🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉
Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
Linear vs Multi-linear vs Dynamic
Author
This is a desperate attempt to start a conversation. This forum makes me sad, because there are like three posts a day. So lets see if we can get some interesting dialog going.
The subject has been done to death, but I didn''t think of anything better off the top of my head.
Do you prefer a linear story that is well crafted and shows the player what you want him to see, a multi-linear story where the player has some option on the flow, but the writer is ultimately still in control, or a dynamic world where the player can to some extent go wherever she wants?
Keep in mind this is a discussion, and not a poll. So don''t just give an answer, but give your thought process also.
One''s preference is ultimately subordinate to the objectives of the game, and included in the objectives is the target audience. Ignoring that last bit, generally, if one desires to create an experience in which everything is thrown into and reliant upon the first run-through for the player, then the first option would likely be prominent. This is most easily controllable, but also the most strict. I would have to say this is the preferred path for console RPGs.
In that same sense, desiring mostly the same while adding a little freedom to the player would prompt one to go with the multi-linear path. In actuality, this is probably the most powerful, as giving the player the illusion that he or she has freedom within the game is just as good as actually giving the player so-called freedom. Or perhaps it is better so, because less work, technically, has to be put in. This would also have to be my overall preference, though again, it is subordinate to the objectives of the game. My understanding of multi-linearity is branching, not multiple storylines. If this is not what you understand it to be, then we must start over.
Lastly, dynamic is mostly associated with MMOGs (notice the word "mostly"). Other games have such storylines, but they are generally unknown or unsuccessful. This type of design would, in reality, grant the most freedom; however, I do not believe the majority of the audience wants a total lack of guidance, etc., which is perhaps why it is primarily prominent in MMOGs.
On a last note, you say that this forum makes you sad because of the limited number of daily posts. Well, how about someone actually giving a suitable response to the topic I created? In it, I requested resources that detail the format that game story scripts should follow, as well as providing examples.
As important as the rhetoric of writing is, the format is heavily significant as well. It is part of the presentation side of writing, and if something is presented incorrectly, it will most likely not even be given a chance to be read. Perhaps not many others here feel the same and instead believe that only rhetoric is worthy of discussion, but all writers should already be aware that format is crucial. Of course, there is also the possibility that no one here knows the answer; thus, they have not responded. I would say there is a good chance of this.
As of this moment, I am aware that the cinematic portion of games use the screenplay format, but what of the rest?
In that same sense, desiring mostly the same while adding a little freedom to the player would prompt one to go with the multi-linear path. In actuality, this is probably the most powerful, as giving the player the illusion that he or she has freedom within the game is just as good as actually giving the player so-called freedom. Or perhaps it is better so, because less work, technically, has to be put in. This would also have to be my overall preference, though again, it is subordinate to the objectives of the game. My understanding of multi-linearity is branching, not multiple storylines. If this is not what you understand it to be, then we must start over.
Lastly, dynamic is mostly associated with MMOGs (notice the word "mostly"). Other games have such storylines, but they are generally unknown or unsuccessful. This type of design would, in reality, grant the most freedom; however, I do not believe the majority of the audience wants a total lack of guidance, etc., which is perhaps why it is primarily prominent in MMOGs.
On a last note, you say that this forum makes you sad because of the limited number of daily posts. Well, how about someone actually giving a suitable response to the topic I created? In it, I requested resources that detail the format that game story scripts should follow, as well as providing examples.
As important as the rhetoric of writing is, the format is heavily significant as well. It is part of the presentation side of writing, and if something is presented incorrectly, it will most likely not even be given a chance to be read. Perhaps not many others here feel the same and instead believe that only rhetoric is worthy of discussion, but all writers should already be aware that format is crucial. Of course, there is also the possibility that no one here knows the answer; thus, they have not responded. I would say there is a good chance of this.
As of this moment, I am aware that the cinematic portion of games use the screenplay format, but what of the rest?
Author
Good insights.
I did mean a single branching story when I said multi-linear. I think the work dynamic can also apply to games like Fallout, Balder’s Gate series, or the Grand Theft Auto series. You can run around and do things in almost any order. I realize they all those games have a set begining and end, but there are only a few things that you absolutely have to do to complete the game, so I tend to classify them as dynamic. Of course the disadvatage to this is that, because you can't gurantee the player will do anything in paticular, you can't have events that make assumtions about what the player has done.
I think I agree with you on most points. I think multi-linear has a lot of potential, but it is also difficult in a sense. From a writer’s standpoint, I think it would be hard to create a meaningful story that maintains and varies it meaning down the different branches. It's too easy to just write a good story and then later add a bunch of meaningless choices. To create a great multi-linear story, one would need to design the story around it being multi-linear. I would far prefer a linear story to a story that gives you choices, but doesn't really do anything meaningful with those choices.
I'm sorry I never saw your post on format. I would have liked to reply. I agree that the format is important, but I've only given a little thought to it. A normal flow chart is unreasonable for anything longer than a single conversation (within the context of a multi-linear game). The only idea I've had on the subject is creating custom software that uses sort of a graphical flowchart approach, and allows chunks of the story to collapse into a single box or something, allowing us to visualize a large project without getting bogged down with details. Like abstraction works in programming. I hope that makes some sense.
I wouldn't mind letting the threat get a little side tracked on format. You are absolutely right that format is crucial. As far as I am aware, there really isn't a standard way for writing these sorts of stories. We can discuss the form of the game stories, but if when it comes down to it, no one really knows how to put the pen to the paper and write one, we are screwed.
[edited by - rayno on September 20, 2003 3:04:00 AM]
I did mean a single branching story when I said multi-linear. I think the work dynamic can also apply to games like Fallout, Balder’s Gate series, or the Grand Theft Auto series. You can run around and do things in almost any order. I realize they all those games have a set begining and end, but there are only a few things that you absolutely have to do to complete the game, so I tend to classify them as dynamic. Of course the disadvatage to this is that, because you can't gurantee the player will do anything in paticular, you can't have events that make assumtions about what the player has done.
I think I agree with you on most points. I think multi-linear has a lot of potential, but it is also difficult in a sense. From a writer’s standpoint, I think it would be hard to create a meaningful story that maintains and varies it meaning down the different branches. It's too easy to just write a good story and then later add a bunch of meaningless choices. To create a great multi-linear story, one would need to design the story around it being multi-linear. I would far prefer a linear story to a story that gives you choices, but doesn't really do anything meaningful with those choices.
I'm sorry I never saw your post on format. I would have liked to reply. I agree that the format is important, but I've only given a little thought to it. A normal flow chart is unreasonable for anything longer than a single conversation (within the context of a multi-linear game). The only idea I've had on the subject is creating custom software that uses sort of a graphical flowchart approach, and allows chunks of the story to collapse into a single box or something, allowing us to visualize a large project without getting bogged down with details. Like abstraction works in programming. I hope that makes some sense.
I wouldn't mind letting the threat get a little side tracked on format. You are absolutely right that format is crucial. As far as I am aware, there really isn't a standard way for writing these sorts of stories. We can discuss the form of the game stories, but if when it comes down to it, no one really knows how to put the pen to the paper and write one, we are screwed.
[edited by - rayno on September 20, 2003 3:04:00 AM]
I believe that we as game developers ought to be striving for completely interactive designs. How many times have you played a game and felt like the person who wrote the story ought to have just made a book or movie? The greatest strength of our medium is interactivity, and we should make use of it.
When I think about which games I have spent the most time in, the games that simply establish a universe and let you play float to the top. Civilization + derivatives, Baldur's Gate series, Fallout, Grand Theft Auto, Quake 3 (and other multiplayer FPSes), and Daggerfall/Morrowind have all taken up more of my 22 years than I'd like to admit. These games all share an open-endedness; whether that may be due to the nature of the game (multiplayer shooters tend to be open-ended because the drama is created through the competition with other players), or by design (the RPGs in my list and GTA).
A pure "game" doesn't have a story; but all games have drama. Anyone who has participated in an intense bout of deathmatch can attest to their emotional involvment with what is happening onscreen. All successful action games produce this kind of tension. With the noteable exception of a select few games, involving players through emotions other than excitement, nail-biting tension, or bloodlust has largely been ignored. Only a few games that attempted more have succeeded.
Those games which have succeeded often do so by applying conventional storytelling methods from other media. Take Final Fantasy for example; the later games in this series use techniques from manga (character presentation, style, and dramatic content), literature (themes, conventional dialogue, and a few cliche character types), and movies (cinematic cutscenes and viewing angles). Skillful use of these conventional storytelling techniques stitch together an otherwise mundane exploration/turn based combat game.
Games with multiple outcomes/storylines leading to these outcomes (such as Outcast or Deus Ex) do the same thing in a different way. The author of the game's story thinks about a situation, and then writes out the effects of the multiple (logcal) progressions that may be made by the player (within limits). These games offer a little more replay value than the linear game, but only to the extent of the player trying progressions that they hadn't before. I don't really classify them as being so far from linear games because the path is still fixed; there might be more paths (a la choose Your Own Advneture books), but you are still fixed on a rail in experience the storytelling.
Games of a dynamic nature are much more difficult to infuse with the kind of storytelling that makes players feel involved (beyond bloodlust etc.). The player can progress however they want and do anything, and the resultant combinatorial explosion prevents anything less than an army of a million Shakespeares at a million typewriters from explicitly writing all the dialogue and story branches for that. I would not want to manage content production on a game that combined the storytelling elements in the style of Final Fantasy, with the open-endedness of Morrowind (well, at least if we are not talking about having one main track, a la Baldur's Gate).
To examine how we achieve a meaningful storytelling experience in a truly dynamic game, we need to break the powerful storytelling methods we borrow from older media into their basic building blocks, in order to reuse them, and as well as to enable the computer to have characters emotionally respond to the actions of NPCes and the player. Dynamic music, speach synthesis, Turing machines, and many other technologies must be developed. Writers must learn to let go of their characters; they must simply define the character's motivations and personality, and then let that character interact with the player and other characters in the game world. A "theme" written into the game might skew the actions of the characters towards making decisions that illuminate that theme. In any case, it will be difficult to achieve this, but I believe that the rewards will push our medium to the forefront of entertainment.
I will not pretend to know how this is done, and I believe the first person to do it with complete success will either be a master at connventional storytelling in interactive media, or one of the generation of kids growing up behind us, who are growing up with a much richer gaming experience than we did (storytelling in Duck Hunt? Give me a break...). Those who will grow up with games that are more interactive will have a more intuitive grasp of what makes them tick.
-Steven Rokiski
[edited by - SteevR on September 20, 2003 5:24:34 AM]
When I think about which games I have spent the most time in, the games that simply establish a universe and let you play float to the top. Civilization + derivatives, Baldur's Gate series, Fallout, Grand Theft Auto, Quake 3 (and other multiplayer FPSes), and Daggerfall/Morrowind have all taken up more of my 22 years than I'd like to admit. These games all share an open-endedness; whether that may be due to the nature of the game (multiplayer shooters tend to be open-ended because the drama is created through the competition with other players), or by design (the RPGs in my list and GTA).
A pure "game" doesn't have a story; but all games have drama. Anyone who has participated in an intense bout of deathmatch can attest to their emotional involvment with what is happening onscreen. All successful action games produce this kind of tension. With the noteable exception of a select few games, involving players through emotions other than excitement, nail-biting tension, or bloodlust has largely been ignored. Only a few games that attempted more have succeeded.
Those games which have succeeded often do so by applying conventional storytelling methods from other media. Take Final Fantasy for example; the later games in this series use techniques from manga (character presentation, style, and dramatic content), literature (themes, conventional dialogue, and a few cliche character types), and movies (cinematic cutscenes and viewing angles). Skillful use of these conventional storytelling techniques stitch together an otherwise mundane exploration/turn based combat game.
Games with multiple outcomes/storylines leading to these outcomes (such as Outcast or Deus Ex) do the same thing in a different way. The author of the game's story thinks about a situation, and then writes out the effects of the multiple (logcal) progressions that may be made by the player (within limits). These games offer a little more replay value than the linear game, but only to the extent of the player trying progressions that they hadn't before. I don't really classify them as being so far from linear games because the path is still fixed; there might be more paths (a la choose Your Own Advneture books), but you are still fixed on a rail in experience the storytelling.
Games of a dynamic nature are much more difficult to infuse with the kind of storytelling that makes players feel involved (beyond bloodlust etc.). The player can progress however they want and do anything, and the resultant combinatorial explosion prevents anything less than an army of a million Shakespeares at a million typewriters from explicitly writing all the dialogue and story branches for that. I would not want to manage content production on a game that combined the storytelling elements in the style of Final Fantasy, with the open-endedness of Morrowind (well, at least if we are not talking about having one main track, a la Baldur's Gate).
To examine how we achieve a meaningful storytelling experience in a truly dynamic game, we need to break the powerful storytelling methods we borrow from older media into their basic building blocks, in order to reuse them, and as well as to enable the computer to have characters emotionally respond to the actions of NPCes and the player. Dynamic music, speach synthesis, Turing machines, and many other technologies must be developed. Writers must learn to let go of their characters; they must simply define the character's motivations and personality, and then let that character interact with the player and other characters in the game world. A "theme" written into the game might skew the actions of the characters towards making decisions that illuminate that theme. In any case, it will be difficult to achieve this, but I believe that the rewards will push our medium to the forefront of entertainment.
I will not pretend to know how this is done, and I believe the first person to do it with complete success will either be a master at connventional storytelling in interactive media, or one of the generation of kids growing up behind us, who are growing up with a much richer gaming experience than we did (storytelling in Duck Hunt? Give me a break...). Those who will grow up with games that are more interactive will have a more intuitive grasp of what makes them tick.
-Steven Rokiski
[edited by - SteevR on September 20, 2003 5:24:34 AM]
Author
Creating games that go beyond bloodlust, excitement, and fear is precisely my motivation for being interested in this subject. I have a lot of fun playing online fps games, but I wish there was something else. If there were only romantic comedy films, it would get old fast. Just like fps games are starting to get redundant. I don''t want to abolish online fps, or try to give Battlefield 1942 a deep, philosophical storyline, but I want more variety.
Dynamic storytelling could be very powerful, and I love being able to explore and feel like I am actually doing something in the game, rather than jumping through hoops the designer sets up in front of me.
You mention turing machines and speech synthesis. Do you think generating dialog for characters is the solution? Computer generated dialog worries me because I don''t think you can get a computer to generate dialog as well as a human writer. Even if we had a machine to produce dialog that grammatically made sense, and sounds like something a person would say, it would miss out on subtle undertones. It would also be difficult to have the dialog follow the personality traits of the character. Does anyone have any thoughts on dynamic dialog synthesis?
Dynamic storytelling could be very powerful, and I love being able to explore and feel like I am actually doing something in the game, rather than jumping through hoops the designer sets up in front of me.
You mention turing machines and speech synthesis. Do you think generating dialog for characters is the solution? Computer generated dialog worries me because I don''t think you can get a computer to generate dialog as well as a human writer. Even if we had a machine to produce dialog that grammatically made sense, and sounds like something a person would say, it would miss out on subtle undertones. It would also be difficult to have the dialog follow the personality traits of the character. Does anyone have any thoughts on dynamic dialog synthesis?
quote: Original post by SteevR
To examine how we achieve a meaningful storytelling experience in a truly dynamic game, we need to break the powerful storytelling methods we borrow from older media into their basic building blocks, in order to reuse them, and as well as to enable the computer to have characters emotionally respond to the actions of NPCes and the player.
[...]
Writers must learn to let go of their characters; they must simply define the character''s motivations and personality, and then let that character interact with the player and other characters in the game world. A "theme" written into the game might skew the actions of the characters towards making decisions that illuminate that theme. In any case, it will be difficult to achieve this, but I believe that the rewards will push our medium to the forefront of entertainment.
well i''m working on this matter, how to mix traditional storytelling strength with dinamic contents...
i''ve play linear story > lack of liberty but strong storytellings
while playing dinamic story tellings >lot of liberty, less storytellings
even games like baldur gate and morrorwind (but i''ve not play kotor) i feel that the storytelling was not enough
baldur''s gate cheat by having both but not really mixed
the only game which made me the feel of a dinamic storytellings was not a dinamic game, but i have understood where was the matter, i was shocked when i play, it was... MAJORA''s MASK
well i explain
as steevr sez, "A "theme" written into the game might skew the actions of the characters towards making decisions that illuminate that theme ", this is the matter
in normal story orianted game, the story awaits for the player do something to evolve
in actual dinamics game, the story doesnot evolve if the hero is not involve, there must be some time event or people have schedule occupation but that''s all, and mostly there is a lot of quest which is not directly involve with the whol scenario but only use the same background, and the background did not change
actually game is about decision and story relate decision made
where is the cross between game and story???
who makes decision in actual story??
actually in story it is the writer who makes the decision
then the player must be a co-writer in the story
what are game is about??
and what story is about??
game is about conflict with rule to achieve freedom (in a kind)
story is about character which fight against fate to achieve their freedom
both need a balance of force
then the player must be a character dealing whith fate and a co writer which write the role of his own character
fate is the theme which are design
fate arise from the balance of force
balance of force arise from character motivations and role
motivation lead to action to affect the balance of force towards the character
and conflict arise from action which is take from motivation
this is the complete equation
then for designing a FATE, we have to carefully choose character''s motivation and ability to create a well balance of force
well, it''s not all
i mention previously the thrill i have felt in ZELDA MAJORA was different of the previous games i have mention
what was the difference??
well the true difference is that the story in majora was ACTIVE while the others was PASSIVE
need explanation?
in majora, conflict and action was still going on EVEN when the player does nothing, time pass and the story continue, not waiting the player to move on, it was thrilling because i was for the firts time truly responsible for doing nothing because i have the ability to change fate, and i can just look how the NPC deal with this fate, it was thrilling because everything in the story was related to the fate (the majora''s curse and the end of the world), directly or indirectly, and you see action and consequence from this fate, it was thrilling because people ask for help BUT problem still continue and evolve according to how you achieve this, and you see how emotion evolve, and action affect every people (because you cannot be everywhere the same times).
for the first time the fate was truly my opponent, not waiting me to win him but challenge me, was a kind of player which defy me to a game...
well in majora , the world was not dinamic but heavily scripte, you have still the choice to reset action of everyone (time travel), and the story was short (but intense, yaw... the moon is falling! great thrill!!)
but i have definitly learn that dinamic story lacks
the conclusion i have come is that, the player must be one of the key of the FATE balance, player then may have to deal with npc''s motivation (and then they will too, they must be active) even if he does nothing, because it''s has consequence on the fate''s balance, and then a story arise from these conflict (whatever the player do it will have conflict around him, and he is automatically involve as a key element), the player as to deal truly with the story and the story is his opponent, he have to deal with fate, to escape fate or by acomplish fate... which is the meaning of story
well, we have to study new way to achieve this, new construction , new rule, new composition (how to place chess story element
)any comments??
PS: i think all game generate story, as the experiance we communique or feel by action in the game, it''s about storytellings in game we try to deal, not really story, because all game generate story...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
be good
be evil
but do it WELL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Author
Some interesting comments Neoshaman. I did have a little difficulty following you. Let me tell you what I got, and you can correct me if I misunderstood you.
You are saying that there is a balance of motivations in the game world. And the player is in the middle of the conflict between characters with opposite motivations.
So, for example, there is a small village in the mountains that is attacked by raiders. The raiders are one side of the scale, and the villagers trying to protect themselves are the other. And if fate plays out, either the village will be destroyed, or the raiders will be fought off. It is the players job to interfere with fate and either stop the raiders or join them and kill the villagers. Or if she chooses to do nothing fate will take its course. So the player is essentially changing the balance.
I''m not sure if that is what you were saying. Could you clarify please?
As for your PS, you are correct when you say all games have story. When I play a shooter online, and sneak in to the enemy base, dodge rockets, and grab their flag, that is a story right there.
You are saying that there is a balance of motivations in the game world. And the player is in the middle of the conflict between characters with opposite motivations.
So, for example, there is a small village in the mountains that is attacked by raiders. The raiders are one side of the scale, and the villagers trying to protect themselves are the other. And if fate plays out, either the village will be destroyed, or the raiders will be fought off. It is the players job to interfere with fate and either stop the raiders or join them and kill the villagers. Or if she chooses to do nothing fate will take its course. So the player is essentially changing the balance.
I''m not sure if that is what you were saying. Could you clarify please?
As for your PS, you are correct when you say all games have story. When I play a shooter online, and sneak in to the enemy base, dodge rockets, and grab their flag, that is a story right there.
Rayno asked:
"Does anyone have any thoughts on dynamic dialog synthesis?"
The first step is probably having the computer putting together and understanding the simple sentences. In the real Turing Test, the set of data that needs to be understood is far too large for something like an inverse parser; for the normal set of questions and dialogue produced by a player in the game world (well, at least when the player is role-playing in the world), I think an inverse parser with some manner of keeping track of what the NPC knows about the world around them would work pretty well. The writer would add color by pre-written responses, and by wild cards (for instance, you could have a % sign encoded in the text stream at places where meaningful "color dialogue" could be added; put one at the end of every sentence a character speaks, and make it represent " ,Hee?" or something). Also, the writer could script the likelyhood of a character using certain words, phrases, in place of cognates for said words/phrases. In short, it would take a lot of work for a programmer, as well as a lot of work for the writer (having to micromanage the set up of all that dialogue customization).
------
Neoshaman said:
"in actual dinamics game, the story doesnot evolve if the hero is not involve, there must be some time event or people have schedule occupation but that's all, and mostly there is a lot of quest which is not directly involve with the whol scenario but only use the same background, and the background did not change"
"actually game is about decision and story relate decision made"
I believe what your saying here, Neoshaman, is that a dynamic game is nothing but a repetitive background of NPCs mindlessly going about their day, still waiting for the hero to (metaphorically speaking) "step on the trigger tile" so that the story may continue? I agree that games are about interesting decisions, and of course excepting "pure" games, like Tetris, a player's gameplay decisions should affect the story in some way. I believe, however, that the world can be a little more dynamic.
Neoshaman said:
"where is the cross between game and story???
who makes decision in actual story??
actually in story it is the writer who makes the decision
then the player must be a co-writer in the story"
Exactly. The writer/designer must make this decision, as well as give up a lot of creative control to the player. Anyone who has GMed a really good campaign/session with a good group of role-players in a pen and paper game has felt this. Neverwinter Nights might have some promise in regards to this dynamicism dilema in multiplay (at least if the GMs on the multiplayer servers could get past re-creating Diablo).
Neoshaman said:
"fate is the theme which are design
fate arise from the balance of force
balance of force arise from character motivations and role
motivation lead to action to affect the balance of force towards the character
and conflict arise from action which is take from motivation
this is the complete equation
then for designing a FATE, we have to carefully choose character's motivation and ability to create a well balance of force"
Fate is only one possible theme... can you imagine playing a game where the designer's goal was to make you feel hopeless (I've felt this was the case with some of the later levels of Doom 2). What about a game simulating the experiences of someone who is discriminated against by society (a bit of this and GTA3 might have played like a Dickens novel...)? The possibilities are as boundless as the scope that conventional media cover.
I believe you are stating that a strong "fate", as borne out as a static storyline inside the game world, can be the only result of any theme. I presume this stems from a belief that we must shove something straight under the player's nose to do, otherwise they will get bored? Perhaps (though I for one hope this is not a necessity!).
-----
The way I would hope to set up a truly dynamic world would be to use a system of simple rules (or maybe not so simple). If you will, think of John Conway's "Game of Life", and imagine it as a story (http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/). Now, nothing happens in this story until the "writer" writes the story by marking some cells occupied. You then start the ball rolling away; in this world, there are only 3 ultimate outcomes:
1. A dead "universe", with no cells occupied;
2. A steady-state world, one or more groups of cells that never change;
3. A world in a steady, never-ending steady flux (one or more groups of cells that simple repeat an animation of sorts).
Imagine the case of the the steady-state or the constant steady flux; now, stop the simulation and add a cell somewhere, disrupting an equilibrium; that is the action of the player. Now, the writer/designer might have metaphysical reasons for not leaving the universe in equilibrium; if you want to add fate, that is one way to do it (like the Moon in Majora's Mask constantly bearing down on the planet). Perhaps an equilibrium in the dramatic elements of the story is the goal for the player to achieve.
Now, in a truly story driven game with NPCs that think and feel, it gets a little more complicated than our example above, of course...
-Steven Rokiski
[edited by - SteevR on September 21, 2003 9:37:37 AM]
"Does anyone have any thoughts on dynamic dialog synthesis?"
The first step is probably having the computer putting together and understanding the simple sentences. In the real Turing Test, the set of data that needs to be understood is far too large for something like an inverse parser; for the normal set of questions and dialogue produced by a player in the game world (well, at least when the player is role-playing in the world), I think an inverse parser with some manner of keeping track of what the NPC knows about the world around them would work pretty well. The writer would add color by pre-written responses, and by wild cards (for instance, you could have a % sign encoded in the text stream at places where meaningful "color dialogue" could be added; put one at the end of every sentence a character speaks, and make it represent " ,Hee?" or something). Also, the writer could script the likelyhood of a character using certain words, phrases, in place of cognates for said words/phrases. In short, it would take a lot of work for a programmer, as well as a lot of work for the writer (having to micromanage the set up of all that dialogue customization).
------
Neoshaman said:
"in actual dinamics game, the story doesnot evolve if the hero is not involve, there must be some time event or people have schedule occupation but that's all, and mostly there is a lot of quest which is not directly involve with the whol scenario but only use the same background, and the background did not change"
"actually game is about decision and story relate decision made"
I believe what your saying here, Neoshaman, is that a dynamic game is nothing but a repetitive background of NPCs mindlessly going about their day, still waiting for the hero to (metaphorically speaking) "step on the trigger tile" so that the story may continue? I agree that games are about interesting decisions, and of course excepting "pure" games, like Tetris, a player's gameplay decisions should affect the story in some way. I believe, however, that the world can be a little more dynamic.
Neoshaman said:
"where is the cross between game and story???
who makes decision in actual story??
actually in story it is the writer who makes the decision
then the player must be a co-writer in the story"
Exactly. The writer/designer must make this decision, as well as give up a lot of creative control to the player. Anyone who has GMed a really good campaign/session with a good group of role-players in a pen and paper game has felt this. Neverwinter Nights might have some promise in regards to this dynamicism dilema in multiplay (at least if the GMs on the multiplayer servers could get past re-creating Diablo).
Neoshaman said:
"fate is the theme which are design
fate arise from the balance of force
balance of force arise from character motivations and role
motivation lead to action to affect the balance of force towards the character
and conflict arise from action which is take from motivation
this is the complete equation
then for designing a FATE, we have to carefully choose character's motivation and ability to create a well balance of force"
Fate is only one possible theme... can you imagine playing a game where the designer's goal was to make you feel hopeless (I've felt this was the case with some of the later levels of Doom 2). What about a game simulating the experiences of someone who is discriminated against by society (a bit of this and GTA3 might have played like a Dickens novel...)? The possibilities are as boundless as the scope that conventional media cover.
I believe you are stating that a strong "fate", as borne out as a static storyline inside the game world, can be the only result of any theme. I presume this stems from a belief that we must shove something straight under the player's nose to do, otherwise they will get bored? Perhaps (though I for one hope this is not a necessity!).
-----
The way I would hope to set up a truly dynamic world would be to use a system of simple rules (or maybe not so simple). If you will, think of John Conway's "Game of Life", and imagine it as a story (http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/). Now, nothing happens in this story until the "writer" writes the story by marking some cells occupied. You then start the ball rolling away; in this world, there are only 3 ultimate outcomes:
1. A dead "universe", with no cells occupied;
2. A steady-state world, one or more groups of cells that never change;
3. A world in a steady, never-ending steady flux (one or more groups of cells that simple repeat an animation of sorts).
Imagine the case of the the steady-state or the constant steady flux; now, stop the simulation and add a cell somewhere, disrupting an equilibrium; that is the action of the player. Now, the writer/designer might have metaphysical reasons for not leaving the universe in equilibrium; if you want to add fate, that is one way to do it (like the Moon in Majora's Mask constantly bearing down on the planet). Perhaps an equilibrium in the dramatic elements of the story is the goal for the player to achieve.
Now, in a truly story driven game with NPCs that think and feel, it gets a little more complicated than our example above, of course...
-Steven Rokiski
[edited by - SteevR on September 21, 2003 9:37:37 AM]
quote: I believe what your saying here, Neoshaman, is that a dynamic game is nothing but a repetitive background of NPCs mindlessly going about their day, still waiting for the hero to (metaphorically speaking) "step on the trigger tile" so that the story may continue? I agree that games are about interesting decisions, and of course excepting "pure" games, like Tetris, a player''s gameplay decisions should affect the story in some way. I believe, however, that the world can be a little more dynamic.
well i precise in ACTUAL dinamic game
but you get the point npc wander mindlessly and don''t have to make decision ABOUT the STORY, that the major lack i mention
quote: Fate is only one possible theme...
well i have express myself bad
i use fate as a technical term, fate is what the theme create
fate is about the experiance we will get into and divide itself in balance of force
for ex the theme is love, fate may be how love grow from relation of two people, balance of faorce may be misunderstood against trust, and then you choose the "chess piece" in the story from each side to have interesting effect and set the game rule, now throw the player somewhere as a piece or main piece, whatever he does he influance the game, and then a story arise
it''s pretty the same as normal game but adapt to the story structure (story theory help a lot at this point)
actual game has attempt to do this but not from story structure
it''s very simple in fact
after every theory of evolution of a system can help modelize (theory of games and theory of chaos for ex)
about finding any possible shape and evolution of the story system from decision made (tool already exist in academics)
that''s why i say it''s a kind of story which play against the player
we can imagine the fate manager calculating depth of decision in order to choose the appropriate hand on the story game field according to his play style
the story play style is the main experiance the designer want to build for the player
any comment??
did this more clear (im not native from english speaking)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
be good
be evil
but do it WELL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Author
quote: Original post by SteevR
The first step is probably having the computer putting together and understanding the simple sentences. In the real Turing Test, the set of data that needs to be understood is far too large for something like an inverse parser; for the normal set of questions and dialogue produced by a player in the game world (well, at least when the player is role-playing in the world), I think an inverse parser with some manner of keeping track of what the NPC knows about the world around them would work pretty well. The writer would add color by pre-written responses, and by wild cards (for instance, you could have a % sign encoded in the text stream at places where meaningful "color dialogue" could be added; put one at the end of every sentence a character speaks, and make it represent " ,Hee?" or something). Also, the writer could script the likelyhood of a character using certain words, phrases, in place of cognates for said words/phrases. In short, it would take a lot of work for a programmer, as well as a lot of work for the writer (having to micromanage the set up of all that dialogue customization).
Something like this would be no simple task. I''m still not convinced that you could write an algorithim that would do essentially the same thing that a human writer does. That said, I think some sort of system like you describe would be useful for some instances. Such as populating a large world. It wouldn''t be feasible to write dialog for several thousand characters in a city, but if you could just define some basic character triats, and define what information they have you could create a pretty spectacular recreation of an actual community.
I might not be too difficult to create a fairly complex fill in the blanks system. Like you ask an NPC what he knows about the circus thats in town. The speach synthesis engine would have something like this:
I [don''t] know [anything, nothing, much] about [a, an, any, anyone named] [%subject].
And if the character didn''t know about the circus, it could do something like: "I don''t know nothing about any circus". Or if ther character were defined as more intelligent: "I don''t know anything about a circus".
Then you could throw little phrases at the beginning or end like you suggested: "I''m sorry sir, but I don''t know anything about a circus." or "Bitch, I don''t know nothing about any circus. Now get out of my face."
You end up with two opposite personalities just from a little scripting.
I don''t see a system like this being advanced enough to write dialog for a central character though. Not anytime soon anyway.
quote:
The way I would hope to set up a truly dynamic world would be to use a system of simple rules (or maybe not so simple).
[...]
I checked out the Game of Life. That is really quite cool. And again I think it would be great for the vast populace of a community. They go to work, they eat three meals, they go shopping. Almost like The Sims. However for important characters there should be deliberate, and specific thought put into what they do throughout the days.
quote: Original post by Neoshaman
well i have express myself bad
i use fate as a technical term, fate is what the theme create
fate is about the experiance we will get into and divide itself in balance of force
[...]
I think I understand you now. You are saying the whole story structure must evolve arround the characters actions, and not just choosing from a few predestined paths. I think the idea of changing the role of the player''s character based on his play style, is an interesting one. I''m jus trying to wrap me brain arround how this would be accomplished. I will post again when I have time to think and can provide some insight.
These are some great ideas guys. It seems like you both (Neoshaman and SteevR), are on somewhat the same line of thinking. You are both interested in creating a sort of intelligent game, that responds dynamically to the characters actions and responses. Very interesting.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
