you're still involved here, Biggles; too many people regard interactive drama as too much effort for a game, and end up with a game just like all the others. Keep posting! :o) )
I'm feeling excited. :D It's great to be in an environment where we can discuss something that I'm passionate about.
Biggles:
[quote]If you see something like that [wrong; bad; too much like current stuff], feel free to correct me.[/quote]
[i]*Turns on pedantic-and-picky mode.*[/i] I'm going to make comments that don't attack your ideas, but point out the possible pit-falls. Quite a few comments will just be rehashing things that I've read. To be honest, I think your idea is good already (certainly much better than most I've seen!).
[quote]While you two have taken the plunge into this new field, I have only just left the diving board.[/quote]
Heheh. [i]*Grant starts inventing his own brand-new, horribly-inefficient but probably-does-the-job swimming stroke, whilst Randy combines several strokes based on a great swimming education. Grant puts more effort in so he doesn't get left behind!*[/i]
[quote]The general idea is a combo medieval/modern world. It won't be a techno-fantasy world like the one that UO2 was going to be, rather it will be like a modern world without the high technology.[/quote]
(Based on my readings:) That can be rather dangerous. The player won't really know what to expect, faced with a mix of two familiar concepts. It's a case of not knowing what to expect next (will the next situation involve low-technology or hi-technology)? This goes against the well-supported idea of familiarising the player with the game world as fast as possible, allowing immersion without confusion or unfair surprise.
Let's say the experiencer wants to travel to a different city. He can't guarantee it will be a fast journey (car/train/plane) or a slow one (horse and cart/by foot). So he can't plan ("goodbye friends, I'll be back in a day or a month depending on current technology").
Um, ignore that example. (You said later in your post "people still use horses for transport.") But the idea is still relevant.
(Not based on my readings:) That said, anything can work if it's done well.
[quote]If the start-as-civilian route is taken then the only thing forced on the player throughout the game (we need a new term for that) will be the getting pushed into the resistance thing.[/quote]
How about "interactive story?" Or just "story?" I dunno. :)
For "good" interactivity, there's really only two options. Firstly, the game starts after the character is forced into the resistance. Secondly, the drama is very carefully orchestrated to strongly encourage the experiencer to sign up. (Perhaps the character's suburb is raided by the bad guys (maybe seeking a rebel leader, and willing to kill anyone in the area until he's found?) and his family killed. He's rescued by the rebels and offered a position... and what else is he going to do.
I guess the drama engine needs to enforce more and more "coincidental" crosses with characters from both sides, weakly at first (watching a bad guy hurt someone innocent) and growing in importance (leading to family members dieing in the battles). Few experiencers will refuse to join a side.
[quote]Once the experiencer is in a faction, they would probably start off by being given tasks to perform.[/quote]
Sounds like borrowing the army organisation/planning ideas described by Randy and John would be a good idea. ;)
[quote]Since the ultimate aim should be to have your faction win out, then if the rest of your faction ends up dead then the goal could become to recruit civilians and try to continue the work.[/quote]
A system open-ended enough to cope with this would be very complicated. Or surprisingly simple. All depends on your implementation.
The further you can get away from forced story scenes, the easier this will all be to put into place.
[quote]So many ideas going round and round in my head...[/quote]
Let 'em pour out. :D Our input will refine your ideas, and your input will teach us some new ones. :o)
Back to Randy:
[quote]I think that's a fine starting concept for an interactive experience - the underdog resistance vs. the evil empire (where have I heard that before?). It's classic. People love it.[/quote]
It even has rebel scum. ;)
[quote]But what you've said is not focused at all. I’m a firm believer in putting together a very detailed design document before beginning code work. If I were you I'd spend a lot more time defining the details on paper.[/quote]
I agree with this very strongly. (I happened to advise another game developer to do this, not too long ago.)
Biggles, this is what I suggest you do:
There's a lot of good design doc templates around on the web. Get one. Understand the reasons for all the sections. Go through it and fill all the sections out. Write at least two paragraphs for every section, more if you can. Detail is essential. It's not setting things in stone - design docs can change hugely during development. But having it out there is good. Then go back through the entire document and add more. Add more detail to points. Expand. Explain.
Some people end up with several hundred pages. (Of course that normally includes implementation details too, which neither of us can fully write at this stage. But the important thing is that the vision is fully explained.) Writing the document, and having to explain things in such detail, can really formalise and define the vague ideas that most people start with.
[quote]I'd also study Chris Crawford's material for some out-of-the-box thinking about how interactive entertainment can evolve.[/quote]
[b]Definately.[/b]
[quote]The idea was that the experiencer gets plopped down into a city without any background whatsoever. Part of the challenge is to understand what’s going on.[/quote]
(Based on my readings, (much like some of my opinions with Biggles above):) Ouch. That can be a really nasty start to a game. The game designer has a good knowledge of the game world, so why shouldn't the player? It needs a very good reason for the droppage (e.g. The Nomad Soul - the player's soul inhabits people from another world), and it requires a long period of play where the player has to learn everything and figure everything out. Disorientation to the max. Quite uncomfortable. Oh, and it can kill replayability too. (If badly done, most of the game is involved with learning things, so it's hopelessly simple second time around.)
Then again, as with before, if done right it will work.
[quote]The experiencer is forced to interact with the environment and with the NPC’s to figure out what’s going on, but doing so is dangerous.[/quote]
Similar problem. The player is discouraged from exploring. The player will either use the save/load features extensively, or resist exploration and remain ignorant of the game world for much of the game. Nasty.
Sorry, I'm not trying to idea-bash. But, as entertaining and appealing as the concept is, in practise it can be devoid of much fun. Especially in a multiplayer environment where experienced players know a [i]lot[/i] more than the new ones.
[quote]... the experiencers never know if they are encountering an NPC or an avatar of another experiencer.[/quote]
You'll have AI that can beat the Turing Test? ;) If there's [i]any[/i] complex form of conversation involved, players will know immediately. And because of the problems of natural language understanding, I believe that will be the case for a good many years yet. (Natural language is impossible without a good experience of the world. Computers won't have that for [i]ages.[/i])
Damn, that was quite a negative response. Sorry. :o(
[i]Posting this now - Biggles (over ICQ) says that he wants to start reading. I shall continue in the next post.[/i]
I'm not getting any younger here, Grant. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
------------------
[b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
The Balance provides. The Balance protects.
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
##### Beginning rant about the article Biggles linked to. If you don't want my boring opinion of it, skip to the next # section. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img] #####
Interesting link there... although I must say the author is a bit naive. He's essentially saying that making the game more interactive and responsive will make it more enjoyable. This is correct. He then claims that making it responsive is easy. This is [i]horrendously[/i] wrong.
How does the computer realise that stealing a pair of socks is unusual for a burglary? This assertion can only be made if the computer understands burglary - in this case, understands the normal value removed from a house illegally. That's fine - the designers could in-build the "expected" burglary proceedures and have people talk about deviations from the norm.
But the author also claims the world should be free enough to let the player do a range of things. Which means the computer has to thoroughly understand each possibility in order to respond interestingly. And if the world is free enough that the player can be creative, the computer needs to react in a similarly creative way to understand exactly what the player [i]intended[/i] when he broke in like a burglary but left money behind like a charity. It's a hopelessly complex task (with current technology).
##### And now for something completely different. #####
[quote]Personally, I am against developing MMO games. I resent the idea that I have to dial up to an ISP or have a high speed but expensive connection just to play the game. I am a huge fan of the single player experience. I buy games based on single player instead of multiplayer, which is just a side-benefit.[/quote]
I agree. Although if the game was created as Randy intends, you could play it single-player and not really notice the difference. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
[quote]I have an incredible imagination (people tend to have to tap me to get my attention cause I day dream too much), but putting that imagination to good use is still a skill I am developing.[/quote]
Want an idea for an interesting project? (Warning: Requires philosophical thought.) Try and figure out how your imagination works. Figure out general guidelines and rules for recreating an imaginative process. If you can do that, you can create an algorithm that works on a database of experiences and creates drama.
Maybe "imagination" takes a whole range of ideas and pairs them up against each other until an attractive combination is formed. Maybe it takes a situation in life and tests various outcomes until something attractive is found. I don't know; I haven't thought about it much. But it'd be a great start for desigining a story-telling engine.
Ok, I'm done. Your turns!
Well who's arguing? [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
I said, last post:
[quote]But the author also claims the world should be free enough to let the player do a range of things. Which means the computer has to thoroughly understand each possibility in order to respond interestingly. And if the world is free enough that the player can be creative, the computer needs to react in a similarly creative way to understand exactly what the player intended when he broke in like a burglary but left money behind like a charity. It's a hopelessly complex task (with current technology).[/quote]
Rereading this made me think about [i]true[/i] artificial intelligence. Chances are, even a clever computer won't be able to figure out why you smashed a guy's window and dumped gold over his floor. So why not ask the player? True artificial intelligence should be able to learn from what the player does.
I'll have to think deeply about this. Character planning and conceptualising will have to be flexible to respond to new stimulous, rather than fixed to plan only within the world that the computer understands.
Which could imply that the planning process would well be suited as a genetic programming task. Or, perhaps the world definitions themselves need to be intelligent in themselves, enough to respond to the experiencer's whim.
Hmmm..... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
I [i]know[/i] Biggles is typing a post. (Ahh, the magic of ICQ.) But where is it?
Tick... tick... tick...
Hypocrite.
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
Someone pass me my walking stick...
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
[quote]
Heheh. *Grant starts inventing his own brand-new, horribly-inefficient but probably-does-the-job swimming stroke, whilst Randy combines several strokes based on a great swimming education. Grant puts more effort in so he doesn't get left behind!*
[/quote]
Don't make me laugh. You'll ruin my dive. :D
I think you completely mis-interpreted what I meant by the combo world. To a casual observer, the world appears to be medieval. This is what the player would see and what they would begin to expect. Overall, this is what the world is. People ride horses, they fight with swords (or maybe magic to follow a far-to-often-used route), if you're rich you might have a sewer in your house that would probably be just a large pipe going to the nearest cliff with no pumps or anything like that. But as they continue through the game they will occasionally come across [b]ideas[/b] that are closer to our own civilisation than that of a medieval world. Things like a centralised goverment, keeping tabs on the current population, courts, etc. As you said (in ICQ), the Romans had this, so were they modern? In that sense, they were. I guess you could say this is a medieval roman world. But in many ways it isn't. It's all very hard to define perfectly at this point. They player will learn what to expect because the world will be consistent. There will not be anything like areas where people spend their time digging fields by hand while another area of the world spends its time playing with rocket ships. That kind of world just doesn't work, especially when it's meant to be all one world.
The idea of the drama engine gradually forcing the player towards one side or the other is what I intended. What side would depend on what side they went with in that fateful first encounter, which would be where the whole thing begins.
A good starting point would be to have the player spend some time wandering around, or give them a job, or something like that. They would hear rumours of these "resistance" people, sometimes for, sometimes against. They would hear how some people don't like what the government is doing (note that the goverment is essentially controlled by the Bad GuysTM, and so would be doing Bad ThingsTM to the common people). They might even hear rumours of a faction of people controlling the government from the shadows (why is it always from the shadows?) and that this is why the goverment is being rather NastyTM.
Then one day they would encounter a small skirmish between the two sides, or the bad side attacking a house, or something like that. There could be a number of possible things that could happen along these lines. The player could choose to help out one side or the other, or just ignore it. If they ignore it similar events will continue happening to force the player to one side or the other, right up to the family-being-killed thing that Grant mentioned. Eventually, if they player continues ignoring, they might get caught in the crossfire. Then it's join a side or get killed, which would be rather unwanted for most players. If they help out a side, that side might then ask the player to join, or they might ask for a favour like a delivery or something, or they might run off, ignoring the player, in which case the more-events route would begin. If the player refuses to join they may become an enemy of that side (wow this is getting branchy, but all branches go to one of three places), or they might just be left until the next such event. The reason for these events growing in magnitude and occurance would be growing unrest in the world.
Anyway, eventually the player would end up on one side or the other, whether they want to or not. If they don't want to be on that side, they could always defect, but don't expect the other to trust them instantaneously. :) There would be a good chance of the side they defected from killing them before they can join the other.
What happens once they join a side will take more thinking about... more on that later I guess, though you're very welcome to provide ideas.
I guess that much of the start of the game would be like that new Midgard game being made. The player would have a role in life, and would carry it out until they get pulled into the conflict.
Making a system that can cope with the player being the only one left then going around recruiting people would be difficult to create, but a hell of a lot of fun to play. In current RPGs, you can ask certain people to join you and if certain conditions are met they will. Imagine being able to ask anyone at all to join you, even a 4-year-old child, and they'll decide based on their impression of you and what you want to do, like what side you are on for example.
Somewhere along the line the game is going to have to end. Having the player get killed is not an ending, because then they could just reload the game. There has to be a goal in the game. The player's faction winning would be one, but that may not be possible after a point. Once again, more thinking needed.
[quote]
It even has rebel scum. ;)
[/quote]
Hell yeah! Every game needs rebel scum! :D
[quote](Based on my readings, (much like some of my opinions with Biggles above):) Ouch. That can be a really nasty start to a game. The game designer has a good knowledge of the game world, so why shouldn't the player? It needs a very good reason for the droppage (e.g. The Nomad Soul - the player's soul inhabits people from another world), and it requires a long period of play where the player has to learn everything and figure everything out. Disorientation to the max. Quite uncomfortable. Oh, and it can kill replayability too. (If badly done, most of the game is involved with learning things, so it's hopelessly simple second time around.)[/quote]
I find I have to agree in part here. It could be very repetitive the second time through, because the player would already know everyone. This is more like a normal adventure game. What you would need would be to have something random going on in the world, and random NPCs around. I'm sure you've thought of that though.
[quote]Want an idea for an interesting project? (Warning: Requires philosophical thought.) Try and figure out how your imagination works. Figure out general guidelines and rules for recreating an imaginative process. If you can do that, you can create an algorithm that works on a database of experiences and creates drama.[/quote]
I'll leave that to Randy. Maybe when I can make games I'll do that. :)
Enough babbling for now. Grant is getting impatiant. :D You did have all weekend you know...
------------------
[b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
The Balance provides. The Balance protects.
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
[quote]Our "turns"?[/quote]
To post.
[quote]I think you completely mis-interpreted what I meant by the combo world...[/quote]
I see now. I thought you meant a bizarre mix of technology types. The terms "modern" and "sewars" together made me thing of (funnily enough) modern sewars, and that implies pumps, which imply power sources, and so on.
[quote](wow this is getting branchy, but all branches go to one of three places)[/quote]
Branches are the bane of true interaction. Note that this is just the introduction to the game, and it's already getting branchy. Imagine things later on.
Design things so that branches aren't needed. Any "if-then" options ("if player doesn't respond to mild threats, then get family killed," etc) should be limited to [i]very[/i] special cases only. Design things so that the standard engine produces the effect you want.
Kind of like placing the player in control of a neutral space fighter in a "hot" zone in the B5 game. The battle's naturally going to heat up there - both sides have goals in that sector. The player will get caught up in it or run a very long way away. Similarly, base a resistance HQ nearby the experiencer's residence. Things will naturally take their course. (It could result that the character's family gets killed off right from the start. That's ok. Each game will be different. :) )
It's good to write the branching list of possibilities. Just don't implement things that way. Use it to design an engine that can handle each and every one of those possibilities.
Similarly with defection etc. Design the engine to incorporate trust. Analysis of the experiencer's choices will be needed.
That's all I want to say really. The idea is great. Just don't implement it in a traditional manner.
[quote]I guess that much of the start of the game would be like that new Midgard game being made. The player would have a role in life, and would carry it out until they get pulled into the conflict.[/quote]
The danger is that having a role in life can be quite boring if the engine isn't built to enhance it. That was part of the reason I stopped producing the Carrier Command game. (For everyone apart from Biggles: A game of life simulation aboard fighter carriers in space, similar to Wing Commander except the player is in charge.) Much of the game would be boring, because the player would just be playing life on board. Skipping past the boring elements would screw with the simulation. Lose-lose situation. :(
[quote]Somewhere along the line the game is going to have to end.[/quote] My suggestion is to limit the scope of the conflict. Rather than a resistance tackling the whole Bad Guy® troupe, limit the confrontation to resistance HQ on Bad Guy® division. This has several advantages:
[list]
[*] There's room for a sequal. (This is better than it sounds. Stories that end with "and they all lived happily ever after" can be a bit abrupt.)
[*] The player doesn't have to "win." The sequal could import the character/situation from the end of the game. Whether it's success or loss, the main story can still go on.
[*] There will be fewer people involved, which will strengthen the role-playing aspects (potentially). Having a band of ten men can be more interesting than a troupe of two hundred. Things become more personal, hooking the experiencer in. Scope is there for more personal themes rather than just battle strategy and leadership roles. (I'm generalising heavily.) More importantly (perhaps), forces that are too sizable can reduce the role-playing game to a simple strategy game. ([i]Edit: Added this example:[/i] The original Dune game is a perfect example. Small band of people (Atreides) recruits natives to wipe out the capitalist pigs. Great adventure play until the war really starts against the Harkonnen, at which point it becomes a simplistic strategy game and little else. It got too big. (Still fun, but not as interesting any more.))
[/list]
Ahh, that'll do for now. :)
[quote]I find I have to agree in part here. It could be very repetitive the second time through, because the player would already know everyone. This is more like a normal adventure game. What you would need would be to have something random going on in the world, and random NPCs around. I'm sure you've thought of that though.[/quote]
Even with random NPCs and events, it could be too simplistic second-time around, knowing what the (general) situation is and what things mean.
I must say that it is possible to actually [i]enhance[/i] the second playing if you are [i]very[/i] skillful with the world and drama. [b][i]Very.[/i][/b]
[quote]I'll leave that to Randy. Maybe when I can make games I'll do that.[/quote]
It won't be necessary for the car game, but I'd definately advise that you give it some thought before the next project. Major concepts need to be practically nailed before starting implementing a specific game. (But that's what you're saying, so why am I typing all this? Yeah, I'm tired. :) )
[quote]Enough babbling for now. Grant is getting impatiant. :D You did have all weekend you know...[/quote]
I just wanted to see how fast you'd be after complaining at my "slowness!" And my weekend was very full, I had very little time at home. So deal with it. ;)
[This message has been edited by GrantNZ (edited 10-21-2001).]
[b]Just a heads up: [url="http://www.gamedev.net/reference/design/features/lowlevel/"]http://www.gamedev.net/reference/design/features/lowlevel/[/url] . Saw that link on GameDev.net not 5 minutes ago. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
[/b][/quote]
I appreciate the author's concept of "low level story" as a way to create re-playability.
He is tied to the idea of interactive entertainment being a "game", it seems to me. That's okay, but different from my focus. I find the idea of "game" too limiting in the creation of my wet dream - interactive drama.
While he gives one little example of how to implement "low level story" mostly it's an article having to do with his personal POV - in other words, not very substantial, and therefore not very useful to me.
For instance he spends very little time in talking about how to make low level story emotionally involving, beyond the surprise that what the experiencer does actually has an effect on the game state, which is an obvious need, to me.
Regarding your response to my suggestions about your game idea, I hope that you know that I wasn't putting you down in any way whatsoever, rather, simply offering advice - which, of course, you are free to consider or ignore. :-)
I admire your willingness to go about your tasks pragmatically, and your willingness to make sure that you don’t get in over your head. That’s more than I can say for some so-called professional designers I’ve come in contact with. J
[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 10-21-2001).]
Maybe "imagination" takes a whole range of ideas and pairs them up against each other until an attractive combination is formed. Maybe it takes a situation in life and tests various outcomes until something attractive is found. I don't know; I haven't thought about it much. But it'd be a great start for desigining a story-telling engine. [/b][QUOTE]
Holly guano, Batman. That’s enough fuse to blow up twenty brains!
Hmmmmm. My thinking cap will need longer duration cams, maybe taller velocity stacks, to say nothing of high octane oatmeal – and a bigger cooling fan.
Expanding on your idea, it may be fun to look at the (at least) two ways that the brain processes information – in a linear, calculating way – and in a pattern-making process – linear and holistic processes complimenting each other in a synergy system.
What does that mean in terms of an engine? Maybe the engine is bicameral. Maybe it does what computers do best on one side, but on the other works to discover patterns (in actions, in a database of experience, etc.). The two sides work independently to come up with several possible routes for implementation of material. In the final part of the processes, the best or closest match between what the linear side and the pattern-making side came up with, when compared to the current game-state, is what is implemented. (Author panting).
[b]I said, last post:
Rereading this made me think about [i]true[/i] artificial intelligence. Chances are, even a clever computer won't be able to figure out why you smashed a guy's window and dumped gold over his floor. So why not ask the player? True artificial intelligence should be able to learn from what the player does.
[/b][/quote]
Maybe the experiencer has an NPC sidekick, mentor, guide, pest, etc. While seeming to the experiencer to be simply a friend and/or ally, in fact this character is a way for the engine AI to question the experiencer. It's sort of like Q is under cover as your friend, but without you knowing it is manipulating your experience based on your actions and expectations.
Criticisms noted.
The kernel idea comes out of my own interest in being a stranger in a strange land. I'd like the mental challenge of figuring out what's going on - in terms of who's in back of events that I witness - and in terms of what is their motivation.
This interactive experience wouldn't be frustrating in the way mentioned, because the environment of the experience would be realistic, consistent (thank you Biggles), and most importantly, intuitive. In other words, getting around in the world wouldn't be difficult - it would be as one would expect. The challenge is in figuring out why events happen, and what those events mean. In other words, there's a difference between interface (simply - intuitive), and interactive narrative (you must figure out what's going on and make a commitment to one side or the other).
The challenge for the developer is to find clever, interesting, fun, challenging ways to constantly engage the experiencer so that it is not possible to be non-interactive.
For instance, you must defend yourself. And for your own safety, it would be best to have allies. So you must act.
NPC's will be compelling in the way they relate their side and personal perspective of what's going on. The conflicting goals on both sides will be understandable and reasonable. It could be that only one side has that honorable quest - or not. But because the experience is designed to be "in your face" - you must act.
And by acting you are drawn in. And because the actions of all involved, and the construction of the narrative material, and because the conflict is well designed from a dramatic POV, and because the characters are drawn by dramatic principles to be compelling, the experience will keep the experiencer emotionally involved.
Been thinking a bit about scope here: I could probably limit the scope a bit by making the engine drag the player into the resistance side only, rather than give them a choice of sides. That would ease developement the first time through.
But I need to do some more thinking before I post another long reply, so till then...
------------------
[b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
The Balance provides. The Balance protects.
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
heh heh
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
Randy:
[quote]For instance he spends very little time in talking about how to make low level story emotionally involving, beyond the surprise that what the experiencer does actually has an effect on the game state, which is an obvious need, to me.[/quote]
Very true, and well spoken.
[quote]Hmmmmm. My thinking cap will need longer duration cams, maybe taller velocity stacks, to say nothing of high octane oatmeal – and a bigger cooling fan.[/quote]
Hehehehe. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
The reason I suggested the "interesting project" is that is exactly how [i]I[/i] work on solving design issues - find the raw processes that drive things.
[quote]Expanding on your idea, it may be fun to look at the (at least) two ways that the brain processes information – in a linear, calculating way – and in a pattern-making process – linear and holistic processes complimenting each other in a synergy system.[/quote]
That immediately makes me think "use both neural networks and genetic algorithms at the same time." Something I shall keep in mind (and probably discard - I don't like NNs much).
[quote]What does that mean in terms of an engine?...[/quote]
It means we need to spend a [b]lot[/b] more time designing the thing. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img] I'm just glad that it's so far in my future at this stage. (I want to complete the action elements of my game before proceeding to the interesting bits.)
[quote]Maybe the experiencer has an NPC sidekick, mentor, guide, pest, etc.[/quote]
That's exactly what I'm planning. It will be especially useful if the experiencer decides to plan anything (attack, strategy for converting civilians to the resistance, whatever) - he'll probably need/want to explain his plan to his allies. But it will be equally useful for gauging experiencer reactions to dramatic elements. If the character says "yeah I'm good, and how are you?" immediately after losing his girlfriend to a movie star, he probably wasn't all that attached, and following that theme would be rather pointless.
Et cetera. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
[quote]And finally... getting back to that game idea I never did anything with.[/quote]
I won't comment any more on it, mainly because I still don't like the idea. (Although your continued explanations do make it sound better) Similarly, I don't like driving sims. There's the occasional driving sim that I do enjoy though, if they happen to be well made and accommodate my general quirks. So don't take offense. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
Anyway, more comment from me won't be more profound than what I've already said. So I'll shut up.
(BTW, I like the foundations for the ideas. It's just the setting that irks me.)
On to Biggles:
[quote]I could probably limit the scope a bit by making the engine drag the player into the resistance side only, rather than give them a choice of sides. That would ease developement the first time through.[/quote]
Unless you can develop the engine so that resistance forces and Bad Guys® are controlled in the same way. In that case, it doesn't matter where the experiencer goes.
JackN:
[quote]You guys talk too much...[/quote]
You don't talk enough. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
Time for a rest. Five hours sleep is silly.
Jack: You could always join in. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
[quote]It means we need to spend a lot more time designing the thing. I'm just glad that it's so far in my future at this stage. (I want to complete the action elements of my game before proceeding to the interesting bits.)[/quote]
Same here. Get the fundamentals down, then the story stuff will be far easier to test properly. Although quite how one would test something like this thouroughly without spending months playing it through over and over again I don't know. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
[quote]Unless you can develop the engine so that resistance forces and Bad Guys® are controlled in the same way. In that case, it doesn't matter where the experiencer goes.[/quote]
I suppose that is how it should work. NPCs should look like they are players, and the player should fit in like an NPC. That way the story would continue advancing no matter which side the player was on, even if they were neutral. For example, if they kept refusing to join a side then the two sides would still continue their conflict and the escalating events designed by the engine to pull the player into one side would be a part of this conflict, with the conflict and the drag-in events growing larger at the same time to give reason to them being there. Otherwise it would seem that the player was being targetted personally for no apparent reason.
One big problem has just occured to me now: How to implement this game world, which seems to require a large number of NPCs, on a current computer? That would be far far too much AI going at once. Maybe most of the NPCs would not have their own AI, but would instead be controlled almost directly by the drama engine. Only key NPCs would then have their own AI, and would just be given goals by the drama engine. Then their AI would take over to achieve those goals.
------------------
[b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
The Balance provides. The Balance protects.
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras