Re: cinematics. In a recent game the Christy and I worked on (The Legend of Alon D’ar for Stormfront Studios/ UbiSoft), Stormfront was able to use the extra resources of the PS2 platform to run cinematics without leaving the game. Simply, the characters would start from wherever you left them and begin acting out the cinematics. The camera would start from wherever you had it set, and then begin to move into the pre-programmed camera moves. It's pretty cool, and pretty seamless. Except for noticing that you can't interact with our characters for a minute or two, there is no noticeable difference between game and cinematics. In this particular instance the "directing" for the cinematics is pretty rough (character blocking, character gesturing, camera movement and angles) - not nearly as refined as I'd like to see, but I think this game advances interactive storytelling a little in a workable direction. To be clear, yes, these are real-time CGI characters in a “living” real-time CGI environment (day-night, waving fields of grain, flags flapping in the wind, moving water, etc. ). The characters “breath” too, pretty kewl. (For those reading from far away lands, “kewl” is “cool” said with a Southern California twist).
The development of drama can have to do with relationships between characters and environment, as well as between characters and other characters. One idea would be to have pre-conceived environmental events happen that support the overall story. Tied to this is set design, which should be build not just to look cool, but to support the emotional tone of the drama, and physical requirements of the drama. So the drama engine will need to keep track of time, and/or the movement into and out of “acts”, and/or the location of characters, and/or the fulfillment of specific requirements, in order to know when to “trip” possible environmental events designed into the interactive experience. (Night-day, flood, fire, avalanche, explosion, storm, tunnel collapse, etc.). You’re chasing evil-doers up a treacherous mountain path, and then there’s an earthquake, and then it starts raining. Drama is like this: you put characters up a tree and then throw rocks at them.
It almost seems like you guys are visualizing the on-going creation of “story”, and/or drama. If so, I doubt this can work. Part of the magic of drama is the arousal of expectations, the delay of gratifying those expectations, and the creation of a sense of getting closer and closer to the fulfillment of the desire that has been created. There should be a continual escalation of tension. For this reason I see the drama engine as managing from a macro view set of pre-defined parameters, or instructions, which include a movement through “acts”, where each offer a variety of experiences, and which also guarantee an escalation of tension by making sure that events triggered in one act happen before the events lined up in the next act happen. This is because each subsequent act has been designed to offer actions that are designed to cause more tension than actions in previous acts. In other words, making the player and NPC’s move from “pool” to pool of possible events, where each pool has hotter water.
This does not mean we’re talking about a linear story. Instead, on a micro level, there is no way to know [i]how[/i] each act will unfold, because NPC’s are not programmed to work on rails. Instead, they work based upon goals, biases towards other NPC’s and the player’s avatar, and towards various environments, and unique methods of taking action, and un-programmed encounters with the player or other NPC’s. These NPC’s could also have schedules that they must also contend with (like a daily routine). A bias could be to try and maintain the routine, despite competing needs = stress = more radical behavior.
The micro-level storytelling evolves out of the player interacting with the environment and with NPC’s, but at the umbrella level, the intensity of possible occurrences is managed to guarantee an ever-rising sense of tension.
The sense of anticipation is central to drama. The sense of surprise is central to drama. So the writer/ director’s job is to tease the anticipation, surprise the audience, while withholding the expected reward, while continually increasing the stakes, until they are worked into a lather, before finally giving them their reward, but in an unexpected way – works just like good sex. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
This above paragraph would be impossible if the creation of story were left to an on-going series of events and encounters created by some kind of drama engine that does not have built into it the blueprint of a well thought out dramatic design.
It just occurred to me that you can look at an interactive drama design like this:
You put two (or more) opposing groups of characters in an environment that is booby trapped with a huge amount, and large variety, of traps – and then set them free to see what will happen. We have no idea how events will unfold, but we do know what kinds of things can happen.
Now expand this to the idea of each trap actually being a series of traps – each one more dangerous than the last, but in act one you can only trip the act one traps. In act two you can trip the act two traps, etc.
[quote]Originally posted by Biggles:
[b]Just out of curiosty, who is actually reading this thread here (apart from the four or five of us providing the entertainment)?
[/b][/quote]
Me, of course. It's just that I don't have to say too much here [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/shyshad.gif[/img]
------------------
We are one. No matter the blood, no matter the skin, no matter the world, no matter the star. .. We are one.
No matter the pain, no matter the darkness, no matter the loss, no matter the fear. .. We are one.
- Alliance Preamble to the Declaration of Principles, The Paragon of Animals
Webmaster [url="http://www.Sprungtor.de"]www.Sprungtor.de[/url]
[quote]Originally posted by Biggles:
[b] You could be waiting some time. Just out of curiosty, who is actually reading this thread here (apart from the four or five of us providing the entertainment)?
[/b][/quote]
Oh, gee, Biggles...thanks for the vote of confidence... :P
I'm reading it....and I'd like to jump in with my own ideas, but I need to go back and read the entire thing. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
[quote]I never said that framerate was more important.[/quote]
My apologies. When you originally said:
[quote]...as the game engine needs more power it can get it by lowering the priority of the AI...[/quote]
I thought you meant game engine to refer to rendering. Now, I understand and agree.
[quote]The AI would operate within boundaries to prevent the story getting out of hand or going away from the designers vision too much.[/quote]
My goal is that the drama engine respects the plexor's vision/goals more than the designer's. I would like the job of the designer to be:
[list][*]Create the storyworld.
[*]Create some initial positions, [i]if[/i] desired.
[*]Create some general theme / goal strategies, [i]if[/i] desired.[/list]
Ideally, I'd like the designer to simply need to generate a set of stages to form a world, and have the computer generate the rest. Yeah, I'm a future-gazer. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
Eventually, [i]eventually[/i], the computer could generate the world too...
bobo:
[quote]So we need not only a director AI, but a producer AI, too? Where does the gaffer AI come into play, setting the lighting levels to heighten the dramatic effect?[/quote]
In my view, you're not too wrong there bobo. If drama calls for a dramatic entrance of a bad guy, there better be a nice horizontal shadow for him to step from. (Feet lit first, then legs, body...)
Then we need costume AI, that choose characters' daily outfits depending on the character's desires [i]as well as[/i] the likely upcoming scenes. Then makeup artists to make characters look tired early in the morning or after a long battle. Sound engineers to decide what sound effects should be included. Blah blah blah blah blah!
[quote]I assume your not talking about cut-scenes with prerendered video, but scripted action with the ingame player models[/quote]
That's close to what I mean. Except I'd remove the "scripted" part. I'd take cinematics as meaning all the parts outside of plexor decisions. i.e. Any time the plexor isn't deep in a conversation or action scene. Such as the long shot of a house where some action will occur. Or a shot of people moving towards each other to talk.
[quote]For that matter, can you include the plexor in any controlled movement and not destroy the illusion?[/quote]
Half-Life did that quite well by having NPCs heads looking [i]at[/i] you while talking, no matter where you moved. It made it feel that the player was important to the NPCs, to some extent.
So yes, I believe it's possible to have plexor-controlled movement in cutscenes.
[quote]If the plexor is witnessing the cutscene, then they may see it first hand or they may see it from a third person point of view. How often do you imagine watching yourself do something?[/quote]
I'm going for a movie approach, where the plexor's character is viewed third person unless the plexor wants first person during combat.
[quote]If they are watching first hand then the engine would have to give them control. If they want to run away, they can. But then the only way to find out what happened would be to ask other people who were witnesses.[/quote]
I don't think cutscenes should be so long and of so much imortance that the player loses control for too long. After all, a non-controllable piece of action isn't interactive...
[quote]I don't think that cutscenes of events happening elsewhere where the plexor is not present would destroy the illusion.[/quote]
I agree. It can be very drama-building.
Randy:
[quote]The development of drama can have to do with relationships between characters and environment, as well as between characters and other characters.[/quote]
True, and nicely pointed out. I do value character-drama much higher though. In fact, I can get a bit sick of films where an earthquake just "happens" to occur at a good or bad time. But environment is important, I don't disagree. Especially things like weather that don't affect the story but do change mood.
[quote]It almost seems like you guys are visualizing the on-going creation of “story”, and/or drama.[/quote]
There's no reason a computer can't create a story where tension is built. The computer just needs to be able to judge how "tense" a moment is. Tenseness could be measured by difficulty of action scenarios and strength of emotion in character scenarios.
[quote]...would be impossible if the creation of story were left to an on-going series of events and encounters created by some kind of drama engine that does not have built into it the blueprint of a well thought out dramatic design.[/quote]
So, we write it some blueprints.
I wish I had time to write more on all of this, but I'm going out soon. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/frown.gif[/img]
samuelk:
[quote]I'm reading it....and I'd like to jump in with my own ideas, but I need to go back and read the entire thing.[/quote]
Just jump in! [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
ahh... hmm ok.. my two cents worth by way of metaphoric example and perhaps a soloution to getting good interactive AI, (by cheating of course), that somehow got stuck in my data filter some years ago. I'm sorry but I have no reference, only the key facts and sketchily at that.
Ok.... now.
In espionage we use bugs - electronic listening devices or sensors... and they have to be bloody small and good quality. So of course they tend to be very well made and have a minimum of circuitry and so forth...
Their chief problem is detectability... they have to remain hidden both physically and to an extent from other types of senses/sensors.
Well there are a few ways around that...
Make the little suckers mobile... and give them a brain...
A cockroach AI. An INSTINCT AI...
You give the cockroach/bug a set of heirachical instructions...obeying them in decending order of priority...
One - use your photosensor to stay in the darkest place you can find... ( coin tosser or a grid search pattern of the existing floorspace )
Two - if you feel a strong moving electromagnetic field, shutdown to minimum power ( someone sweeping for bugs )
Three - dont move if you feel vibrations
Four - Move closer to any sounds you hear.
Five - Move around every hour or so
Six - goto your transmitting point and burst transmit your data if your memory is full and you are in a transmit time window
Seven - if your memory is full ignore all the rules except one, two and three.
Eight - Return to your charging station when your battery gets low enough that you only have enough juice to return to where it is from where you are.
Now if memory serves this lil critter was the size of a matchbox and it had all it needed onboard.... so I imagine it didnt need a hell of a lot of computing grunt to work...
Could it be possible to structure an NPC's AI to respond like the above ?
I guess the more variable you add to the mix the more complex the hierachies become... perhaps scalable hierachies apply dependent on the importance of the ship/NPC concerned in regard to both in game terms ( a capital ship ) and Player terms ( your own onboard computer in your fury 'frinstance)
Forgive me if this is how your versions of AI are structured...
this is how I understand AI, being the codeschmuck I am... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
I just cant see how shedloads of CPU time could be consumed by a bunch of NPCS 'programmed' like this... but....
I am only an Artist... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
anyways... I think this is what you are all trying to get at... carboard cutout AI's etc... to my mind linking it back to 'real life' makes sense... the 'CPU' in a cockroach is alot smaller than the one in most humans.
labelling the levels of AI in critter terms makes sense to me...
cockroach = extras on the set
chicken = two line throwaway part = the guy in the toll booth on the hyway you pass through
dog = bit part (the waiter serving the main characters)
dolphin = supporting actor/ess
monkey = lead character
I also agree that if the PC is determined to talk to the Toll booth man that you have to give him/her a brain transplant on the spot...
"100 million years up the evolutionary tree in a few nanoseconds"... but I guess you really do need a point where they either run away or point a 9mm up the players nose...and politely suggest that the storyline doesnt go this way [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
~~~~~
And on the point of CPU offloading work to slaves PUS like Video and Sound...
I wish the coputer engineers would get there proverbials together and make 'puters with CPU's and genuine SPU's...
Imagine how fast a machine would go if the CPU's only job is essentially being Lord Muck/traffic cop.... while ten others just like it terms of sheer grunt are subservient to it... go about the 'spadework'....
not only that... if it was done right.... you could recycle last years 'old' chips down your machines food chain/pyramid so to speak...tho you'd have to bum a few more identical ones to fill out your machine....
I know that alot of engineering, networking them all together but done right I don't think we'd be running out of speed anytime soon...
oh yeah... and animal totems seem to be good for most labelling systems... our hunter/gatherer brains seem to relate to it very well
for instance in this case :
a sheep is an NPC who follows all the other NPCS around
a wolf actively hunts for interaction with the PC or other NPC's
a bee will always put defending its mothership/home above its own saftey...
a mosquito will be very careful not to get hit but it will always try to attack you
an Aardvark is another Firstone in cooperative play mode... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
anyways.... combinations of all the critters nutshells some pretty complex AI stereotypes within any given game....
a wolfish bee monkey sums up a paragraph of explanation of that NPCs AI type..
have I lost anyone ? [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
it makes sense to me....
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
Oh great, look at this. Virtually nothing for days then a huge surge... Well at least the topic hasn't died. :)
[b]Randy:[/b]
[quote]Simply, the characters would start from wherever you left them and begin acting out the cinematics. The camera would start from wherever you had it set, and then begin to move into the pre-programmed camera moves. It's pretty cool, and pretty seamless. Except for noticing that you can't interact with our characters for a minute or two, there is no noticeable difference between game and cinematics.[/quote]
That sounds quite similar to what I would like to have cinematics as. Prerendered cinematics would also be used for events that are guarenteed to happen (like the intro and endings).
[quote]It almost seems like you guys are visualizing the on-going creation of “story”, and/or drama.[/quote]
Actually, I am going for more what you describe, a story guide at the macro scale while at lower levels the story can play out pseudo-randomly. I guess the way I've been talking it sounds like I want a "free-reign" world, but what I actually want is a world where a sequence of events that form a story take place, just not in the same order and probably not even in exactly the same way. These events will be large, world- (or at least town) shaking events. These would be determined by the creator of the story. As the story progresses the plexor's and other character's situation may change so they may end up on the run together or hunting the other side together or something like that. This sort of thing could be decided by the creator, so the progression of the story through the acts (yes, I also think "acts" are a very good way to do interactive drama) would build to this point. There may be different options for how the story could progress depending on how the plexor and NPCs behave, which would build tension, etc in different ways and lead up to a different finale, either for the act or the entire game. Maybe this isn't quite as interactive as you would like, but we have to take things one step at a time, and we do havea story to present that needs to be presented in the right way. :)
The plexor would also experience a large number of other, smaller events that are determined by character's actions rather than the designer. These would help to break up the story so it doesn't seem permanently fixed in one path.
[quote]If so, I doubt this can work.[/quote]
I agree, at least at today's (and near future's) technology. This would be extremely difficult to implement. Basically that would be a completely open-ended design where the computer is constantly thinking up more story for the plexor.
[quote]There should be a continual escalation of tension. For this reason I see the drama engine as managing from a macro view set of pre-defined parameters, or instructions, which include a movement through “acts”, where each offer a variety of experiences, and which also guarantee an escalation of tension by making sure that events triggered in one act happen before the events lined up in the next act happen. This is because each subsequent act has been designed to offer actions that are designed to cause more tension than actions in previous acts. In other words, making the player and NPC’s move from “pool” to pool of possible events, where each pool has hotter water.[/quote]
Pretty much how I want mine to work. I have a story to tell, I want to tell it and have people experience it.
[b]Rick:[/b]
[quote]Oh, gee, Biggles...thanks for the vote of confidence... [/quote]
I meant me. :) Given that I am still at the 3D engine learning stage, it will be a while before I produce anything on my own. Unless we all team up for one project, of course...
[b]Grant:[/b]
[quote]My goal is that the drama engine respects the plexor's vision/goals more than the designer's.[/quote]
It sounds to me that you are going more for an open ended design and story, where the player can keep going until their character dies of old age. As I said above, I have a story I want to tell (or I will eventually anyway).
I think the part of the designer is of story and world creator and then overall story guide.
[quote]Then we need costume AI, that choose characters' daily outfits depending on the character's desires as well as the likely upcoming scenes. Then makeup artists to make characters look tired early in the morning or after a long battle. Sound engineers to decide what sound effects should be included.[/quote]
Talk about overhead... :D
[quote]I'm going for a movie approach, where the plexor's character is viewed third person unless the plexor wants first person during combat.[/quote]
I probably would as well. 3rd person seems to fit my world better. In this case you could block control for short cutscenes. Anything of any real length or importance should leave the plexor in control, otherwise the illusion is broken.
[quote]True, and nicely pointed out. I do value character-drama much higher though. In fact, I can get a bit sick of films where an earthquake just "happens" to occur at a good or bad time. But environment is important, I don't disagree. Especially things like weather that don't affect the story but do change mood.[/quote]
Character drama can mean character-environment interactions as well. For example, what if your character is stuck in the middle of a desert? Or they're walking between towns through the Waste and suddenly an acid storm breaks out. Well the drama is now showing just how screwed they are. :)
[quote]That's me.[/quote]
But not me. :) I'm more like Randy's approach, only probably not so advanced.
[quote]There's no reason a computer can't create a story where tension is built. The computer just needs to be able to judge how "tense" a moment is. Tenseness could be measured by difficulty of action scenarios and strength of emotion in character scenarios.[/quote]
The computer may be able to create more tension, but it will most likely seem very artificial. Computers lack something a designer has: imagination. To make use of a designer's imagination the computer will have to work to a designer's script, at least in part.
[quote]So, we write it some blueprints.[/quote]
Which makes doing an open-ended one very difficult without (and this is important) it getting repetitive.
[b]Shadow Boxer:[/b]
That is pretty much how a cutout would work. They would have a bunch of responses to certain actions. If they keep getting prodded, give them more responses.
[quote]I am only an Artist... [/quote]
You said it, not me. :D
[quote]I know that alot of engineering, networking them all together but done right I don't think we'd be running out of speed anytime soon...[/quote]
Unfortunately there are some big complications that work against this idea at the affordable-for-us level the moment. I know, I've been studying it at uni for the past 16 weeks. :)
And that's me for the night. Till next time...
------------------
[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 like the animal terms. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
[quote]anyways... I think this is what you are all trying to get at... carboard cutout AI's etc...[/quote]
Yep, you've pretty much hit it on the nail as far as I'm concerned. Simple rule-based state machines are good enough for controlling most cutouts. And they're pretty cheap.
It's when an NPC needs to be complex and think for itself that AI gets tough, and I don't believe rule based AI would work interestingly or flexibly enough to simulate human behavior.
[quote]...and politely suggest that the storyline doesnt go this way[/quote]
This is the only bit I disagree with, but I'm sure everyone's getting sick of my open-endedness now. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
[quote]you could recycle last years 'old' chips down your machines food chain/pyramid so to speak[/quote]
Sounds good to me! Biggles, is it possible to explain (without stealing too much of your time) what the main obstacles are to this system?
Biggles:
[quote]That sounds quite similar to what I would like to have cinematics as.[/quote]
Alrighty, I hereby drop usage of the word "cinematics" because I'm obviously using it in a different context. Prescripted scenes are anathema to me. Especially ones that remove plexor interaction.
I shall call [i]my[/i] cinematics "mood shots." [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
[quote]I agree, at least at today's (and near future's) technology. This would be extremely difficult to implement.[/quote]
Could someone explain why story creation is so impossible? I've thought a lot about the high-level design of a story creation/drama engine system, and while I don't argue that it is a complex problem, I can't see that we should wait for computers running on neural networks before we try it, nor do I see any huge implementation obstacles other than time.
[quote]that would be a completely open-ended design where the computer is constantly thinking up more story for the plexor.[/quote]
Look at most American action movies. A typical example might go:
[list][*]Naughty powerful people do something bad to some innocents. There is really something else behind all this, but that is hidden and will be revealed at the end as a "twist."
[*]Bad people effect the life of the main character.
[*]Main character strives to block the bad peoples' goals, but the bad people stay one step ahead. Insert possibilities of escalated battles, revelation that the enemy is stronger than expected, major setbacks, unexpected twist-like occurrences such as NPC defection, etc.
[*]Main character embarks on his final pursuit of evil people, and fails, getting captured or otherwise. Insert twists to reveal the true nature of the world as needed/wanted.
[*]A weakness of the bad guys (since all evil people [i]must[/i] have a weakness, to prove that good people are better) is exploited by the main character, who now goes on his [i]real[/i] final pursuit.
[*]Showdown between the main character and main evil guy, icons of good and evil. (I don't care if the good guy's character is a beer swilling swearing lout - he's battling for the side of good, so he will morally be judged that way.) Good guy nearly loses but again manages to find a weakness that leads to bad guy's death. More twists if the good guy still doesn't know what's really been happening. Optional: A twist that reveals the bad guy isn't really dead, or there's a bigger bad guy, et al.
[*]Hero gets recognised in some form.[/list]
(It's only been hastily written and thought up, but it illustrates my point...)
This could be considered a "blueprint" that Randy was talking about. It's a story guide that leads towards one type of action movie. The computer could have a whole lot of these possibilities from which to select. Events in the world just need to be adjusted to fit the blueprint. (i.e. Don't send the biggest baddest enemies after the character in Act 2.)
Story is pretty general, and doesn't need to be created constantly. It's just a guideline that specifies generally how NPCs should act and how the drama engine should portray the world.
[quote]It sounds to me that you are going more for an open ended design and story, where the player can keep going until their character dies of old age. As I said above, I have a story I want to tell (or I will eventually anyway).
I think the part of the designer is of story and world creator and then overall story guide.[/quote]
That's not quite my goal. I have a vague story I want to tell as well, but the initial setup of the storyworld should lead to it. Good guy starts here with these resources, bad guy starts here with these resources. Good guy's organisation battles with bad guy's organisation. The clash will occur, and to "finish" the story the bad guys will need to be eliminated. It's just up to the plexor and drama/story engine as to how we [i]get[/i] there.
If we want to tell a specific story, we should write a book. If we want it to be a macro-level story with some branches, we should write a "choose your own adventure" book and perhaps ask the reader to shuffle a certain range of pages beforehand.
[quote]Talk about overhead...[/quote]
Similarly with the story creation thing, the computations aren't really [i]that[/i] big and only need to be performed a few times. The potential problem is program resources (I'm thinking textures etc).
[quote]The computer may be able to create more tension, but it will most likely seem very artificial. Computers lack something a designer has: imagination. To make use of a designer's imagination the computer will have to work to a designer's script, at least in part.[/quote]
This paragraph is another that leads to my suggestion of trying to figure out how imagination [i]works[/i]. Is it just a space-searching algothim that gets attracted to (um) attractive ideas? If so, computers don't need to give up hope of simulating it.
[quote]Which makes doing an open-ended one very difficult without (and this is important) it getting repetitive.[/quote]
Which is exactly how I feel about action movies. But people still go to them in droves. Apparantly repetition isn't that big a deal with storytelling.
Aaargh... I'm going to be late to work because of all you people. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
[quote]Could someone explain why story creation is so impossible? I've thought a lot about the high-level design of a story creation/drama engine system, and while I don't argue that it is a complex problem, I can't see that we should wait for computers running on neural networks before we try it, nor do I see any huge implementation obstacles other than time.
(snip)
Look at most American action movies. A typical example might go:
Naughty powerful people do something bad to some innocents. There is really something else behind all this, but that is hidden and will be revealed at the end as a "twist."
Bad people effect the life of the main character.
Main character strives to block the bad peoples' goals, but the bad people stay one step ahead. Insert possibilities of escalated battles, revelation that the enemy is stronger than expected, major setbacks, unexpected twist-like occurrences such as NPC defection, etc.
Main character embarks on his final pursuit of evil people, and fails, getting captured or otherwise. Insert twists to reveal the true nature of the world as needed/wanted.
A weakness of the bad guys (since all evil people must have a weakness, to prove that good people are better) is exploited by the main character, who now goes on his real final pursuit.
Showdown between the main character and main evil guy, icons of good and evil. (I don't care if the good guy's character is a beer swilling swearing lout - he's battling for the side of good, so he will morally be judged that way.) Good guy nearly loses but again manages to find a weakness that leads to bad guy's death. More twists if the good guy still doesn't know what's really been happening. Optional: A twist that reveals the bad guy isn't really dead, or there's a bigger bad guy, et al.
Hero gets recognised in some form.
(It's only been hastily written and thought up, but it illustrates my point...)
This could be considered a "blueprint" that Randy was talking about. It's a story guide that leads towards one type of action movie. The computer could have a whole lot of these possibilities from which to select. Events in the world just need to be adjusted to fit the blueprint. (i.e. Don't send the biggest baddest enemies after the character in Act 2.)[/quote]
Simple story structure does not drama make. Drama arises from a synergy between multiple layers of knowledgeable construction.
Let's go from the inner to the outer.
At the most inner level is [i]subtext[/i], which colors the actions of the actor in subtle ways, as expressed through inflection, body language, and stage blocking. The subtext is most effective when it is in conflict with what the actor is saying in dialogue. The next level is dialogue, which should be surprising, as well as informative. The synergy between subtext and dialogue works like this: what you learn from watching subtext expressed has a certain value. What you learn from dialogue has a certain value. But what you learn from the dialogue and the subtext inspired behavior together leads to insight that can not come from either dialogue or subtext separately.
Going out further, there is scene construction. A scene is a mini-story with a beginning, middle, and end. The scene can be backstory exposition, can move the story forward, or can give us insight into characters, or character relationships. Scenes, like all drama, should express their information through conflict. The best scenes are surprising, and lead the audience to conclusions rather than telling an audience what to think or feel. There should be a well thought out interlacing of subtext, dialogue, and scene construction that creates a dramatic synergy, where the end effect is greater than the information in subtext, dialogue, or scene construction separately.
Going out further still, the scene is a part of an act. Each scene must be connected to the theme of the overall work, and to the purpose of the act. The overall value of each scene should work synergistically with its partner scenes in the act, in terms of content, rhythm, and context or association, so that within the act there is a building flow of emotional energy, like water forced through a venturi, in other words, the flow of the mass is accelerated by forcing it through the constriction. And there are many other tools to use in the effective formation of an act as well. But though it may seem that I have failed, I am really not trying to write a drama textbook here.
Upon passing through the constriction, which also swings the action into a new and unexpected direction in drama, we go into the next act.
The point that I’m trying to make is that effective drama is an outgrowth of a complex amalgam of cleverly fashioned layers working synergistically, the formation of which demands a vast multi-disciplinary knowledge base, insight into the human condition, and wit. I do not foresee even the best AI from M.I.T. being able to create effective drama for some time. I do believe, however, that something approximating the emotional reward of a grade C movie could be achieved at this point, which wouldn’t depend on much more than then the thin structure you mention.
This is why I think that we’re still at the place where the [i]drama engine[/i] must be a device that manages at the macro level from a plan that is designed by a well-trained and clever artisan, not a machine.
[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 10-30-2001).]
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
Right. I have 5 minutes so this will have to be short.
[b]Grant:[/b]
[quote]Sounds good to me! Biggles, is it possible to explain (without stealing too much of your time) what the main obstacles are to this system?[/quote]
Maybe after the exam, when I have some time. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
[quote]Alrighty, I hereby drop usage of the word "cinematics" because I'm obviously using it in a different context. Prescripted scenes are anathema to me. Especially ones that remove plexor interaction.[/quote]
"Cinematics" can mean many things, even in the same game.
[quote]Could someone explain why story creation is so impossible? I've thought a lot about the high-level design of a story creation/drama engine system, and while I don't argue that it is a complex problem, I can't see that we should wait for computers running on neural networks before we try it, nor do I see any huge implementation obstacles other than time.[/quote]
I think Randy covered this one better than my attempts did.
[quote]Story is pretty general, and doesn't need to be created constantly. It's just a guideline that specifies generally how NPCs should act and how the drama engine should portray the world.[/quote]
What happens when it's over? Is that the end of the expereince or do you have more stuff planned? In my one that sort of outline would be the entire story, and at the end the experience would be over (except for the sequel [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img])
[quote]If we want it to be a macro-level story with some branches, we should write a "choose your own adventure" book and perhaps ask the reader to shuffle a certain range of pages beforehand.[/quote]
Any particular reason why this could be implemented in a computer game? Besides, it isn't quite the same thing. Choose-your-own-adventure books are characterised by very clear cut decisions at specific times. In my experience the plexor's constant actions would define the experience, not something like a question popping up on the screen at a time saying "What will you do?". Not exactly what would happen but it illustrates my point.
[quote]Similarly with the story creation thing, the computations aren't really that big and only need to be performed a few times. The potential problem is program resources (I'm thinking textures etc).[/quote]
Yeah that's what I meant. But then again, DVDs have a lot of space... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img] Or use fractal textures.
[quote]Which is exactly how I feel about action movies. But people still go to them in droves. Apparantly repetition isn't that big a deal with storytelling.[/quote]
The thing there is that action movies are typically weeks if not months apart. Each one is in a different setting with slightly different characters and a slightly different story, but the big thing is being weeks or months apart. You would be asking the plexor to play through action movies that happen in the same general setting with many of the same characters on one side or the other over and over again. That [b]would[/b] get repititious.
[b]Randy:[/b]
[quote]Simple story structure does not drama make. Drama arises from a synergy between multiple layers of knowledgeable construction.[/quote]
Apart from agreeing with this, I'm not going to comment on Randy's stuff because I'll drown. [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
Thank your for the essay. I don't want to make a rash counter-statement without giving it proper thought, and that thought may take some time and rereading, so I'll return to it at a later date. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
Maybe non-artists like myself don't really have much hope. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
Biggles:
[quote]What happens when it's over? Is that the end of the expereince or do you have more stuff planned? In my one that sort of outline would be the entire story, and at the end the experience would be over.[/quote]
My thought is that once the storyworld designer's overall goal is accomplished (e.g. one side "winning") the "wrap-up" part of the drama engine would kick in, doing all sorts of dramatic things that I can't remember the words for.
[quote]Any particular reason why this could be implemented in a computer game? Besides, it isn't quite the same thing. Choose-your-own-adventure books are characterised by very clear cut decisions at specific times. In my experience the plexor's constant actions would define the experience, not something like a question popping up on the screen at a time saying "What will you do?". Not exactly what would happen but it illustrates my point.[/quote]
My point was that that particular level of story interactivity is no better than one of those books. I say this because the "big" story in your's/Randy's scheme is little more than that. If your story has "options" (different branches accessible) then it has just as much clear-cut branching as one of those books, regardless of the "little" scene-by-scene or act-by-act stories in which the game gives freedom.
No matter though, I know that's all you're aiming for. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
[quote]Yeah that's what I meant. But then again, DVDs have a lot of space...[/quote]
Ahh that reminds me... I was going to make reference a post or two ago (but forgot) to Chris Crawford's essay on data vs process. Go read if you haven't already.
I wish I could remember [i]why[/i] I was going to make that reference!
About action movies:
[quote]Each one is in a different setting with slightly different characters and a slightly different story, but the big thing is being weeks or months apart.[/quote]
Characters, setting and story are all subservient to theme. And the problem with the typical American action movie is that the theme is [i]exactly[/i] the same: Evil is bad and shall be punished; Good is an underdog but will win through and be rewarded. Ever notice that people who die in action movies have generally shown [i]some[/i] aspect of badness beforehand? (The typical exceptions are cops and major disasters.) It's extremely morally pure and [i]exactly the same in every damned movie[/i]. I find action movies to be a nice distraction occasionally, but I'm normally yawning before the climax.
A book editor once turned down a story with the simple reason: "Nothing [i]happens[/i] here; no problem is solved, nothing is learnt." (That's not the exact quote, but I can find it if anyone wants.) Past the first action movie, the rest are exactly the same. Nothing new happens. Nothing new is learnt. It's just an exercise in graphics and devising twists. Much like FPS computer games.
[i]*Stops ranting*[/i]
[quote]would be asking the plexor to play through action movies that happen in the same general setting with many of the same characters on one side or the other over and over again.[/quote]
Haven't we covered character generation? [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
Setting is a problem, but some intense research could overcome it.
The interactive drama system I've been trying to describe is forever dynamic at the micro level, and only pre-defined in terms of rules, parameters, and total possible narrative material in support of a dramatic experience - my system can be described as a dynamic paradigm, if one governed by an pre-designed umbrella management system working at the macro level.
So what I have been trying to describe is certainly not the same thing as interactive books. The interactive book's branches are forever predefined; the branches will always be the same, and this can be defined as static paradigm.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
Got a really bad headache tonight so can't think much...
[quote]No matter though, I know that's all you're aiming for.[/quote]
I just about take offense at that. You sound as if you think that neither of us are going for anything more interesting than a branching story.
I'm with Randy. I do not intend to implement a "choose-your-own-adventure book" type game. However, I don't intend to create an experience where anything may happen that involves a randomly generated bad guy doing random things which build up to a random climax, at which point a new random bad guy pops up and does new random bad things... repetition gets boring very quickly. However, with my intentions the story would progress in a very different way every time through.
Instead random events will take place within each context that build up in scale up to the climax of the experience.
------------------
[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
Biggles:
[quote]I just about take offense at that. You sound as if you think that neither of us are going for anything more interesting than a branching story.[/quote]
No offense intended, and I apologise for the misunderstanding. I made my original remark ("I know that's all you're aiming for") purely in the context that you both believe that generated story/drama is impossible, which I (currently - I haven't fully digested Randy's earlier essay yet) disagree with. If story/drama isn't generated, it must be made in advance. (Even if on a macro level - I'm not talking about smaller interactive events.) Randy made an analogy last page to a world filled with traps, each trap matching a certain act. If those traps aren't generated, then they must be written by the game designer. Imagine each trap as a page in a book. If player goes this way and is in act 1, trigger trap 52. If player goes that way and is in act 3, trigger trap 8. Do you see the branching structure now? (Although this matches Chris Crawford's web idea more than a branch idea.)
[quote]Instead random events will take place within each context that build up in scale up to the climax of the experience.[/quote]
My point is only that the contexts are pre-written and very similar to branching, not the random events that comprise a dramatic point. (Although if drama and story cannot be generated, as you both insist, how do you plan to generate random events that fit the drama and story? Randy made the point in his essay that even a single scene is very much artwork.)
Randy:
I've just realised that my response to you would closely match what I've said above to Biggles.
Again, apologies for any offense caused. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/frown.gif[/img]
[This message has been edited by GrantNZ (edited 10-31-2001).]
No offense here. I hope that we're not all so sensitive that we have walk on egg shells with each other. Constructive criticism, powerful arguments, just as powerful counter-arguments - that's all good stuff. In the process we'll define our own preferences and find things that we can agree on, and perhaps come closer to detailing a new form of interactive experience.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
And maybe one day we'll get "plexor" entered into GameDev.net's gaming dictionary. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
Grant: Don't worry about it, 'twas more of a joke.
I think the idea of traps is more like crafting a world than creating pages for a book. Imagine if God created Earth in that way. The things we run into in everyday life would be the traps. Some things we would run into when we're young, some we would run into when we're old, some we may run into at any point in life (like a big cliff, for example).
------------------
[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 imagine a story/drama world in which we find NPC's that are [i]loaded[/i] with dramatic action potential (where [i]action[/i] doesn't have to be overt physical action, but can also be dialogue, etc.), and a variety of environments that are also loaded with dramatic potential. Since the NPC's also have [i]autonomy[/i] and personal schedules, and motivations other than those associate directly with the development of drama, and since we don't know where the experiencer will go or what the experiencer will do, there is no way to determine how the "story" will develop.
We don't know for sure which NPC's will conflict with each other, what effects this will have, whether or not the experiencer will do something to change the direction of events. All that the designer knows is that certain NPC's are attached to libraries, which are segmented into an act structure. But these NPC's have many dramatic actions possible per act, and so we don't know which dramatic actions will be brought forth. Same thing with environments. They are tied to libraries also, but there are many things that can happen per act, and we don't know what things will happen.
The experiencer is in the midst of dramatic elements, but we have absolutely no idea how the drama/story will evolve. To me this seems much more dynamic than any kind of a branching system.
Yes, there is only so much pre-defined narrative/dramatic material in order to keep the project from becoming too big to be practical. So it is more limited than a completely open-ended design. But what we gain is enough control to assure an emotional experience. Update packs could be designed to [i] plug into [/i] the storyworld/ drama engine for the creation of new adventures. I think of it like a repertory company, where the same actors assume new characters and present a new story.
In a branching system, once a choice is made (action taken)only certain pre-defined and linear paths become available. In the system I imagine once an action is taken, not only could a random numbers of things result, but those events/actions could trigger other events/actions for a domino effect, which is largely uncontrolled, as autonomous agents act and react, perhaps triggering associated environmental events, which in turn inspire more reactions by the autonomous agents.
[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 10-31-2001).]
[quote]No offense here. I hope that we're not all so sensitive that we have walk on egg shells with each other. Constructive criticism, powerful arguments, just as powerful counter-arguments - that's all good stuff. In the process we'll define our own preferences and find things that we can agree on, and perhaps come closer to detailing a new form of interactive experience.[/quote]
I'm glad you think of it this way.
I was thinking about this on the way home from work today. We've all come from different directions and eagerly and enthusiastically thrown our ideas into a heap, and now we're seeing that they all clash. Now's the time to set our boundries...
Biggles:
[quote]And maybe one day we'll get "plexor" entered into GameDev.net's gaming dictionary.[/quote]
We'll have to convince Randy to use the term first. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
Back to Randy:
[quote]In the system I imagine once an action is taken, not only could a random numbers of things result, but those events/actions could trigger other events/actions for a domino effect, which is largely uncontrolled, as autonomous agents act and react, perhaps triggering associated environmental events, which in turn inspire more reactions by the autonomous agents.[/quote]
I'm going to say "triggers" rather than "traps" here. I refer to an action taken by the plexor that initiates a dramatic event.
How do you guarantee that triggers are hit? Is it possible that the plexor can wander around the world for a long time, stuck in one act because he's missed the triggers? (I understand triggers don't have to represent physical pressure pads, but understand that "wandering around" doesn't have to mean spatially wandering too.) Is it possible to hit all triggers but one, therefore stuck in an act? Or are the triggers saturated in the world so they cannot be avoided? Will the world dramatically continue onwards if no triggers are hit? Or perhaps there will be contingency triggers that activate after a period of nonactivation?
Does the increase of tension occur because triggers in act four trigger more dramatic events than those in act three? Is it possible for the plexor to trigger the most powerful triggers (within an act) first, leading to a local [i]decrease[/i] in tension (or at least decrease in rate of tension growth)?
How are the triggers implemented? Is it a case of mini-scripting? (Such as, Plexor kills Sam -> News spreads about Sam's death; (new trigger) Tom (Sam's son) hears news that plexor killed Sam -> Tom seeks out plexor for retribution; Plexor meets Tom -> Plexor has met another major character; Plexor meets all major characters -> Proceed to next act?)
Finally, are the events caused by each trigger pre-scripted dramatic scenes? Or pre-scripted (but altering according to past events) dialogues? Or just guidelines for NPC actions? If they are just guidelines, how will the actions be implemented in a dramatic way?
Answer all that, and I'll believe the vision a bit more. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
You're going to have to have some method of triggering events as well, Grant. What's your plan at the moment?
Me: I don't have one, although an idea is to have what would probably be called "portable triggers," in that the are attached to NPCs rather than a certain area of the world. When the plexor encounters one of these triggers in the form of the NPC, something will happen that is determined by the NPC's feeling towards the plexor, what the plexor does (they might not know the NPC and thus ignore them as another cardboard cutout, or they might attack with or without reason), plus (probably) a whole bunch of other stuff. But it won't be prescripted at all. The trigger itself will be generated by the drama engine to help advance the story within the guidelines of the current act, which would be fairly broad and unlimiting. So in this sense the design is fairly open-ended. I guess that if this trigger is not released after a certain period of time (say, for example, that the plexor and the NPC are on opposite sides of the world) then the NPC would carry out some action anyway and then the plexor would hear about it through news reports or rumour or something. That way if the plexor decides to avoid contact with any they don't know the story would still advance eventually. Only the struggle would turn more in favour of one side or the other, depending on what side the NPC was on. These encounters could help raise the tension (maybe the plexor only just manages to get away from a Bad Guy or something).
I think I need to do some serious design work before I can contribute anything more to this story thing...
[quote]We'll have to convince Randy to use the term first.[/quote]
You hear that, Randy? Start using it, then we can be famous! [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
Regarding the term “Plexor” – I missed how it came about. Is it player+experiencer? Why do we need this term? Why is it better than “Avatar”, which has been used for some time?
Regarding the questions you pose, if I had all of the answers I would be trying to get R&D money instead of trying to work it out here with you.
I’ll answers your questions in terms of the way that I would approach each problem, based on only one thing: the principles of drama. I’ll leave it to a master programmer to figure out how to transform dramatic principles into a [i]drama engine[/i].
[quote] How do you guarantee that triggers are hit? Is it possible that the plexor can wander around the world for a long time, stuck in one act because he's missed the triggers? (I understand triggers don't have to represent physical pressure pads, but understand that "wandering around" doesn't have to mean spatially wandering too.) Is it possible to hit all triggers but one, therefore stuck in an act? Or are the triggers saturated in the world so they cannot be avoided? Will the world dramatically continue onwards if no triggers are hit? Or perhaps there will be contingency triggers that activate after a period of nonactivation?[/quote]
First, I think that it’s a mistake to design games for the people who fall way outside normal behavior – that is, to design games for people who don’t want to do anything, or people who’s only pleasure is derived from trying to “peek behind the curtain”, instead of doing his or her part to suspend disbelief and willingly take part in the experience. I don’t mind having a little something there for novices who may get baffled, and I don’t mind having something there for trouble-makers who are just trying to see how far they can push the design (especially if it’s something unexpected and just as mischievous as a reward for their effort). But I wouldn’t want to center the design on marginal types.
I think that it would be a good idea to look at the purpose of each act in a three-act structure. The first act is the “set-up”. It delivers all of the background exposition the audience needs to know in order to understand and be moved by the dramatic situation. This includes introducing the main characters, their place in the storyworld, and backstory that’s necessary to understand up front, and the kind of world the drama will take place in. We need to set the rules of this universe, and then consistently follow those rules for the duration of the drama. Is there magic in this world? If so we need to establish that right away. If we say that this is a “real” world, then it would be inappropriate to bring in magic later, because that would seem false. However, it is possible to hint at, or foreshadow magical elements in a way that the audience is uncertain about, and then bring in magic later. The audience will remember back to that strange incident in act I and accept that in act II there can be magic.
Act I also delivers the “inciting incident”, which sets the dramatic action moving. In the first act we find a status quo in the storyworld. But this status quo, the seeming normalcy, is based on a lie, or misunderstanding, or at least is somehow out of balance. So underneath the status quo is a seething turmoil just waiting for the right stimulus to turn the status quo into chaos. The inciting incident disturbs the status quo, and is absolutely tied to, or caused by the protagonist, even if inadvertently.
So, to bring this home – at the beginning of an interactive dramatic experience we need to establish everything that is required of act I. If we set the storyworld and timeframe, introduce the main characters, establish the status quo, foreshadow that there is something wrong with the status quo (that it’s in some way out of balance), and then surround the protagonist (plexor) with ample opportunity to create an inciting incident, so that the collapse of the status quo (resulting in pain and misery) is tied to him in some way (the result of his action – or something for some reason that only he can make right), then there will be several results. The plexor will, at the onset of the interactive drama, understand how the storyworld works, will understand the status quo, will understand that something is wrong that must be made right, and will understand that stakes, which always must be very high. Given these various understandings, if the dramatist has done his job well, the plexor will [i]want[/i] to take action. There should be no motivation to “just wander around”.
To make this more specific for an example, if this interactive storyworld were centered on a plexor who is a detective, the plexor would be motivated to interview NPC’s, travel to various places to try and gain information, all in an effort to get to the bottom of the problem, in order to make things right.
In short, early in the interactive experience we need to motivate the plexor to act by creating a convincing storyworld with a major problem, where people that he cares about are at risk. If we succeed at doing this, then the plexor will seek out the triggers.
Act II starts off with unexpected information that spins the action into a new direction. Where Act I was devoted to exposition, Act II is devoted to conflict, in ever increasing levels of tension and difficulty, leading to a seemingly unsolvable problem, which [i]can[/i] be solved by the protagonist through novel thinking/ action. Once this novel thinking/action takes place, soon after we have a climax of events. Act III is devoted to resolution.
Yes, I think that there should be NPC and/or environmental actions that can take place if there has been a certain period of inaction. This inaction [i]may[/i] mean that the plexor is stuck. The action that comes into play, which is triggered by inaction on the plexor’s part, can be looked at as a “hint”.
On a tangent to this, we don’t want the plexor to become bored or frustrated, so not only should “hint” actions be triggered by plexor inaction, but also the NPC’s and environments should be highly interesting in themselves. In other words, interacting with NPC’s and environments should be entertaining in themselves, aside from dramatic content.
[quote]Does the increase of tension occur because triggers in act four trigger more dramatic events than those in act three? Is it possible for the plexor to trigger the most powerful triggers (within an act) first, leading to a local [i]decrease[/i] in tension (or at least decrease in rate of tension growth)?[/quote]
In order to address these problems I have so far focused on [i]libraries[/i] of possible dramatic actions (whether expository or overt), which are attached to NPC’s and environments. These libraries of possible actions are like a database in that they are sorted into possible Act I actions, Act II actions, and Act III actions. One job of the [i]Drama Engine[/i] is to make sure that Act I only Act I actions are available. In Act II only Act II actions are available, and so forth. In a more complicated version of the Drama Engine, the engine would [i]look[/i] at the current state of the storyworld and [i]decide[/i] which Act I (for instance) actions best fit the current state of evolvement, and then [i]bias[/i] these actions to be more likely to be brought forth.
Since many possible events are possible in Act I, there is re-playability. And yet since the plexor can only experience events in [i]act order[/i], there is a guaranteed escalation of dramatic tension and sim difficulty. Not all possible actions in any one Act would be available in one play-through. Instead there would be enough narrative material so that the buyer could do at least 4 novel play-throughs. And there are other ways of extending re-playability.
For instance, in ITF there is one main story arch, but there are four [i]narrative threads[/i] that can be followed. In other words, there are four points of view from which the main story arc can be experienced. In the case of ITF, the main story arc can be deduced from the narrative material offered in four different major quadrants of IA territory. To further mix it up, the plexor can be assigned randomly to missions that are a part of the four narrative threads. In other words, the player can be assigned to first one major quadrant, and then to another, so that the main story arc is deduced from the narrative material from a variety of narrative threads. And each time the sim is experienced, the missions the player gets are different. To mix it up further, the missions are grouped into five libraries, representing five “acts/ levels”. To further mix it up, there are lots of missions available for each major quadrant of space, and each act/level. So even though the plexor may get act II missions in the Minbari quadrant in the first play-through, and once again get Minbari quadrant missions in the second play-through, they may be different act II missions, or the plexor may not get Minbari quadrant missions until act III, and so forth. To further mix it up, there is Sector 14, which can cause parallel universe time/space anomalies, which have an effect on the personality profiles of NPC’s (alien species in this case), different alliances, different military capabilities, and finally, a different outcome at the final battle, and thus have an impact on which end sequence is played. Even though bits and pieces of narrative material are pre-scripted, the way in which the simulation evolves is completely unpredictable (except for the main story arc) for up to four or five play-throughs. And though this is certainly not open-ended, we thought that four or five play-throughs, where each may take weeks to accomplish, was plenty of value for the money spent. In addition, once the buyer had the original simulation, new narrative packs could be purchased for a small amount of money, which would plug-into the sim engine from the original game, so that potentially, once you have the sim engine, you can use it to continue experiencing a serialized narrative, featuring new missions, for a small amount of money. This was the way we addressed open-ended (no much dramatic/story control) vs. emphasizing story (not much re-playability).
[quote]How are the triggers implemented? Is it a case of mini-scripting? (Such as, Plexor kills Sam -> News spreads about Sam's death; (new trigger) Tom (Sam's son) hears news that plexor killed Sam -> Tom seeks out plexor for retribution; Plexor meets Tom -> Plexor has met another major character; Plexor meets all major characters -> Proceed to next act?)[/quote]
The ways of implementing triggers are limited only by imagination. I would use a combination of methods, which ever tool works best for the specific situation - mini-scripting, re-calibrated personality traits, environmental events – lots of tools to use. For comparison, when a director is putting together an effects sequence for a feature film, there is no reason to go just with CGI, or just with prosthetics, or just with pneumatics, or just with a guy in a monster suit. Instead each set-up is analyzed so that the best solution can be found. I say, use all of the tools. And if you can’t find one, invent more.
Addressing act breaks: at least two tools could be used to invisibly guide the plexor to major actions that will instigate events, which will spin the drama into a new, unexpected direction, and thus into a new act. One tools could be to divide up each act into timed sections. After a certain period of time in an act, different dramatic actions become available that will cause more dramatic things to happen, which will create a cascading effect, which results in movement to a new act. The other tool is this: If certain specific flagged actions have taken place, new actions become available that will cause more dramatic things to happen, which will create a cascading effect, which results in movement into a new act. I would want to use both of these tools and expect to invent more.
[quote]Finally, are the events caused by each trigger pre-scripted dramatic scenes? Or pre-scripted (but altering according to past events) dialogues? Or just guidelines for NPC actions? If they are just guidelines, how will the actions be implemented in a dramatic way?[/quote]
Once again, I would use all tools available and expect to invent more. Sometimes events could cause of recalibration of NPC’s personality profiles, including biases towards other NPC’s and/or the plexor, willingness to withstand losses, antagonistic behavior vs. helpful behavior, changes to schedules, goals, methods for achieving goals. I would also use pre-written dialogues, but I would make sure that there were a variety of ways the narrative material could be spoken of. Depending on how far along parsing has come and AI development, I’d be up for trying to have NPC’s speak for themselves given needs created by events. I’d also use pre-scripted scenes that happen by way of [i]cinematics[/i], rather than pre-rendered scenes, which I personally feel take the plexor too much out of the dramatic experience, and therefore aren’t worth the extra graphic resolution, especially now that real-time CGI has such high resolution.
The question “…how will the actions be implemented in a dramatic way?” is vague and is difficult to answer because of that. In general the answer would be “They would be designed and implemented by a dramatist, so they would be inherently dramatic”.
[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 11-01-2001).]
Firstly, a recommendation to everyone. Try putting a soluble tablet straight into your mouth rather than into water. Feel it bubble on your tongue. Seal your lips and throat and relax your jaw and observe as your mouth slowly fills with gas. Observe the strange impossibility of sucking hard on something that creates gas around it. Finally, crunch it into many pieces and witness the explosion.
And now for something completely different.
Biggles:
[quote]You're going to have to have some method of triggering events as well, Grant. What's your plan at the moment?[/quote]
I want to drive as much as possible through the character engine. Most other things can be handled by invisible altering of the game world. If the plexor should meet an important NPC, that NPC [i]might[/i] be given an unusual mood (character altering, to create an interesting instance of meeting the NPC) and teleported near the plexor (world-altering, for the purposes of simulating the "chance" aspect that occurs in a lot of drama) with a short-term plan of moving closer to the player (character-altering again, to ensure the meeting occurs). Forshadowing can similarly be handled - the engine could select the idea of having a forshadowing event take place ouside the plexor's influence, but within sight - just enough for the plexor to identify that something isn't right.
Note that I don't intend to make a fully explorable world like a FPS game, but create a set of stages linked together. Having a NPC bear down on you in a FPS seems weird, but having an actor enter a stage is quite different. And I don't want a first-person viewpoint!
Two paragraphs ago, I said the NPC [i]might[/i] do some stuff. The accentuation on the word "might" means that those actions had been selected by the drama engine for the purpose of introducing plexor and NPC. My idea is to have a set of dramatic "ideas," where the engine selects an idea for accomplishing a purpose.
So the introduction act would execute dramatic ideas for accomplishing the scene-setting, NPC introducing etc etc goals. And so on, and so on. The drama engine would execute goals very much like the act structure Randy speaks of, selecting from a set of dramatic ideas to adjust the world to meet those goals.
Hmmm... perhaps our systems aren't so different after all. My system uses more abstract dramatic ideas though, I believe, and I want the freedom for the engine to adjust the theme to whatever the plexor is interested in. Take Biggles' game: The plexor could be interested in the struggles of defeating the enemy, or he could be more interested in having a love affair during the time of strife. I want my engine to fulfill whichever the plexor desires. Note that the set of themes that the engine would use as reference are based [i]very[/i] heavily on Polti's Dramatic Situations - I linked to it ages ago.
Ohh, by the way, if the drama engine's goals are resisted by the plexor, then two things should happen. Firstly, the engine should retry, perhaps using a different dramatic idea. Secondly, if the plexor isn't interested in the drama offered, the engine must adjust to what the plexor wants. If this means crossing to another theme, perhaps even adopting a "loner" theme style, then so be it. i.e. If a plexor doesn't hit the necessary triggers, the engine must adjust as if the triggers were not necessary in the first place.
Chances are I've described all this badly with a lot of weaknesses, but I'm tired. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
[quote]Regarding the term “Plexor” – I missed how it came about. Is it player+experiencer? Why do we need this term? Why is it better than “Avatar”, which has been used for some time?[/quote]
Exactly right. I coined it a while ago because "experiencer" was becoming a pain to type, especially in paragraphs that needed it a lot. We don't really need it, although it does combine the ideas of "game" and "experience" (we can't really avoid either label for what we're creating, IMHO). Finally, "Avatar" to me smells too much of Ultima, and the dictionary definition "manifestation" doesn't fit for me personally. A manifestation of myself in a game world would sit in front of a computer all day, where a character that I control would still retain its own personality.
But it's just a personal thing, you don't have to use it. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
[quote]Regarding the questions you pose, if I had all of the answers I would be trying to get R&D money instead of trying to work it out here with you.[/quote]
The reason I asked those questions was that they illustrated (to me) the biggest potential problems with the system - if you can satisfy those questions in my view, then I can see no obstacles.
[quote]First, I think that it’s a mistake to design games for the people who fall way outside normal behavior[/quote]
As long as you're not ignoring people's [i]individual[/i] behaviours. Text adventures have long had this problem with hunt-the-verb issues. What if the plexor of your game really is more interested in trying to be moral support for a team, rather than leading a team to victory? Or they desire to run and live as a fugitive, rather than taking their designed place as a hero? It [i]is[/i] unusual behavior, and most games don't take these odd issues into account. But the more interactive you make the world, the more people will want to fulfill their personal desires, rather than playing the game the designers intended.
[quote]plexor will, at the onset of the interactive drama, understand how the storyworld works, will understand the status quo, will understand that something is wrong that must be made right, and will understand that stakes, which always must be very high. Given these various understandings, if the dramatist has done his job well, the plexor will want to take action. There should be no motivation to “just wander around”.[/quote]
Be careful with your assumption there. Why [i]must[/i] the wrong be made right? This of course [i]does[/i] depend heavily on the story, but as a counter example, my character in Baldur's Gate II is doing comparitively few quests, because he doesn't always believe in the "wrongs." Why [i]should[/i] my character persecute a religion at the request of another, even if that religion [i]does[/i] include the mutilations of the bodies of the believers? [i]Especially[/i] if the stakes are high? A lot of selfish characters might prefer to ignore or profit from the wrong, rather than setting about fixing it at great risk.
I'm not really making intersting examples, but it shows the danger of mixing interactivity and assuming plexor desires.
Secondly, "wandering around" isn't necessarily intentional. I've played a couple of games where options given to me seemed so foolhardy compared to the rewards that I avoided them, and after talking to every NPC I could find, finally realised the story could not progress until I took the plunge and did something I thought was stupid. Sure, the game was designed so these paths weren't that impossible, but I "wandered around" because they didn't seem like feasible options to me. Other people may have disagreed. Drama, while universal, still means different things to different people.
Anyway all this rebuttal is very philosophically-based and can (in some ways) be attributed to just bad design from certain game companies, so I'll shut up.
[quote]On a tangent to this, we don’t want the plexor to become bored or frustrated, so not only should “hint” actions be triggered by plexor inaction, but also the NPC’s and environments should be highly interesting in themselves.[/quote]
This has a potential downfall. Firstly, the interest factor can be distracting from the main plot, if the world is too interesting, leading to a lot of intentional "wandering around." Secondly, a world that stagnates if the player strays from the designer's vision can serve to bring the player back on track. Compare with my example before, where everything died off until I made one of the plainly given choices. If the world was too interesting and varied, I may not have known where to go to continue the main plot.
---
As far as my other questions go, I agree that a lot of them are just implementation issues although I was expecting you to bias towards certain options. The majority of my concerns are above, anyway. (Well, the concerns I've thought of so far. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img] )
[quote]The question “…how will the actions be implemented in a dramatic way?” is vague and is difficult to answer because of that.[/quote]
That question was directed towards the possibility of the drama engine relying on adjusting characters. If, for example, drama suggests a character should become angry, how would the angry character express that dramatically? By drawing on the drama libraries for dialog spoken by an angry character? (I guess you'll say this is just another implementation issue... and I suppose it is. Forgive the programmer for his implementation fetishes. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img] )
I should say here as an afternote that I don't always present opposing points of view because I necessarily disagree. Sometimes I'm just pointing out possible holes in the system.
Ok. Bed time.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
I'm drunk, so I'm not even goping to [b]try[/b] reading any of that, let alone responding. [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
one quick point on "zen-and-the-art-of-guiding the-punter"... ( sorry guys but I really cant swallow the term 'Plexor'... I keep seeing visions of Tron and glowing frisbees.. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img] I have a pathological subconcious need to take the piss out of everything.. I think I got a triple dose of Aussie irreverance when they made me )... anyways ..I digress.
What's wrong with busting the Third wall ?
That's a term I'm borrowing from comics and to an extent from movies as well... I can't think of a good example universal example that the main proponents of this dicussion would know about but I'll use the one I know... it should hold without prior knowledge...
"The Sum of us"... Russell Crowe and Jack Thompson.. ( good movie by the way ).
Jack Thompsons character has a stroke, he's effectively a vegetable... but... in one scene there is a small piece of narration which Jack addresses straight to the camera.. in character, instead of VO. He is sitting on the dunny and is plainly having a private and intimate moment with the camera/viewer..
Plainly he should just be a mumbling dribbling waste but the "third wall" the one between the viewer and the cast, is broken so cleanly that you absorb whats going on without feeling like your 'suspension of disbelief' is popped.
Done slicky I cant see why this couldnt be impliemented in an interactive story... perhaps and as genuine deliberate act of delivery for the story or... as a failsafe when the punter has missed all the big neon signs saying "STORY GOES THIS WAY"...
The only problem with this is to do it well you cant really have the story told to the camera in a FP way for the majority of the story. This would work best when the punter has a corporeal form inside the game itself.. a persona, then when one of the characters or the actual persona adresses the punter it has the right impact...
What I would love to see is for the persona to get sick of running round the same area time after time... and turn, arms crossed and say to the punter...
"Listen buddy, this isnt a game."
and if the punter keeps tormenting his persona.. well the persona gets angrier and starts to really wind things up... perhaps even trigger a bouncing betty before the punter can save his postion in the game.. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
nothing like fixing someone who insists on trying to 'pull back the curtian' than smothering them in it... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
All this AI and story weaving seems to come down to one thing... balance...
A jungle path if you will....
enough rocks vines and other stuff to make the walk interesting...
enough twists, ascents and decents to intrigue and engage the walker in keeping on going
enough topographic relief to keep the punter "in the valley of the storypath" basically cliffs either side of the valley you could climb if you had to, but forbidding and unrewarding enough for the punter not to want to bother....
multipile paths through the valley so you can take the high trail or follow the river if you want to...
lets face it... you buy the game because you want to go somewhere in it... even a platformer is a journey...
online multiplayer games are for action junkies and for those who dont care too much for intelectual stimulation... and there you are pitted against or with you fellow humies..
in that sort of game... beautiful and interesting backdrop is good and this is the place for the 'unlimited' freedom of mammoth worlds...where a tight 'stage' is a no-no...but in the end its the people you play the game for... they are cool because of the meat based interaction...and you hang with the people wherever they coalesce... that alone stops the punter from finding or looking for the edge of the hologramme so to speak...
a game which has a story, should have a STORY... a plot... to try and build one with a completely open ended smart system is a recipe for disaster... there always has to be some way of driving the story forward... otherwise you end up with boredom all too quickly. If the punter cant or wont follow the story then he should be driven that way in some way shape or form.. my best guess would be time based.. "the ship leaves without him if he doesnt do X before certain time.. or Charlotte snaps and uses one of the goons Tommy guns on Billy Badguy, making life next to impossible for the indecisive or recalcitrant punter, ( and no I dont mean a timer in the corner counting down...)
There is nothing worse than seeing any sort of dramatic piece, movie, theatre or whatever... and finding a flat spot in the storyline...
George Lucas makes films by the reduction method... he films far more than he needs, both in terms of actual script and story and various shots and variations on that script...
he lumps it together like clay... and carves off all the bits that aren't the sculpture he wants.
If in doubt cut it out...so bitch as alot of people do about his work... I dont know of any movie he's made where the pace drops out...( and yes of course there are times when pace is deliberately slowed but we all know that I'm not talking about that.. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img] )
Whatever new fangled contraptions you hang on it... a story has some basic inescapable rules...
bust 'em at your peril... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
perhaps the story should be treated like a river more than a trail....
a few tributaries... a few tight gorges where you have no choice about which directon you go... a few humungus lakes where you can enjoy your wanderlust... some oxbow lakes, serpentine bends and some mazelike swamps... but in the end... the water and the punter get washed towards the sea... and there is no climbing back up the rapids or the waterfalls... you can get out on the bank and 'have a spot of sport"... but you know that the boat is what will take you anywhere of significance.
Glowing frisbees! [b]That's[/b] what my new game is missing!
[quote]What's wrong with busting the Third wall ?[/quote]
A couple of comics I've read refer to it as the [i]fourth[/i] wall... but it would be folly of me to trust a comic as literary reference. They play around too much.
I like the idea though. Everything else freezes, turns black and white except for the plexor's character... who turns to the screen and mouths off... If the plexor isn't intended to completely control the character's personality, this would be a great way of keeping the plexor in touch with the character.
[quote]a game which has a story, should have a STORY... a plot... to try and build one with a completely open ended smart system is a recipe for disaster... there always has to be some way of driving the story forward...[/quote]
What if the system is designed to keep the story driving forward? I agree that a simple open ended system won't maintain pressure or tension, but will you concede that if there's a drama engine altering the world to ensure the story is ongoing, that can work?
[quote]If the punter cant or wont follow the story then he should be driven that way in some way shape or form..[/quote]
I personally believe that forcing a story or theme on someone is antithesis to interactivity. It's like telling someone to go and live their life but they [i]must[/i] accomplish this this and this goal, avoid contact with unnecessary people, etc. Some would argue that real life is like this already, but I'd counter that real life isn't necessarily all that fun and leads a lot of people to high stress.
[quote]I must try and keep a lid on my philosphical ramblings sometimes...[/quote]
No! It's all good. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
The fourth wall derives from the fact that a stage is a box, with three physical walls (back, stage left, stage right), and a big gap (proscenium) where the fourth wall should be. Throughout the play, the characters on the stage act as if there is an actual fourth wall. However, a character may occasionally address the audience directly, in effect "breaking the fourth wall".
Boy, knew that would come in handy one day. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
The purpose of good drama is to allow willing people to, first of all, be entertained, but further to experience something harrowing (whether the danger be physical or psychological or both) in a safe environment in order to vicariously be lead to the insight into the human condition and emotional release (pathos) that would ordinarily only be available in a situation that is either impossible in real life, or life-threatening.
GrantNZ:
Your concern about a plexor being forced to experience a dramatic interactive presentation designed to follow the vision of a designer, instead of interacting in an open-ended environment where the plexor could decide to be a hero, be a cheerleader, have a comfortable life as a shoe salesman, or reek havoc as the ultimate bad guy, is an interesting one.
It seems that our goals are opposed. I want to create an interactive dramatic experience for people who willingly seek to be entertained, enlightened, and emotionally moved by a well-crafted drama. You seem to be interested in developing an open-ended world that can be all things to all people, which can suit whatever their predisposition is, but based on some of the principles of drama. I say “some of” because one of the principles of drama is to [i]lead[/i] the audience through a rewarding experience of well-wrought, purposeful, escalating dramatic tension, leading to a climax, which affords a purging of emotions. An open-ended experience can't be counted on to do this in a well-wrought way the guarantees the purging of emotions I speak of – pathos. I'm sorry, but I just don't think computers are up to the creation of art yet, and I do believe that well-wrought drama is art, made of masterfully applied craft.
Nevertheless, there is a precedent for your idea in the drama world.
In the Sixties there was a lot of experimentation done with ad-lib (following a general plan), and with breaking down the convention of the actor being on stage and the audience being in seats in the house. It was generally called the radical theatre movement. In these experiments the actors would come into the audience and interact with them. The actors were specially trained to handle the reactions of audience members who were not actors and were not comfortable being under the lights and the focus of the rest of the audience, and who of course were not prepared to perform. What was interesting about these experiments is that because of the inclusion of the audience members, there was no way to predict how the drama would unfold. The actors were trained to follow dramatic principles on the fly, in order to keep the drama going, keep it building, and bring it to a satisfying conclusion. These experiments, while interesting, could not benefit from a well-crafted design, and therefore could not have a predictable impact on the audience. Most often the whole thing would fall apart. It was more interesting than moving, expect for the patron with stage fright.
Even if a drama engine uses some of the principles of drama, and open-ended experience will not have the dramatic impact of a well-crafted drama. The control is necessary to lead the audience to pathos.
This does not mean there isn’t room for both kinds of interactive experiences. There is, of course. We just need to understand what to expect.
I see your idea like a combination of a simulated living world (the Sims) where the drama engine directs ad-libbing NPC’s and the plexor can do whatever they want within the world. Who knows what will happen?
I see my idea as a well-crafted interactive drama designed to provide a willing participant with an enlightening and emotional experience that is otherwise unavailable in mundane life – an experience that has a beginning, middle, and satisfying conclusion – but that is free-form in terms of how the storyworld/ drama will unfold.
It seems like you want to create a dramatic experience that can be all things to all people and is based on a kind of socialist philosophy. Whereas my design is to create a specific drama with a specific intent for a willing participant, and is based on a kind of benevolent dictator philosophy.
SB:
BTW, the correct term is [i]forth wall[/i] and this comes from the traditional modern stage surrounded by three set walls. The forth wall is the window, created by the proscenium arch, that the audience looks through to view the drama.
Somewhere back in our long, rambling discussion I think that I mentioned an idea where the plexor would have an AI-smart, language parsing, real-time CGI sidekick, who would speak directly to the plexor. In this idea we would have a first-person point of view so that this sidekick would be speaking directly to the plexor from the other side of the monitor glass, as if a real, alternate universe exists beyond the screen. This would be setting the convention that it is [i]normal[/i] in this case for there to be direct communication between plexor and character through the forth wall.
[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 11-02-2001).]
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[b]*glug glug glug*[/b] (<- drowning noises, not drinking)
I think Shadow Boxer raises an interesting point. People are generally going to buy and play the game because they want the experience that the game provides. If you design it with a single story that plays out exactly the same every time then people who want to experience the story the way they would read a book would be the ones to buy the game. I payed nearly $200 for [i]The Longest Journey[/i] simply because I wanted to experience the story. It was worth it to. It was one of the most amazing stories I had ever heard, and by the end of it I was desperate for more and actually began to miss the main character.
Now I know that that is only a single-play-through game (actually I've been through it three times so far), but it illustrates a point. People buy it and play it for a story. In the case of Randy's game (and mine to) people will play it to experience the story. For Grant's it seems that story takes a side-seat (not back) to the plexor being able to live an alternative life, similar to what is available in MMORPG-type games, only it is single player (a very interesting idea and one I like a lot, I reject the idea that I must log on to a server on the other side of the world to play a game).
Like I said earlier, mine is a case of "I have a story and I want people to experience it". But I want them to be able to experience it in a different way each time (or as many times as possible) so that it is like they are living it.
Grant: It was champagne actually. One of my friends finished her degree yesterday so we were celebrating in Albert Park. 2 bottles among three people. Oh, and this other girl who kept staring at us so we offered her some champagne. She said no though.
------------------
[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
The development of drama can have to do with relationships between characters and environment, as well as between characters and other characters. One idea would be to have pre-conceived environmental events happen that support the overall story. Tied to this is set design, which should be build not just to look cool, but to support the emotional tone of the drama, and physical requirements of the drama. So the drama engine will need to keep track of time, and/or the movement into and out of “acts”, and/or the location of characters, and/or the fulfillment of specific requirements, in order to know when to “trip” possible environmental events designed into the interactive experience. (Night-day, flood, fire, avalanche, explosion, storm, tunnel collapse, etc.). You’re chasing evil-doers up a treacherous mountain path, and then there’s an earthquake, and then it starts raining. Drama is like this: you put characters up a tree and then throw rocks at them.
It almost seems like you guys are visualizing the on-going creation of “story”, and/or drama. If so, I doubt this can work. Part of the magic of drama is the arousal of expectations, the delay of gratifying those expectations, and the creation of a sense of getting closer and closer to the fulfillment of the desire that has been created. There should be a continual escalation of tension. For this reason I see the drama engine as managing from a macro view set of pre-defined parameters, or instructions, which include a movement through “acts”, where each offer a variety of experiences, and which also guarantee an escalation of tension by making sure that events triggered in one act happen before the events lined up in the next act happen. This is because each subsequent act has been designed to offer actions that are designed to cause more tension than actions in previous acts. In other words, making the player and NPC’s move from “pool” to pool of possible events, where each pool has hotter water.
This does not mean we’re talking about a linear story. Instead, on a micro level, there is no way to know [i]how[/i] each act will unfold, because NPC’s are not programmed to work on rails. Instead, they work based upon goals, biases towards other NPC’s and the player’s avatar, and towards various environments, and unique methods of taking action, and un-programmed encounters with the player or other NPC’s. These NPC’s could also have schedules that they must also contend with (like a daily routine). A bias could be to try and maintain the routine, despite competing needs = stress = more radical behavior.
The micro-level storytelling evolves out of the player interacting with the environment and with NPC’s, but at the umbrella level, the intensity of possible occurrences is managed to guarantee an ever-rising sense of tension.
The sense of anticipation is central to drama. The sense of surprise is central to drama. So the writer/ director’s job is to tease the anticipation, surprise the audience, while withholding the expected reward, while continually increasing the stakes, until they are worked into a lather, before finally giving them their reward, but in an unexpected way – works just like good sex. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
This above paragraph would be impossible if the creation of story were left to an on-going series of events and encounters created by some kind of drama engine that does not have built into it the blueprint of a well thought out dramatic design.
You put two (or more) opposing groups of characters in an environment that is booby trapped with a huge amount, and large variety, of traps – and then set them free to see what will happen. We have no idea how events will unfold, but we do know what kinds of things can happen.
Now expand this to the idea of each trap actually being a series of traps – each one more dangerous than the last, but in act one you can only trip the act one traps. In act two you can trip the act two traps, etc.
[b]Just out of curiosty, who is actually reading this thread here (apart from the four or five of us providing the entertainment)?
[/b][/quote]
Me, of course. It's just that I don't have to say too much here [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/shyshad.gif[/img]
------------------
We are one. No matter the blood, no matter the skin, no matter the world, no matter the star. .. We are one.
No matter the pain, no matter the darkness, no matter the loss, no matter the fear. .. We are one.
- Alliance Preamble to the Declaration of Principles, The Paragon of Animals
Webmaster [url="http://www.Sprungtor.de"]www.Sprungtor.de[/url]
[b] You could be waiting some time. Just out of curiosty, who is actually reading this thread here (apart from the four or five of us providing the entertainment)?
[/b][/quote]
Oh, gee, Biggles...thanks for the vote of confidence... :P
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
------------------
[i]"...Never start a fight...but [b]always[/b] finish it."[/i]
Biggles:
[quote]I never said that framerate was more important.[/quote]
My apologies. When you originally said:
[quote]...as the game engine needs more power it can get it by lowering the priority of the AI...[/quote]
I thought you meant game engine to refer to rendering. Now, I understand and agree.
[quote]The AI would operate within boundaries to prevent the story getting out of hand or going away from the designers vision too much.[/quote]
My goal is that the drama engine respects the plexor's vision/goals more than the designer's. I would like the job of the designer to be:
[list][*]Create the storyworld.
[*]Create some initial positions, [i]if[/i] desired.
[*]Create some general theme / goal strategies, [i]if[/i] desired.[/list]
Ideally, I'd like the designer to simply need to generate a set of stages to form a world, and have the computer generate the rest. Yeah, I'm a future-gazer. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
Eventually, [i]eventually[/i], the computer could generate the world too...
bobo:
[quote]So we need not only a director AI, but a producer AI, too? Where does the gaffer AI come into play, setting the lighting levels to heighten the dramatic effect?[/quote]
In my view, you're not too wrong there bobo. If drama calls for a dramatic entrance of a bad guy, there better be a nice horizontal shadow for him to step from. (Feet lit first, then legs, body...)
Then we need costume AI, that choose characters' daily outfits depending on the character's desires [i]as well as[/i] the likely upcoming scenes. Then makeup artists to make characters look tired early in the morning or after a long battle. Sound engineers to decide what sound effects should be included. Blah blah blah blah blah!
[quote]I assume your not talking about cut-scenes with prerendered video, but scripted action with the ingame player models[/quote]
That's close to what I mean. Except I'd remove the "scripted" part. I'd take cinematics as meaning all the parts outside of plexor decisions. i.e. Any time the plexor isn't deep in a conversation or action scene. Such as the long shot of a house where some action will occur. Or a shot of people moving towards each other to talk.
[quote]For that matter, can you include the plexor in any controlled movement and not destroy the illusion?[/quote]
Half-Life did that quite well by having NPCs heads looking [i]at[/i] you while talking, no matter where you moved. It made it feel that the player was important to the NPCs, to some extent.
So yes, I believe it's possible to have plexor-controlled movement in cutscenes.
[quote]If the plexor is witnessing the cutscene, then they may see it first hand or they may see it from a third person point of view. How often do you imagine watching yourself do something?[/quote]
I'm going for a movie approach, where the plexor's character is viewed third person unless the plexor wants first person during combat.
[quote]If they are watching first hand then the engine would have to give them control. If they want to run away, they can. But then the only way to find out what happened would be to ask other people who were witnesses.[/quote]
I don't think cutscenes should be so long and of so much imortance that the player loses control for too long. After all, a non-controllable piece of action isn't interactive...
[quote]I don't think that cutscenes of events happening elsewhere where the plexor is not present would destroy the illusion.[/quote]
I agree. It can be very drama-building.
Randy:
[quote]The development of drama can have to do with relationships between characters and environment, as well as between characters and other characters.[/quote]
True, and nicely pointed out. I do value character-drama much higher though. In fact, I can get a bit sick of films where an earthquake just "happens" to occur at a good or bad time. But environment is important, I don't disagree. Especially things like weather that don't affect the story but do change mood.
[quote]It almost seems like you guys are visualizing the on-going creation of “story”, and/or drama.[/quote]
That's me. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
[quote]If so, I doubt this can work.[/quote]
I disagree entirely. But hey.
There's no reason a computer can't create a story where tension is built. The computer just needs to be able to judge how "tense" a moment is. Tenseness could be measured by difficulty of action scenarios and strength of emotion in character scenarios.
[quote]...would be impossible if the creation of story were left to an on-going series of events and encounters created by some kind of drama engine that does not have built into it the blueprint of a well thought out dramatic design.[/quote]
So, we write it some blueprints.
I wish I had time to write more on all of this, but I'm going out soon. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/frown.gif[/img]
samuelk:
[quote]I'm reading it....and I'd like to jump in with my own ideas, but I need to go back and read the entire thing.[/quote]
Just jump in! [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
Hi to all the lurkers.
ahh... hmm ok.. my two cents worth by way of metaphoric example and perhaps a soloution to getting good interactive AI, (by cheating of course), that somehow got stuck in my data filter some years ago. I'm sorry but I have no reference, only the key facts and sketchily at that.
Ok.... now.
In espionage we use bugs - electronic listening devices or sensors... and they have to be bloody small and good quality. So of course they tend to be very well made and have a minimum of circuitry and so forth...
Their chief problem is detectability... they have to remain hidden both physically and to an extent from other types of senses/sensors.
Well there are a few ways around that...
Make the little suckers mobile... and give them a brain...
A cockroach AI. An INSTINCT AI...
You give the cockroach/bug a set of heirachical instructions...obeying them in decending order of priority...
One - use your photosensor to stay in the darkest place you can find... ( coin tosser or a grid search pattern of the existing floorspace )
Two - if you feel a strong moving electromagnetic field, shutdown to minimum power ( someone sweeping for bugs )
Three - dont move if you feel vibrations
Four - Move closer to any sounds you hear.
Five - Move around every hour or so
Six - goto your transmitting point and burst transmit your data if your memory is full and you are in a transmit time window
Seven - if your memory is full ignore all the rules except one, two and three.
Eight - Return to your charging station when your battery gets low enough that you only have enough juice to return to where it is from where you are.
Now if memory serves this lil critter was the size of a matchbox and it had all it needed onboard.... so I imagine it didnt need a hell of a lot of computing grunt to work...
Could it be possible to structure an NPC's AI to respond like the above ?
I guess the more variable you add to the mix the more complex the hierachies become... perhaps scalable hierachies apply dependent on the importance of the ship/NPC concerned in regard to both in game terms ( a capital ship ) and Player terms ( your own onboard computer in your fury 'frinstance)
Forgive me if this is how your versions of AI are structured...
this is how I understand AI, being the codeschmuck I am... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
I just cant see how shedloads of CPU time could be consumed by a bunch of NPCS 'programmed' like this... but....
I am only an Artist... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
anyways... I think this is what you are all trying to get at... carboard cutout AI's etc... to my mind linking it back to 'real life' makes sense... the 'CPU' in a cockroach is alot smaller than the one in most humans.
labelling the levels of AI in critter terms makes sense to me...
cockroach = extras on the set
chicken = two line throwaway part = the guy in the toll booth on the hyway you pass through
dog = bit part (the waiter serving the main characters)
dolphin = supporting actor/ess
monkey = lead character
I also agree that if the PC is determined to talk to the Toll booth man that you have to give him/her a brain transplant on the spot...
"100 million years up the evolutionary tree in a few nanoseconds"... but I guess you really do need a point where they either run away or point a 9mm up the players nose...and politely suggest that the storyline doesnt go this way [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
~~~~~
And on the point of CPU offloading work to slaves PUS like Video and Sound...
I wish the coputer engineers would get there proverbials together and make 'puters with CPU's and genuine SPU's...
Imagine how fast a machine would go if the CPU's only job is essentially being Lord Muck/traffic cop.... while ten others just like it terms of sheer grunt are subservient to it... go about the 'spadework'....
Going further.. whats wrong with heirachical processors ? Primary, secondary, tertiary, quartenary even...
not only that... if it was done right.... you could recycle last years 'old' chips down your machines food chain/pyramid so to speak...tho you'd have to bum a few more identical ones to fill out your machine....
I know that alot of engineering, networking them all together but done right I don't think we'd be running out of speed anytime soon...
Wideband baby... wideband.. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
for instance in this case :
a sheep is an NPC who follows all the other NPCS around
a wolf actively hunts for interaction with the PC or other NPC's
a bee will always put defending its mothership/home above its own saftey...
a mosquito will be very careful not to get hit but it will always try to attack you
an Aardvark is another Firstone in cooperative play mode... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
anyways.... combinations of all the critters nutshells some pretty complex AI stereotypes within any given game....
a wolfish bee monkey sums up a paragraph of explanation of that NPCs AI type..
have I lost anyone ? [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
it makes sense to me....
[b]Randy:[/b]
[quote]Simply, the characters would start from wherever you left them and begin acting out the cinematics. The camera would start from wherever you had it set, and then begin to move into the pre-programmed camera moves. It's pretty cool, and pretty seamless. Except for noticing that you can't interact with our characters for a minute or two, there is no noticeable difference between game and cinematics.[/quote]
That sounds quite similar to what I would like to have cinematics as. Prerendered cinematics would also be used for events that are guarenteed to happen (like the intro and endings).
[quote]It almost seems like you guys are visualizing the on-going creation of “story”, and/or drama.[/quote]
Actually, I am going for more what you describe, a story guide at the macro scale while at lower levels the story can play out pseudo-randomly. I guess the way I've been talking it sounds like I want a "free-reign" world, but what I actually want is a world where a sequence of events that form a story take place, just not in the same order and probably not even in exactly the same way. These events will be large, world- (or at least town) shaking events. These would be determined by the creator of the story. As the story progresses the plexor's and other character's situation may change so they may end up on the run together or hunting the other side together or something like that. This sort of thing could be decided by the creator, so the progression of the story through the acts (yes, I also think "acts" are a very good way to do interactive drama) would build to this point. There may be different options for how the story could progress depending on how the plexor and NPCs behave, which would build tension, etc in different ways and lead up to a different finale, either for the act or the entire game. Maybe this isn't quite as interactive as you would like, but we have to take things one step at a time, and we do havea story to present that needs to be presented in the right way. :)
The plexor would also experience a large number of other, smaller events that are determined by character's actions rather than the designer. These would help to break up the story so it doesn't seem permanently fixed in one path.
[quote]If so, I doubt this can work.[/quote]
I agree, at least at today's (and near future's) technology. This would be extremely difficult to implement. Basically that would be a completely open-ended design where the computer is constantly thinking up more story for the plexor.
[quote]There should be a continual escalation of tension. For this reason I see the drama engine as managing from a macro view set of pre-defined parameters, or instructions, which include a movement through “acts”, where each offer a variety of experiences, and which also guarantee an escalation of tension by making sure that events triggered in one act happen before the events lined up in the next act happen. This is because each subsequent act has been designed to offer actions that are designed to cause more tension than actions in previous acts. In other words, making the player and NPC’s move from “pool” to pool of possible events, where each pool has hotter water.[/quote]
Pretty much how I want mine to work. I have a story to tell, I want to tell it and have people experience it.
[b]Rick:[/b]
[quote]Oh, gee, Biggles...thanks for the vote of confidence... [/quote]
I meant me. :) Given that I am still at the 3D engine learning stage, it will be a while before I produce anything on my own. Unless we all team up for one project, of course...
[b]Grant:[/b]
[quote]My goal is that the drama engine respects the plexor's vision/goals more than the designer's.[/quote]
It sounds to me that you are going more for an open ended design and story, where the player can keep going until their character dies of old age. As I said above, I have a story I want to tell (or I will eventually anyway).
I think the part of the designer is of story and world creator and then overall story guide.
[quote]Then we need costume AI, that choose characters' daily outfits depending on the character's desires as well as the likely upcoming scenes. Then makeup artists to make characters look tired early in the morning or after a long battle. Sound engineers to decide what sound effects should be included.[/quote]
Talk about overhead... :D
[quote]I'm going for a movie approach, where the plexor's character is viewed third person unless the plexor wants first person during combat.[/quote]
I probably would as well. 3rd person seems to fit my world better. In this case you could block control for short cutscenes. Anything of any real length or importance should leave the plexor in control, otherwise the illusion is broken.
[quote]True, and nicely pointed out. I do value character-drama much higher though. In fact, I can get a bit sick of films where an earthquake just "happens" to occur at a good or bad time. But environment is important, I don't disagree. Especially things like weather that don't affect the story but do change mood.[/quote]
Character drama can mean character-environment interactions as well. For example, what if your character is stuck in the middle of a desert? Or they're walking between towns through the Waste and suddenly an acid storm breaks out. Well the drama is now showing just how screwed they are. :)
[quote]That's me.[/quote]
But not me. :) I'm more like Randy's approach, only probably not so advanced.
[quote]There's no reason a computer can't create a story where tension is built. The computer just needs to be able to judge how "tense" a moment is. Tenseness could be measured by difficulty of action scenarios and strength of emotion in character scenarios.[/quote]
The computer may be able to create more tension, but it will most likely seem very artificial. Computers lack something a designer has: imagination. To make use of a designer's imagination the computer will have to work to a designer's script, at least in part.
[quote]So, we write it some blueprints.[/quote]
Which makes doing an open-ended one very difficult without (and this is important) it getting repetitive.
[b]Shadow Boxer:[/b]
That is pretty much how a cutout would work. They would have a bunch of responses to certain actions. If they keep getting prodded, give them more responses.
[quote]I am only an Artist... [/quote]
You said it, not me. :D
[quote]I know that alot of engineering, networking them all together but done right I don't think we'd be running out of speed anytime soon...[/quote]
Unfortunately there are some big complications that work against this idea at the affordable-for-us level the moment. I know, I've been studying it at uni for the past 16 weeks. :)
And that's me for the night. Till next time...
------------------
[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 like the animal terms. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
[quote]anyways... I think this is what you are all trying to get at... carboard cutout AI's etc...[/quote]
Yep, you've pretty much hit it on the nail as far as I'm concerned. Simple rule-based state machines are good enough for controlling most cutouts. And they're pretty cheap.
It's when an NPC needs to be complex and think for itself that AI gets tough, and I don't believe rule based AI would work interestingly or flexibly enough to simulate human behavior.
[quote]...and politely suggest that the storyline doesnt go this way[/quote]
This is the only bit I disagree with, but I'm sure everyone's getting sick of my open-endedness now. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
[quote]you could recycle last years 'old' chips down your machines food chain/pyramid so to speak[/quote]
Sounds good to me! Biggles, is it possible to explain (without stealing too much of your time) what the main obstacles are to this system?
Biggles:
[quote]That sounds quite similar to what I would like to have cinematics as.[/quote]
Alrighty, I hereby drop usage of the word "cinematics" because I'm obviously using it in a different context. Prescripted scenes are anathema to me. Especially ones that remove plexor interaction.
I shall call [i]my[/i] cinematics "mood shots." [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
[quote]I agree, at least at today's (and near future's) technology. This would be extremely difficult to implement.[/quote]
Could someone explain why story creation is so impossible? I've thought a lot about the high-level design of a story creation/drama engine system, and while I don't argue that it is a complex problem, I can't see that we should wait for computers running on neural networks before we try it, nor do I see any huge implementation obstacles other than time.
[quote]that would be a completely open-ended design where the computer is constantly thinking up more story for the plexor.[/quote]
Look at most American action movies. A typical example might go:
[list][*]Naughty powerful people do something bad to some innocents. There is really something else behind all this, but that is hidden and will be revealed at the end as a "twist."
[*]Bad people effect the life of the main character.
[*]Main character strives to block the bad peoples' goals, but the bad people stay one step ahead. Insert possibilities of escalated battles, revelation that the enemy is stronger than expected, major setbacks, unexpected twist-like occurrences such as NPC defection, etc.
[*]Main character embarks on his final pursuit of evil people, and fails, getting captured or otherwise. Insert twists to reveal the true nature of the world as needed/wanted.
[*]A weakness of the bad guys (since all evil people [i]must[/i] have a weakness, to prove that good people are better) is exploited by the main character, who now goes on his [i]real[/i] final pursuit.
[*]Showdown between the main character and main evil guy, icons of good and evil. (I don't care if the good guy's character is a beer swilling swearing lout - he's battling for the side of good, so he will morally be judged that way.) Good guy nearly loses but again manages to find a weakness that leads to bad guy's death. More twists if the good guy still doesn't know what's really been happening. Optional: A twist that reveals the bad guy isn't really dead, or there's a bigger bad guy, et al.
[*]Hero gets recognised in some form.[/list]
(It's only been hastily written and thought up, but it illustrates my point...)
This could be considered a "blueprint" that Randy was talking about. It's a story guide that leads towards one type of action movie. The computer could have a whole lot of these possibilities from which to select. Events in the world just need to be adjusted to fit the blueprint. (i.e. Don't send the biggest baddest enemies after the character in Act 2.)
Story is pretty general, and doesn't need to be created constantly. It's just a guideline that specifies generally how NPCs should act and how the drama engine should portray the world.
[quote]It sounds to me that you are going more for an open ended design and story, where the player can keep going until their character dies of old age. As I said above, I have a story I want to tell (or I will eventually anyway).
I think the part of the designer is of story and world creator and then overall story guide.[/quote]
That's not quite my goal. I have a vague story I want to tell as well, but the initial setup of the storyworld should lead to it. Good guy starts here with these resources, bad guy starts here with these resources. Good guy's organisation battles with bad guy's organisation. The clash will occur, and to "finish" the story the bad guys will need to be eliminated. It's just up to the plexor and drama/story engine as to how we [i]get[/i] there.
If we want to tell a specific story, we should write a book. If we want it to be a macro-level story with some branches, we should write a "choose your own adventure" book and perhaps ask the reader to shuffle a certain range of pages beforehand.
[quote]Talk about overhead...[/quote]
Similarly with the story creation thing, the computations aren't really [i]that[/i] big and only need to be performed a few times. The potential problem is program resources (I'm thinking textures etc).
[quote]The computer may be able to create more tension, but it will most likely seem very artificial. Computers lack something a designer has: imagination. To make use of a designer's imagination the computer will have to work to a designer's script, at least in part.[/quote]
This paragraph is another that leads to my suggestion of trying to figure out how imagination [i]works[/i]. Is it just a space-searching algothim that gets attracted to (um) attractive ideas? If so, computers don't need to give up hope of simulating it.
[quote]Which makes doing an open-ended one very difficult without (and this is important) it getting repetitive.[/quote]
Which is exactly how I feel about action movies. But people still go to them in droves. Apparantly repetition isn't that big a deal with storytelling.
Aaargh... I'm going to be late to work because of all you people. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
(snip)
Look at most American action movies. A typical example might go:
Naughty powerful people do something bad to some innocents. There is really something else behind all this, but that is hidden and will be revealed at the end as a "twist."
Bad people effect the life of the main character.
Main character strives to block the bad peoples' goals, but the bad people stay one step ahead. Insert possibilities of escalated battles, revelation that the enemy is stronger than expected, major setbacks, unexpected twist-like occurrences such as NPC defection, etc.
Main character embarks on his final pursuit of evil people, and fails, getting captured or otherwise. Insert twists to reveal the true nature of the world as needed/wanted.
A weakness of the bad guys (since all evil people must have a weakness, to prove that good people are better) is exploited by the main character, who now goes on his real final pursuit.
Showdown between the main character and main evil guy, icons of good and evil. (I don't care if the good guy's character is a beer swilling swearing lout - he's battling for the side of good, so he will morally be judged that way.) Good guy nearly loses but again manages to find a weakness that leads to bad guy's death. More twists if the good guy still doesn't know what's really been happening. Optional: A twist that reveals the bad guy isn't really dead, or there's a bigger bad guy, et al.
Hero gets recognised in some form.
(It's only been hastily written and thought up, but it illustrates my point...)
This could be considered a "blueprint" that Randy was talking about. It's a story guide that leads towards one type of action movie. The computer could have a whole lot of these possibilities from which to select. Events in the world just need to be adjusted to fit the blueprint. (i.e. Don't send the biggest baddest enemies after the character in Act 2.)[/quote]
Simple story structure does not drama make. Drama arises from a synergy between multiple layers of knowledgeable construction.
Let's go from the inner to the outer.
At the most inner level is [i]subtext[/i], which colors the actions of the actor in subtle ways, as expressed through inflection, body language, and stage blocking. The subtext is most effective when it is in conflict with what the actor is saying in dialogue. The next level is dialogue, which should be surprising, as well as informative. The synergy between subtext and dialogue works like this: what you learn from watching subtext expressed has a certain value. What you learn from dialogue has a certain value. But what you learn from the dialogue and the subtext inspired behavior together leads to insight that can not come from either dialogue or subtext separately.
Going out further, there is scene construction. A scene is a mini-story with a beginning, middle, and end. The scene can be backstory exposition, can move the story forward, or can give us insight into characters, or character relationships. Scenes, like all drama, should express their information through conflict. The best scenes are surprising, and lead the audience to conclusions rather than telling an audience what to think or feel. There should be a well thought out interlacing of subtext, dialogue, and scene construction that creates a dramatic synergy, where the end effect is greater than the information in subtext, dialogue, or scene construction separately.
Going out further still, the scene is a part of an act. Each scene must be connected to the theme of the overall work, and to the purpose of the act. The overall value of each scene should work synergistically with its partner scenes in the act, in terms of content, rhythm, and context or association, so that within the act there is a building flow of emotional energy, like water forced through a venturi, in other words, the flow of the mass is accelerated by forcing it through the constriction. And there are many other tools to use in the effective formation of an act as well. But though it may seem that I have failed, I am really not trying to write a drama textbook here.
Upon passing through the constriction, which also swings the action into a new and unexpected direction in drama, we go into the next act.
The point that I’m trying to make is that effective drama is an outgrowth of a complex amalgam of cleverly fashioned layers working synergistically, the formation of which demands a vast multi-disciplinary knowledge base, insight into the human condition, and wit. I do not foresee even the best AI from M.I.T. being able to create effective drama for some time. I do believe, however, that something approximating the emotional reward of a grade C movie could be achieved at this point, which wouldn’t depend on much more than then the thin structure you mention.
This is why I think that we’re still at the place where the [i]drama engine[/i] must be a device that manages at the macro level from a plan that is designed by a well-trained and clever artisan, not a machine.
[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 10-30-2001).]
[b]Grant:[/b]
[quote]Sounds good to me! Biggles, is it possible to explain (without stealing too much of your time) what the main obstacles are to this system?[/quote]
Maybe after the exam, when I have some time. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
[quote]Alrighty, I hereby drop usage of the word "cinematics" because I'm obviously using it in a different context. Prescripted scenes are anathema to me. Especially ones that remove plexor interaction.[/quote]
"Cinematics" can mean many things, even in the same game.
[quote]Could someone explain why story creation is so impossible? I've thought a lot about the high-level design of a story creation/drama engine system, and while I don't argue that it is a complex problem, I can't see that we should wait for computers running on neural networks before we try it, nor do I see any huge implementation obstacles other than time.[/quote]
I think Randy covered this one better than my attempts did.
[quote]Story is pretty general, and doesn't need to be created constantly. It's just a guideline that specifies generally how NPCs should act and how the drama engine should portray the world.[/quote]
What happens when it's over? Is that the end of the expereince or do you have more stuff planned? In my one that sort of outline would be the entire story, and at the end the experience would be over (except for the sequel [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img])
[quote]If we want it to be a macro-level story with some branches, we should write a "choose your own adventure" book and perhaps ask the reader to shuffle a certain range of pages beforehand.[/quote]
Any particular reason why this could be implemented in a computer game? Besides, it isn't quite the same thing. Choose-your-own-adventure books are characterised by very clear cut decisions at specific times. In my experience the plexor's constant actions would define the experience, not something like a question popping up on the screen at a time saying "What will you do?". Not exactly what would happen but it illustrates my point.
[quote]Similarly with the story creation thing, the computations aren't really that big and only need to be performed a few times. The potential problem is program resources (I'm thinking textures etc).[/quote]
Yeah that's what I meant. But then again, DVDs have a lot of space... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img] Or use fractal textures.
[quote]Which is exactly how I feel about action movies. But people still go to them in droves. Apparantly repetition isn't that big a deal with storytelling.[/quote]
The thing there is that action movies are typically weeks if not months apart. Each one is in a different setting with slightly different characters and a slightly different story, but the big thing is being weeks or months apart. You would be asking the plexor to play through action movies that happen in the same general setting with many of the same characters on one side or the other over and over again. That [b]would[/b] get repititious.
[b]Randy:[/b]
[quote]Simple story structure does not drama make. Drama arises from a synergy between multiple layers of knowledgeable construction.[/quote]
Apart from agreeing with this, I'm not going to comment on Randy's stuff because I'll drown. [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
Thank your for the essay. I don't want to make a rash counter-statement without giving it proper thought, and that thought may take some time and rereading, so I'll return to it at a later date. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
Maybe non-artists like myself don't really have much hope. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
Biggles:
[quote]What happens when it's over? Is that the end of the expereince or do you have more stuff planned? In my one that sort of outline would be the entire story, and at the end the experience would be over.[/quote]
My thought is that once the storyworld designer's overall goal is accomplished (e.g. one side "winning") the "wrap-up" part of the drama engine would kick in, doing all sorts of dramatic things that I can't remember the words for.
[quote]Any particular reason why this could be implemented in a computer game? Besides, it isn't quite the same thing. Choose-your-own-adventure books are characterised by very clear cut decisions at specific times. In my experience the plexor's constant actions would define the experience, not something like a question popping up on the screen at a time saying "What will you do?". Not exactly what would happen but it illustrates my point.[/quote]
My point was that that particular level of story interactivity is no better than one of those books. I say this because the "big" story in your's/Randy's scheme is little more than that. If your story has "options" (different branches accessible) then it has just as much clear-cut branching as one of those books, regardless of the "little" scene-by-scene or act-by-act stories in which the game gives freedom.
No matter though, I know that's all you're aiming for. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
[quote]Yeah that's what I meant. But then again, DVDs have a lot of space...[/quote]
Ahh that reminds me... I was going to make reference a post or two ago (but forgot) to Chris Crawford's essay on data vs process. Go read if you haven't already.
I wish I could remember [i]why[/i] I was going to make that reference!
About action movies:
[quote]Each one is in a different setting with slightly different characters and a slightly different story, but the big thing is being weeks or months apart.[/quote]
Characters, setting and story are all subservient to theme. And the problem with the typical American action movie is that the theme is [i]exactly[/i] the same: Evil is bad and shall be punished; Good is an underdog but will win through and be rewarded. Ever notice that people who die in action movies have generally shown [i]some[/i] aspect of badness beforehand? (The typical exceptions are cops and major disasters.) It's extremely morally pure and [i]exactly the same in every damned movie[/i]. I find action movies to be a nice distraction occasionally, but I'm normally yawning before the climax.
A book editor once turned down a story with the simple reason: "Nothing [i]happens[/i] here; no problem is solved, nothing is learnt." (That's not the exact quote, but I can find it if anyone wants.) Past the first action movie, the rest are exactly the same. Nothing new happens. Nothing new is learnt. It's just an exercise in graphics and devising twists. Much like FPS computer games.
[i]*Stops ranting*[/i]
[quote]would be asking the plexor to play through action movies that happen in the same general setting with many of the same characters on one side or the other over and over again.[/quote]
Haven't we covered character generation? [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
Setting is a problem, but some intense research could overcome it.
So what I have been trying to describe is certainly not the same thing as interactive books. The interactive book's branches are forever predefined; the branches will always be the same, and this can be defined as static paradigm.
[quote]No matter though, I know that's all you're aiming for.[/quote]
I just about take offense at that. You sound as if you think that neither of us are going for anything more interesting than a branching story.
I'm with Randy. I do not intend to implement a "choose-your-own-adventure book" type game. However, I don't intend to create an experience where anything may happen that involves a randomly generated bad guy doing random things which build up to a random climax, at which point a new random bad guy pops up and does new random bad things... repetition gets boring very quickly. However, with my intentions the story would progress in a very different way every time through.
Instead random events will take place within each context that build up in scale up to the climax of the experience.
------------------
[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
Biggles:
[quote]I just about take offense at that. You sound as if you think that neither of us are going for anything more interesting than a branching story.[/quote]
No offense intended, and I apologise for the misunderstanding. I made my original remark ("I know that's all you're aiming for") purely in the context that you both believe that generated story/drama is impossible, which I (currently - I haven't fully digested Randy's earlier essay yet) disagree with. If story/drama isn't generated, it must be made in advance. (Even if on a macro level - I'm not talking about smaller interactive events.) Randy made an analogy last page to a world filled with traps, each trap matching a certain act. If those traps aren't generated, then they must be written by the game designer. Imagine each trap as a page in a book. If player goes this way and is in act 1, trigger trap 52. If player goes that way and is in act 3, trigger trap 8. Do you see the branching structure now? (Although this matches Chris Crawford's web idea more than a branch idea.)
[quote]Instead random events will take place within each context that build up in scale up to the climax of the experience.[/quote]
My point is only that the contexts are pre-written and very similar to branching, not the random events that comprise a dramatic point. (Although if drama and story cannot be generated, as you both insist, how do you plan to generate random events that fit the drama and story? Randy made the point in his essay that even a single scene is very much artwork.)
Randy:
I've just realised that my response to you would closely match what I've said above to Biggles.
Again, apologies for any offense caused. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/frown.gif[/img]
[This message has been edited by GrantNZ (edited 10-31-2001).]
Biggles: Hope you're feeling better. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
Grant: Don't worry about it, 'twas more of a joke.
I think the idea of traps is more like crafting a world than creating pages for a book. Imagine if God created Earth in that way. The things we run into in everyday life would be the traps. Some things we would run into when we're young, some we would run into when we're old, some we may run into at any point in life (like a big cliff, for example).
------------------
[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 imagine a story/drama world in which we find NPC's that are [i]loaded[/i] with dramatic action potential (where [i]action[/i] doesn't have to be overt physical action, but can also be dialogue, etc.), and a variety of environments that are also loaded with dramatic potential. Since the NPC's also have [i]autonomy[/i] and personal schedules, and motivations other than those associate directly with the development of drama, and since we don't know where the experiencer will go or what the experiencer will do, there is no way to determine how the "story" will develop.
We don't know for sure which NPC's will conflict with each other, what effects this will have, whether or not the experiencer will do something to change the direction of events. All that the designer knows is that certain NPC's are attached to libraries, which are segmented into an act structure. But these NPC's have many dramatic actions possible per act, and so we don't know which dramatic actions will be brought forth. Same thing with environments. They are tied to libraries also, but there are many things that can happen per act, and we don't know what things will happen.
The experiencer is in the midst of dramatic elements, but we have absolutely no idea how the drama/story will evolve. To me this seems much more dynamic than any kind of a branching system.
Yes, there is only so much pre-defined narrative/dramatic material in order to keep the project from becoming too big to be practical. So it is more limited than a completely open-ended design. But what we gain is enough control to assure an emotional experience. Update packs could be designed to [i] plug into [/i] the storyworld/ drama engine for the creation of new adventures. I think of it like a repertory company, where the same actors assume new characters and present a new story.
In a branching system, once a choice is made (action taken)only certain pre-defined and linear paths become available. In the system I imagine once an action is taken, not only could a random numbers of things result, but those events/actions could trigger other events/actions for a domino effect, which is largely uncontrolled, as autonomous agents act and react, perhaps triggering associated environmental events, which in turn inspire more reactions by the autonomous agents.
[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 10-31-2001).]
[quote]No offense here. I hope that we're not all so sensitive that we have walk on egg shells with each other. Constructive criticism, powerful arguments, just as powerful counter-arguments - that's all good stuff. In the process we'll define our own preferences and find things that we can agree on, and perhaps come closer to detailing a new form of interactive experience.[/quote]
I'm glad you think of it this way.
I was thinking about this on the way home from work today. We've all come from different directions and eagerly and enthusiastically thrown our ideas into a heap, and now we're seeing that they all clash. Now's the time to set our boundries...
Biggles:
[quote]And maybe one day we'll get "plexor" entered into GameDev.net's gaming dictionary.[/quote]
We'll have to convince Randy to use the term first. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
Back to Randy:
[quote]In the system I imagine once an action is taken, not only could a random numbers of things result, but those events/actions could trigger other events/actions for a domino effect, which is largely uncontrolled, as autonomous agents act and react, perhaps triggering associated environmental events, which in turn inspire more reactions by the autonomous agents.[/quote]
Nifty. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
I'm going to say "triggers" rather than "traps" here. I refer to an action taken by the plexor that initiates a dramatic event.
How do you guarantee that triggers are hit? Is it possible that the plexor can wander around the world for a long time, stuck in one act because he's missed the triggers? (I understand triggers don't have to represent physical pressure pads, but understand that "wandering around" doesn't have to mean spatially wandering too.) Is it possible to hit all triggers but one, therefore stuck in an act? Or are the triggers saturated in the world so they cannot be avoided? Will the world dramatically continue onwards if no triggers are hit? Or perhaps there will be contingency triggers that activate after a period of nonactivation?
Does the increase of tension occur because triggers in act four trigger more dramatic events than those in act three? Is it possible for the plexor to trigger the most powerful triggers (within an act) first, leading to a local [i]decrease[/i] in tension (or at least decrease in rate of tension growth)?
How are the triggers implemented? Is it a case of mini-scripting? (Such as, Plexor kills Sam -> News spreads about Sam's death; (new trigger) Tom (Sam's son) hears news that plexor killed Sam -> Tom seeks out plexor for retribution; Plexor meets Tom -> Plexor has met another major character; Plexor meets all major characters -> Proceed to next act?)
Finally, are the events caused by each trigger pre-scripted dramatic scenes? Or pre-scripted (but altering according to past events) dialogues? Or just guidelines for NPC actions? If they are just guidelines, how will the actions be implemented in a dramatic way?
Answer all that, and I'll believe the vision a bit more. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
Me: I don't have one, although an idea is to have what would probably be called "portable triggers," in that the are attached to NPCs rather than a certain area of the world. When the plexor encounters one of these triggers in the form of the NPC, something will happen that is determined by the NPC's feeling towards the plexor, what the plexor does (they might not know the NPC and thus ignore them as another cardboard cutout, or they might attack with or without reason), plus (probably) a whole bunch of other stuff. But it won't be prescripted at all. The trigger itself will be generated by the drama engine to help advance the story within the guidelines of the current act, which would be fairly broad and unlimiting. So in this sense the design is fairly open-ended. I guess that if this trigger is not released after a certain period of time (say, for example, that the plexor and the NPC are on opposite sides of the world) then the NPC would carry out some action anyway and then the plexor would hear about it through news reports or rumour or something. That way if the plexor decides to avoid contact with any they don't know the story would still advance eventually. Only the struggle would turn more in favour of one side or the other, depending on what side the NPC was on. These encounters could help raise the tension (maybe the plexor only just manages to get away from a Bad Guy or something).
I think I need to do some serious design work before I can contribute anything more to this story thing...
[quote]We'll have to convince Randy to use the term first.[/quote]
You hear that, Randy? Start using it, then we can be famous! [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
Regarding the term “Plexor” – I missed how it came about. Is it player+experiencer? Why do we need this term? Why is it better than “Avatar”, which has been used for some time?
Regarding the questions you pose, if I had all of the answers I would be trying to get R&D money instead of trying to work it out here with you.
I’ll answers your questions in terms of the way that I would approach each problem, based on only one thing: the principles of drama. I’ll leave it to a master programmer to figure out how to transform dramatic principles into a [i]drama engine[/i].
[quote] How do you guarantee that triggers are hit? Is it possible that the plexor can wander around the world for a long time, stuck in one act because he's missed the triggers? (I understand triggers don't have to represent physical pressure pads, but understand that "wandering around" doesn't have to mean spatially wandering too.) Is it possible to hit all triggers but one, therefore stuck in an act? Or are the triggers saturated in the world so they cannot be avoided? Will the world dramatically continue onwards if no triggers are hit? Or perhaps there will be contingency triggers that activate after a period of nonactivation?[/quote]
First, I think that it’s a mistake to design games for the people who fall way outside normal behavior – that is, to design games for people who don’t want to do anything, or people who’s only pleasure is derived from trying to “peek behind the curtain”, instead of doing his or her part to suspend disbelief and willingly take part in the experience. I don’t mind having a little something there for novices who may get baffled, and I don’t mind having something there for trouble-makers who are just trying to see how far they can push the design (especially if it’s something unexpected and just as mischievous as a reward for their effort). But I wouldn’t want to center the design on marginal types.
I think that it would be a good idea to look at the purpose of each act in a three-act structure. The first act is the “set-up”. It delivers all of the background exposition the audience needs to know in order to understand and be moved by the dramatic situation. This includes introducing the main characters, their place in the storyworld, and backstory that’s necessary to understand up front, and the kind of world the drama will take place in. We need to set the rules of this universe, and then consistently follow those rules for the duration of the drama. Is there magic in this world? If so we need to establish that right away. If we say that this is a “real” world, then it would be inappropriate to bring in magic later, because that would seem false. However, it is possible to hint at, or foreshadow magical elements in a way that the audience is uncertain about, and then bring in magic later. The audience will remember back to that strange incident in act I and accept that in act II there can be magic.
Act I also delivers the “inciting incident”, which sets the dramatic action moving. In the first act we find a status quo in the storyworld. But this status quo, the seeming normalcy, is based on a lie, or misunderstanding, or at least is somehow out of balance. So underneath the status quo is a seething turmoil just waiting for the right stimulus to turn the status quo into chaos. The inciting incident disturbs the status quo, and is absolutely tied to, or caused by the protagonist, even if inadvertently.
So, to bring this home – at the beginning of an interactive dramatic experience we need to establish everything that is required of act I. If we set the storyworld and timeframe, introduce the main characters, establish the status quo, foreshadow that there is something wrong with the status quo (that it’s in some way out of balance), and then surround the protagonist (plexor) with ample opportunity to create an inciting incident, so that the collapse of the status quo (resulting in pain and misery) is tied to him in some way (the result of his action – or something for some reason that only he can make right), then there will be several results. The plexor will, at the onset of the interactive drama, understand how the storyworld works, will understand the status quo, will understand that something is wrong that must be made right, and will understand that stakes, which always must be very high. Given these various understandings, if the dramatist has done his job well, the plexor will [i]want[/i] to take action. There should be no motivation to “just wander around”.
To make this more specific for an example, if this interactive storyworld were centered on a plexor who is a detective, the plexor would be motivated to interview NPC’s, travel to various places to try and gain information, all in an effort to get to the bottom of the problem, in order to make things right.
In short, early in the interactive experience we need to motivate the plexor to act by creating a convincing storyworld with a major problem, where people that he cares about are at risk. If we succeed at doing this, then the plexor will seek out the triggers.
Act II starts off with unexpected information that spins the action into a new direction. Where Act I was devoted to exposition, Act II is devoted to conflict, in ever increasing levels of tension and difficulty, leading to a seemingly unsolvable problem, which [i]can[/i] be solved by the protagonist through novel thinking/ action. Once this novel thinking/action takes place, soon after we have a climax of events. Act III is devoted to resolution.
Yes, I think that there should be NPC and/or environmental actions that can take place if there has been a certain period of inaction. This inaction [i]may[/i] mean that the plexor is stuck. The action that comes into play, which is triggered by inaction on the plexor’s part, can be looked at as a “hint”.
On a tangent to this, we don’t want the plexor to become bored or frustrated, so not only should “hint” actions be triggered by plexor inaction, but also the NPC’s and environments should be highly interesting in themselves. In other words, interacting with NPC’s and environments should be entertaining in themselves, aside from dramatic content.
[quote]Does the increase of tension occur because triggers in act four trigger more dramatic events than those in act three? Is it possible for the plexor to trigger the most powerful triggers (within an act) first, leading to a local [i]decrease[/i] in tension (or at least decrease in rate of tension growth)?[/quote]
In order to address these problems I have so far focused on [i]libraries[/i] of possible dramatic actions (whether expository or overt), which are attached to NPC’s and environments. These libraries of possible actions are like a database in that they are sorted into possible Act I actions, Act II actions, and Act III actions. One job of the [i]Drama Engine[/i] is to make sure that Act I only Act I actions are available. In Act II only Act II actions are available, and so forth. In a more complicated version of the Drama Engine, the engine would [i]look[/i] at the current state of the storyworld and [i]decide[/i] which Act I (for instance) actions best fit the current state of evolvement, and then [i]bias[/i] these actions to be more likely to be brought forth.
Since many possible events are possible in Act I, there is re-playability. And yet since the plexor can only experience events in [i]act order[/i], there is a guaranteed escalation of dramatic tension and sim difficulty. Not all possible actions in any one Act would be available in one play-through. Instead there would be enough narrative material so that the buyer could do at least 4 novel play-throughs. And there are other ways of extending re-playability.
For instance, in ITF there is one main story arch, but there are four [i]narrative threads[/i] that can be followed. In other words, there are four points of view from which the main story arc can be experienced. In the case of ITF, the main story arc can be deduced from the narrative material offered in four different major quadrants of IA territory. To further mix it up, the plexor can be assigned randomly to missions that are a part of the four narrative threads. In other words, the player can be assigned to first one major quadrant, and then to another, so that the main story arc is deduced from the narrative material from a variety of narrative threads. And each time the sim is experienced, the missions the player gets are different. To mix it up further, the missions are grouped into five libraries, representing five “acts/ levels”. To further mix it up, there are lots of missions available for each major quadrant of space, and each act/level. So even though the plexor may get act II missions in the Minbari quadrant in the first play-through, and once again get Minbari quadrant missions in the second play-through, they may be different act II missions, or the plexor may not get Minbari quadrant missions until act III, and so forth. To further mix it up, there is Sector 14, which can cause parallel universe time/space anomalies, which have an effect on the personality profiles of NPC’s (alien species in this case), different alliances, different military capabilities, and finally, a different outcome at the final battle, and thus have an impact on which end sequence is played. Even though bits and pieces of narrative material are pre-scripted, the way in which the simulation evolves is completely unpredictable (except for the main story arc) for up to four or five play-throughs. And though this is certainly not open-ended, we thought that four or five play-throughs, where each may take weeks to accomplish, was plenty of value for the money spent. In addition, once the buyer had the original simulation, new narrative packs could be purchased for a small amount of money, which would plug-into the sim engine from the original game, so that potentially, once you have the sim engine, you can use it to continue experiencing a serialized narrative, featuring new missions, for a small amount of money. This was the way we addressed open-ended (no much dramatic/story control) vs. emphasizing story (not much re-playability).
[quote]How are the triggers implemented? Is it a case of mini-scripting? (Such as, Plexor kills Sam -> News spreads about Sam's death; (new trigger) Tom (Sam's son) hears news that plexor killed Sam -> Tom seeks out plexor for retribution; Plexor meets Tom -> Plexor has met another major character; Plexor meets all major characters -> Proceed to next act?)[/quote]
The ways of implementing triggers are limited only by imagination. I would use a combination of methods, which ever tool works best for the specific situation - mini-scripting, re-calibrated personality traits, environmental events – lots of tools to use. For comparison, when a director is putting together an effects sequence for a feature film, there is no reason to go just with CGI, or just with prosthetics, or just with pneumatics, or just with a guy in a monster suit. Instead each set-up is analyzed so that the best solution can be found. I say, use all of the tools. And if you can’t find one, invent more.
Addressing act breaks: at least two tools could be used to invisibly guide the plexor to major actions that will instigate events, which will spin the drama into a new, unexpected direction, and thus into a new act. One tools could be to divide up each act into timed sections. After a certain period of time in an act, different dramatic actions become available that will cause more dramatic things to happen, which will create a cascading effect, which results in movement to a new act. The other tool is this: If certain specific flagged actions have taken place, new actions become available that will cause more dramatic things to happen, which will create a cascading effect, which results in movement into a new act. I would want to use both of these tools and expect to invent more.
[quote]Finally, are the events caused by each trigger pre-scripted dramatic scenes? Or pre-scripted (but altering according to past events) dialogues? Or just guidelines for NPC actions? If they are just guidelines, how will the actions be implemented in a dramatic way?[/quote]
Once again, I would use all tools available and expect to invent more. Sometimes events could cause of recalibration of NPC’s personality profiles, including biases towards other NPC’s and/or the plexor, willingness to withstand losses, antagonistic behavior vs. helpful behavior, changes to schedules, goals, methods for achieving goals. I would also use pre-written dialogues, but I would make sure that there were a variety of ways the narrative material could be spoken of. Depending on how far along parsing has come and AI development, I’d be up for trying to have NPC’s speak for themselves given needs created by events. I’d also use pre-scripted scenes that happen by way of [i]cinematics[/i], rather than pre-rendered scenes, which I personally feel take the plexor too much out of the dramatic experience, and therefore aren’t worth the extra graphic resolution, especially now that real-time CGI has such high resolution.
The question “…how will the actions be implemented in a dramatic way?” is vague and is difficult to answer because of that. In general the answer would be “They would be designed and implemented by a dramatist, so they would be inherently dramatic”.
[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 11-01-2001).]
And now for something completely different.
Biggles:
[quote]You're going to have to have some method of triggering events as well, Grant. What's your plan at the moment?[/quote]
I want to drive as much as possible through the character engine. Most other things can be handled by invisible altering of the game world. If the plexor should meet an important NPC, that NPC [i]might[/i] be given an unusual mood (character altering, to create an interesting instance of meeting the NPC) and teleported near the plexor (world-altering, for the purposes of simulating the "chance" aspect that occurs in a lot of drama) with a short-term plan of moving closer to the player (character-altering again, to ensure the meeting occurs). Forshadowing can similarly be handled - the engine could select the idea of having a forshadowing event take place ouside the plexor's influence, but within sight - just enough for the plexor to identify that something isn't right.
Note that I don't intend to make a fully explorable world like a FPS game, but create a set of stages linked together. Having a NPC bear down on you in a FPS seems weird, but having an actor enter a stage is quite different. And I don't want a first-person viewpoint!
Two paragraphs ago, I said the NPC [i]might[/i] do some stuff. The accentuation on the word "might" means that those actions had been selected by the drama engine for the purpose of introducing plexor and NPC. My idea is to have a set of dramatic "ideas," where the engine selects an idea for accomplishing a purpose.
So the introduction act would execute dramatic ideas for accomplishing the scene-setting, NPC introducing etc etc goals. And so on, and so on. The drama engine would execute goals very much like the act structure Randy speaks of, selecting from a set of dramatic ideas to adjust the world to meet those goals.
Hmmm... perhaps our systems aren't so different after all. My system uses more abstract dramatic ideas though, I believe, and I want the freedom for the engine to adjust the theme to whatever the plexor is interested in. Take Biggles' game: The plexor could be interested in the struggles of defeating the enemy, or he could be more interested in having a love affair during the time of strife. I want my engine to fulfill whichever the plexor desires. Note that the set of themes that the engine would use as reference are based [i]very[/i] heavily on Polti's Dramatic Situations - I linked to it ages ago.
Ohh, by the way, if the drama engine's goals are resisted by the plexor, then two things should happen. Firstly, the engine should retry, perhaps using a different dramatic idea. Secondly, if the plexor isn't interested in the drama offered, the engine must adjust to what the plexor wants. If this means crossing to another theme, perhaps even adopting a "loner" theme style, then so be it. i.e. If a plexor doesn't hit the necessary triggers, the engine must adjust as if the triggers were not necessary in the first place.
Chances are I've described all this badly with a lot of weaknesses, but I'm tired. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
[quote]Regarding the term “Plexor” – I missed how it came about. Is it player+experiencer? Why do we need this term? Why is it better than “Avatar”, which has been used for some time?[/quote]
Exactly right. I coined it a while ago because "experiencer" was becoming a pain to type, especially in paragraphs that needed it a lot. We don't really need it, although it does combine the ideas of "game" and "experience" (we can't really avoid either label for what we're creating, IMHO). Finally, "Avatar" to me smells too much of Ultima, and the dictionary definition "manifestation" doesn't fit for me personally. A manifestation of myself in a game world would sit in front of a computer all day, where a character that I control would still retain its own personality.
But it's just a personal thing, you don't have to use it. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
[quote]Regarding the questions you pose, if I had all of the answers I would be trying to get R&D money instead of trying to work it out here with you.[/quote]
The reason I asked those questions was that they illustrated (to me) the biggest potential problems with the system - if you can satisfy those questions in my view, then I can see no obstacles.
[quote]First, I think that it’s a mistake to design games for the people who fall way outside normal behavior[/quote]
As long as you're not ignoring people's [i]individual[/i] behaviours. Text adventures have long had this problem with hunt-the-verb issues. What if the plexor of your game really is more interested in trying to be moral support for a team, rather than leading a team to victory? Or they desire to run and live as a fugitive, rather than taking their designed place as a hero? It [i]is[/i] unusual behavior, and most games don't take these odd issues into account. But the more interactive you make the world, the more people will want to fulfill their personal desires, rather than playing the game the designers intended.
[quote]plexor will, at the onset of the interactive drama, understand how the storyworld works, will understand the status quo, will understand that something is wrong that must be made right, and will understand that stakes, which always must be very high. Given these various understandings, if the dramatist has done his job well, the plexor will want to take action. There should be no motivation to “just wander around”.[/quote]
Be careful with your assumption there. Why [i]must[/i] the wrong be made right? This of course [i]does[/i] depend heavily on the story, but as a counter example, my character in Baldur's Gate II is doing comparitively few quests, because he doesn't always believe in the "wrongs." Why [i]should[/i] my character persecute a religion at the request of another, even if that religion [i]does[/i] include the mutilations of the bodies of the believers? [i]Especially[/i] if the stakes are high? A lot of selfish characters might prefer to ignore or profit from the wrong, rather than setting about fixing it at great risk.
I'm not really making intersting examples, but it shows the danger of mixing interactivity and assuming plexor desires.
Secondly, "wandering around" isn't necessarily intentional. I've played a couple of games where options given to me seemed so foolhardy compared to the rewards that I avoided them, and after talking to every NPC I could find, finally realised the story could not progress until I took the plunge and did something I thought was stupid. Sure, the game was designed so these paths weren't that impossible, but I "wandered around" because they didn't seem like feasible options to me. Other people may have disagreed. Drama, while universal, still means different things to different people.
Anyway all this rebuttal is very philosophically-based and can (in some ways) be attributed to just bad design from certain game companies, so I'll shut up.
[quote]On a tangent to this, we don’t want the plexor to become bored or frustrated, so not only should “hint” actions be triggered by plexor inaction, but also the NPC’s and environments should be highly interesting in themselves.[/quote]
This has a potential downfall. Firstly, the interest factor can be distracting from the main plot, if the world is too interesting, leading to a lot of intentional "wandering around." Secondly, a world that stagnates if the player strays from the designer's vision can serve to bring the player back on track. Compare with my example before, where everything died off until I made one of the plainly given choices. If the world was too interesting and varied, I may not have known where to go to continue the main plot.
---
As far as my other questions go, I agree that a lot of them are just implementation issues although I was expecting you to bias towards certain options. The majority of my concerns are above, anyway. (Well, the concerns I've thought of so far. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img] )
[quote]The question “…how will the actions be implemented in a dramatic way?” is vague and is difficult to answer because of that.[/quote]
That question was directed towards the possibility of the drama engine relying on adjusting characters. If, for example, drama suggests a character should become angry, how would the angry character express that dramatically? By drawing on the drama libraries for dialog spoken by an angry character? (I guess you'll say this is just another implementation issue... and I suppose it is. Forgive the programmer for his implementation fetishes. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img] )
I should say here as an afternote that I don't always present opposing points of view because I necessarily disagree. Sometimes I'm just pointing out possible holes in the system.
Ok. Bed time.
------------------
[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
What's wrong with busting the Third wall ?
That's a term I'm borrowing from comics and to an extent from movies as well... I can't think of a good example universal example that the main proponents of this dicussion would know about but I'll use the one I know... it should hold without prior knowledge...
"The Sum of us"... Russell Crowe and Jack Thompson.. ( good movie by the way ).
Jack Thompsons character has a stroke, he's effectively a vegetable... but... in one scene there is a small piece of narration which Jack addresses straight to the camera.. in character, instead of VO. He is sitting on the dunny and is plainly having a private and intimate moment with the camera/viewer..
Plainly he should just be a mumbling dribbling waste but the "third wall" the one between the viewer and the cast, is broken so cleanly that you absorb whats going on without feeling like your 'suspension of disbelief' is popped.
Done slicky I cant see why this couldnt be impliemented in an interactive story... perhaps and as genuine deliberate act of delivery for the story or... as a failsafe when the punter has missed all the big neon signs saying "STORY GOES THIS WAY"...
The only problem with this is to do it well you cant really have the story told to the camera in a FP way for the majority of the story. This would work best when the punter has a corporeal form inside the game itself.. a persona, then when one of the characters or the actual persona adresses the punter it has the right impact...
What I would love to see is for the persona to get sick of running round the same area time after time... and turn, arms crossed and say to the punter...
"Listen buddy, this isnt a game."
and if the punter keeps tormenting his persona.. well the persona gets angrier and starts to really wind things up... perhaps even trigger a bouncing betty before the punter can save his postion in the game.. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
nothing like fixing someone who insists on trying to 'pull back the curtian' than smothering them in it... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
A jungle path if you will....
enough rocks vines and other stuff to make the walk interesting...
enough twists, ascents and decents to intrigue and engage the walker in keeping on going
enough topographic relief to keep the punter "in the valley of the storypath" basically cliffs either side of the valley you could climb if you had to, but forbidding and unrewarding enough for the punter not to want to bother....
multipile paths through the valley so you can take the high trail or follow the river if you want to...
lets face it... you buy the game because you want to go somewhere in it... even a platformer is a journey...
online multiplayer games are for action junkies and for those who dont care too much for intelectual stimulation... and there you are pitted against or with you fellow humies..
in that sort of game... beautiful and interesting backdrop is good and this is the place for the 'unlimited' freedom of mammoth worlds...where a tight 'stage' is a no-no...but in the end its the people you play the game for... they are cool because of the meat based interaction...and you hang with the people wherever they coalesce... that alone stops the punter from finding or looking for the edge of the hologramme so to speak...
a game which has a story, should have a STORY... a plot... to try and build one with a completely open ended smart system is a recipe for disaster... there always has to be some way of driving the story forward... otherwise you end up with boredom all too quickly. If the punter cant or wont follow the story then he should be driven that way in some way shape or form.. my best guess would be time based.. "the ship leaves without him if he doesnt do X before certain time.. or Charlotte snaps and uses one of the goons Tommy guns on Billy Badguy, making life next to impossible for the indecisive or recalcitrant punter, ( and no I dont mean a timer in the corner counting down...)
There is nothing worse than seeing any sort of dramatic piece, movie, theatre or whatever... and finding a flat spot in the storyline...
George Lucas makes films by the reduction method... he films far more than he needs, both in terms of actual script and story and various shots and variations on that script...
he lumps it together like clay... and carves off all the bits that aren't the sculpture he wants.
If in doubt cut it out...so bitch as alot of people do about his work... I dont know of any movie he's made where the pace drops out...( and yes of course there are times when pace is deliberately slowed but we all know that I'm not talking about that.. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img] )
Whatever new fangled contraptions you hang on it... a story has some basic inescapable rules...
bust 'em at your peril... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
perhaps the story should be treated like a river more than a trail....
a few tributaries... a few tight gorges where you have no choice about which directon you go... a few humungus lakes where you can enjoy your wanderlust... some oxbow lakes, serpentine bends and some mazelike swamps... but in the end... the water and the punter get washed towards the sea... and there is no climbing back up the rapids or the waterfalls... you can get out on the bank and 'have a spot of sport"... but you know that the boat is what will take you anywhere of significance.
yawn... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
I must try and keep a lid on my philosphical ramblings sometimes....
[quote]I'm drunk, so I'm not even goping to try reading any of that, let alone responding.[/quote]
[code]Trigger: [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]runkard(int beers_too_many) {
delete short_term_memory;
CreateTrigger(Trigger::Hangover(beers_too_many * 5));
InsertDrama(Pain::Headache);
}[/code]
shadow boxer:
Glowing frisbees! [b]That's[/b] what my new game is missing!
[quote]What's wrong with busting the Third wall ?[/quote]
A couple of comics I've read refer to it as the [i]fourth[/i] wall... but it would be folly of me to trust a comic as literary reference. They play around too much.
I like the idea though. Everything else freezes, turns black and white except for the plexor's character... who turns to the screen and mouths off... If the plexor isn't intended to completely control the character's personality, this would be a great way of keeping the plexor in touch with the character.
[quote]a game which has a story, should have a STORY... a plot... to try and build one with a completely open ended smart system is a recipe for disaster... there always has to be some way of driving the story forward...[/quote]
What if the system is designed to keep the story driving forward? I agree that a simple open ended system won't maintain pressure or tension, but will you concede that if there's a drama engine altering the world to ensure the story is ongoing, that can work?
[quote]If the punter cant or wont follow the story then he should be driven that way in some way shape or form..[/quote]
I personally believe that forcing a story or theme on someone is antithesis to interactivity. It's like telling someone to go and live their life but they [i]must[/i] accomplish this this and this goal, avoid contact with unnecessary people, etc. Some would argue that real life is like this already, but I'd counter that real life isn't necessarily all that fun and leads a lot of people to high stress.
[quote]I must try and keep a lid on my philosphical ramblings sometimes...[/quote]
No! It's all good. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
Gotta run!!
The fourth wall derives from the fact that a stage is a box, with three physical walls (back, stage left, stage right), and a big gap (proscenium) where the fourth wall should be. Throughout the play, the characters on the stage act as if there is an actual fourth wall. However, a character may occasionally address the audience directly, in effect "breaking the fourth wall".
Boy, knew that would come in handy one day. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
------------------
bobo
<*>
B5:ITF
GrantNZ:
Your concern about a plexor being forced to experience a dramatic interactive presentation designed to follow the vision of a designer, instead of interacting in an open-ended environment where the plexor could decide to be a hero, be a cheerleader, have a comfortable life as a shoe salesman, or reek havoc as the ultimate bad guy, is an interesting one.
It seems that our goals are opposed. I want to create an interactive dramatic experience for people who willingly seek to be entertained, enlightened, and emotionally moved by a well-crafted drama. You seem to be interested in developing an open-ended world that can be all things to all people, which can suit whatever their predisposition is, but based on some of the principles of drama. I say “some of” because one of the principles of drama is to [i]lead[/i] the audience through a rewarding experience of well-wrought, purposeful, escalating dramatic tension, leading to a climax, which affords a purging of emotions. An open-ended experience can't be counted on to do this in a well-wrought way the guarantees the purging of emotions I speak of – pathos. I'm sorry, but I just don't think computers are up to the creation of art yet, and I do believe that well-wrought drama is art, made of masterfully applied craft.
Nevertheless, there is a precedent for your idea in the drama world.
In the Sixties there was a lot of experimentation done with ad-lib (following a general plan), and with breaking down the convention of the actor being on stage and the audience being in seats in the house. It was generally called the radical theatre movement. In these experiments the actors would come into the audience and interact with them. The actors were specially trained to handle the reactions of audience members who were not actors and were not comfortable being under the lights and the focus of the rest of the audience, and who of course were not prepared to perform. What was interesting about these experiments is that because of the inclusion of the audience members, there was no way to predict how the drama would unfold. The actors were trained to follow dramatic principles on the fly, in order to keep the drama going, keep it building, and bring it to a satisfying conclusion. These experiments, while interesting, could not benefit from a well-crafted design, and therefore could not have a predictable impact on the audience. Most often the whole thing would fall apart. It was more interesting than moving, expect for the patron with stage fright.
Even if a drama engine uses some of the principles of drama, and open-ended experience will not have the dramatic impact of a well-crafted drama. The control is necessary to lead the audience to pathos.
This does not mean there isn’t room for both kinds of interactive experiences. There is, of course. We just need to understand what to expect.
I see your idea like a combination of a simulated living world (the Sims) where the drama engine directs ad-libbing NPC’s and the plexor can do whatever they want within the world. Who knows what will happen?
I see my idea as a well-crafted interactive drama designed to provide a willing participant with an enlightening and emotional experience that is otherwise unavailable in mundane life – an experience that has a beginning, middle, and satisfying conclusion – but that is free-form in terms of how the storyworld/ drama will unfold.
It seems like you want to create a dramatic experience that can be all things to all people and is based on a kind of socialist philosophy. Whereas my design is to create a specific drama with a specific intent for a willing participant, and is based on a kind of benevolent dictator philosophy.
SB:
BTW, the correct term is [i]forth wall[/i] and this comes from the traditional modern stage surrounded by three set walls. The forth wall is the window, created by the proscenium arch, that the audience looks through to view the drama.
Somewhere back in our long, rambling discussion I think that I mentioned an idea where the plexor would have an AI-smart, language parsing, real-time CGI sidekick, who would speak directly to the plexor. In this idea we would have a first-person point of view so that this sidekick would be speaking directly to the plexor from the other side of the monitor glass, as if a real, alternate universe exists beyond the screen. This would be setting the convention that it is [i]normal[/i] in this case for there to be direct communication between plexor and character through the forth wall.
[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 11-02-2001).]
I think Shadow Boxer raises an interesting point. People are generally going to buy and play the game because they want the experience that the game provides. If you design it with a single story that plays out exactly the same every time then people who want to experience the story the way they would read a book would be the ones to buy the game. I payed nearly $200 for [i]The Longest Journey[/i] simply because I wanted to experience the story. It was worth it to. It was one of the most amazing stories I had ever heard, and by the end of it I was desperate for more and actually began to miss the main character.
Now I know that that is only a single-play-through game (actually I've been through it three times so far), but it illustrates a point. People buy it and play it for a story. In the case of Randy's game (and mine to) people will play it to experience the story. For Grant's it seems that story takes a side-seat (not back) to the plexor being able to live an alternative life, similar to what is available in MMORPG-type games, only it is single player (a very interesting idea and one I like a lot, I reject the idea that I must log on to a server on the other side of the world to play a game).
Like I said earlier, mine is a case of "I have a story and I want people to experience it". But I want them to be able to experience it in a different way each time (or as many times as possible) so that it is like they are living it.
Grant: It was champagne actually. One of my friends finished her degree yesterday so we were celebrating in Albert Park. 2 bottles among three people. Oh, and this other girl who kept staring at us so we offered her some champagne. She said no though.
------------------
[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