quote:
original post by Silvermyst

Mental combat doesn''t even need physical combat as a supplement. A game like Tetris can be seen as a form of mental combat, a combat waged between the player''s intellect and the computer who randomly (which is a form of strategy) drops blocks.

This may seem irrelevant...but actually, to a certain extent, one could claim mental combat is physical combat...in two ways:

The obvious way: telekinetics, etc...''mentally'' flinging stuff at your enemies (I know, not your point)

not-so-obvious: Even in Tetris, where you claim ''mental combat,'' fighting against the computer (maybe on Tetris DX, where you can multi-play vs. comp.), there has to be some physical representation. No ''physical combat,'' meaning ''no physical representation,'' would be akin to playing Tetris with your monitor turned off. While that would be a skill in itself (or probably just plain dumb luck) would you think it was fun?

Oooh...there''s that word. Fun.

If you read the Letter to GDCornaria (or whatever) you know that I officially proclaimed myself to be of the "Right Wing" wherein we allow goblins and other mis- or underrepresented races to have lives outside of sacrificing themselves for a few gold coins (or gil, or whatever). However, I, like LF, never said combat was a bad thing. Physical or mental.

quote:
original post by Niphty
This excitement, this utter bare anticipation, is why people play these games. The fact that you can''t predict what''ll happen. I mean, what person is content fighting an enemy they can easily kill? They want bigger and better challenges!
...
(line about stealing for Landfish)

Well, one, I don''t think changing the experience is really stealing their fun. And, while I may have misunderstood you, I believe that you''re not thinking your argument through--we all know that one point of EGG was to find new ways of combat, if included, beyond mindless killing of easy targets, but then you ask what person is content fighting an enemy they can easily kill? If I''m understanding you right, then you''re saying that ye olde Lv. 1, 10 HP goblin doesn''t count as an easily killable enemy and one that will keep gamers content?

Really, I think that LFs (btw, I haven''t seen him around for a while...) idea of changing combat is really what you should be going for under that idea of wanting bigger and better challenges. Let the goblins do something else! One of my more recent posts (in EGG, I believe) mentioned allowing goblins to disappear and become stronger if you slaughter them, becoming actual dangers as a game progresses. What problems does this solve?

1) Goblin genocide was initially about not having low level goblins mindlessly slaughtered for hours on end. If they become stronger, "level up," gamers may think twice about attempting to mindlessly kill them.

2) They''re no longer "easily killable." That way, the player is given a "bigger and better" challenge.

3) Initially, at least, they can''t predict what will happen. You say gamers want to have better challenges as they progress, have randomness to their game. They''re not going to expect a goblin that suddenly reappears after 3 hours of play to be able to wield chaos magic and actually cause some damage.

This post went longer than I intended it to...but the more I wrote, the more I thought about it, and wrote still more. I may have completely missed the point of Niphty''s original post, but if so...then maybe this will work as some more food for thought.
--


WNDCLASSEX Reality;
...
...
Reality.lpfnWndProc=ComputerGames;
...
...
RegisterClassEx(&Reality);


Unable to register Reality...what''s wrong?
---------
Dan Upton
Lead Designer
WolfHeart Software

quote: Original post by draqza


3) Initially, at least, they can''t predict what will happen. You say gamers want to have better challenges as they progress, have randomness to their game. They''re not going to expect a goblin that suddenly reappears after 3 hours of play to be able to wield chaos magic and actually cause some damage.

I wonder if it is we jaded gamers who want this. I think a dinky chaos weilding goblin that suddenly starts kicking my a** up and down the dungeon would be funny. I''d have a lot less blase attitude about playing if I knew that I had to think more about combat.

But maybe this "thinking more" quality is a mark of gaming maturity? What I mean is, when you start in the hobby you tend to start simple, and then maybe grow in to the complexity.

Just a thought.

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Making the goblins into another society would annul the ability to mindlessly kill them - then the player would have to think about politics and society and economy. For instance the goblins inhabit the caves - where the main source of coal comes from - he slays them all and that means no coal is made and the economy suffers - society suffers - and ultimately there are major political ramifications.

-Just a few words.

Dæmin
(Dominik Grabiec)
sdgrab@eisa.net.au

Where to begin..
First off, i don''t claim to have actually read the whole EGG thread.. so if i have missed points in it, it''s cause it''s huge and i don''t have that kinda time or patients to do so.

With that said.. i think the most people got the basic idea of what i was saying.. mindless killing is what people play games for, a majority of the time. And while they do this, they complain about mindless skilling sucking. If mindless killing is fun for the reasons i mentioned and others mentioned, then how would one make mindless skilling just as exciting?

I''m gonna leave it at that for now.. i could ramble on, but it''s what i''m interested in finding out at this time. And this is as it applies to a MMORPG, since mindless skilling wouldn''t happen in a CRPG.. unless you count mindless killing to get exp to skill up in a way.. but that''s a technicality

J

Thinking about it, I''ve already achieved at least one level of understanding:
the fun part in "mindless killing" is not the actual clicking/dragging/button punching involved. It''s the particular choice of tactics you make, the way you use the objects you''ve been given(or you''ve "acquired" through other means). Its about your tactics and strategies, in a fast, responsive way. Combat games go hard and fast most of the time, not counting turn-based RPGs.

In order to make "mindless skilling" the same kind of fun, it also has to go deeper than choosing which controller button to push. There should be an element of choice and tradeoff in there, and an element of action.
The player should be pushed for time in making the decisions at least some of the time (even Tetris does this). This, unfortunately, also makes most RPG "skills" absolutely worthless. What''s the deeper strategy of swimming? What''s the action in basketweaving? It should definately be limited to interesting action.
Now, I really don''t see how I can make basketweaving interesting as an in-game challenge. However, swimming is a possibility. Crossing a fast stream with limited endurance and dangerous rocks to avoid. There are others. Climbing a wall to get inside/outside a house on time for a certain event that will take place, with the risk of falling being greater the faster you go.

However, the standard "Click on the climb wall skill button and I''m in" way of handling things is sorely inadequate.


People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
Mad Keith the V.

quote: Original post by MadKeithV

However, the standard "Click on the climb wall skill button and I''m in" way of handling things is sorely inadequate.

So what is your proposal to handle this? I mean.. obivously it IS wrong, and having a simple "climb wall Done." isn''t going to work. I mean.. how could you make it more interactive? Could you have someone actually have to grab individual handholds? Or take individual strokes while swimming? That would resort to almost the same near-mindless button pushing (since we now admit, halfway, that it''s no longer just a mindless act..). If you had to time your swimming strokes just right.. or you had to climb slowly to keep properly balanced.. that could be seen as actually fulfilling the requirement, eh?
But would players hate it?
There could be a simple point of making a cross-over between the two. If you''ve got enough skill to climb something, you can do it in a click. That way you don''t hafta spend time climbing it. But this causes roundtime while your character climbs. Now, taking this a bit further, you could allow the player to click-climb something they''re NOT able to climb, but they prolly won''t make it. Ok, so you allow them to take over and control the climb, thus advancing the character''s skill MORE than falling.. as they obivously made it up.. and increasing the chances of making it, if the player is patient.. but not too patient. Hanging in one place would cause almost as much problem as climbing too fast, unless you could lean your weight off your arms and legs partially.. and rest. Like if there was an outcropping to sit on.

To do something like this, though, the world has to be RICHLY detailed. Every part of rock you grab suddenly becomes real. If it''s not there next time, then what? you as the developer have screwed the player. Now, i propose at this junction that you simple allow the player to re-grip old handholds by making climbing the same part of the same wall twice, easier. If you climb the same thing over and over, you stop gaining experience off of it, but it becomes easier. I''ve found this out in driving. I can drive the same road over and over and get better and better till i hit the limit of my abilities. True.. i''m not the BEST driver, so i could improve on that road.. but my ability holds me back, not the knowing of the road. So i drive another road, and i find something new out.. then i redrive the old one, and bam! i''m a little better than before. Had i never seen that little dip in the curve before? or was it the fact that the other road had a big dip in the corner that i know now to look for that? While it''s true you might only shave 1/100th of a second off of your time.. in racing, any improvment over your opponent can give you the win, even 1/100th of a second.

So does everyone see what i''m getting at here?

J

Some ideas for other types of conflict.
"Conflict"
Exploration - the player has to map dangerous "unexplored" areas and survive via. Stealth speed or even weapons.

Use of objects- finding new ways to use objects to overcome a variety of situations. Ie. A non-linear dungeon with lots of traps … how does the intelligent player use the objects he has ? If it is a staff, he can block doors closing, bash goblins, prod buttons further away, combine it with a gauze bag to make a bug-net, he could pogo-vault with it etc, or even just drop it on the ground to mark a location. Unfortunately as it is we have to define the range of uses an object can have but if done well you can make a situation where the player can improvise and use objects and their functions in unforseen scenarios. (Variety of encounter). (This demands that obstacles have many possible solutions). Conflict, dangerous obstacles vs. limited but flexible resources.

Niphty QUOTE "the world has to be RICHLY detailed. "

This seems like a point worth investigating. Do we mean richly detailed or do we mean highly interactive? (Or both?).

Does there have to be a huge number of different objects with complex properties to create an interesting, fun world in which to survive and experiment. I propose that we do NOT. (Although if we can afford to it might be very nice).

The argument being:

For instance take Bubble Bobble a classic game, whilst this at first appears to be a simple platform / puzzle game it soon turns out to have many subtleties and nuances to it.
Ie. There are enemies, which have to be turned into poppable bubbles by being shot. These bubbles will burst if they are left unpopped for too long, releasing a faster version of the enemy. If you can get all the bubbles to touch when they pop you get a bigger score than popping them individually. So there are many factors involved in playing each different level, yet they come from simple properties.

There are also a large number of "randomly" appearing powerups throughout the game, which have interesting effects on the game & rules. Whether it be a firing speed power up.

As such subtle games can be made in the "2d platform" genre, surely this can be done in 3d?

Ketch.. the explore factor is taken care of already

And that would be both. Detailed is in you could pick up a rock and look at it.. and interactive that you could skip the rock across a lake. The objects need not be complex, unless that''s the kinda object they are. If you throw a rock.. it''s got properties, but it''s half-way dumb luck if you land the sharp edge on someone and cause a cut instead of a bruise, for most people.
It''s not too hard to make the objects and create physics so that the object could be used in a way not intended before. If the engine is powerful, then it''ll work things out you never thought of, without you having to put a whole buncha silly stats on things. of course, rocks can be pulverized.. but you could use a rock to stop up some kinda simple mechanical device. Or a big rock could stop something bigger. But you don''t simply code in for the rock to stop the wheel. What if the player is willing to sacrifice their weapon? And your game tells them "i don''t understand!" how stupid does that make you look?
No, the physics engine should take over here. You put in the sword, and brace it a lil.. and if the wheel can overcome the force of the bonds of the blade, then you just lost a weapon for nothin. Same for rock, if it can be crushed.. then it will be. You simply make bell-curved randomizers for things like this. That way you always get things to fall within a certain range Statistics is a great class to take on this.
Random powerups would never work in a realistic game, unless there was a reason behind it.. ie "your god grants you the longjump ability!" hehe.

J

Hrm, this has me thinking again. It''s been a while since there''s been a thread in which I''ve willingly participated

The things we''ve been talking about are actually not that super-detailed. It requires only a few more things to be implemented:

1. Climbing:
Reliance on: Strength of hands and feet ( could be separate for both hands, i.e. handedness so that you have a stronger right than left etc. ), strength of foot/handhold, size(difficulty) of foot/handhold, endurance of the character.
[I''ve forgotten about the angle/curviness of the surface here, but bear with me..]

With controls allowing you to select a hold with a foot or a hand, the difficulty for reaching it from your current position, the size of the hold and the strength of the hold, shows you if you can get to a position and stay there. The difficulty also shows how long you can stay there.

You think this is only climbing, but really that''s already a lot of detail.
Consider a rope, which is considered one big hold, with a set strength (how much weight it can carry) and difficulty (how slippery/cutting it is). Using the statistics above you could climb ropes, not just rocks, or hold on to ropes (like when they are being tugged by a helicopter).

You could also do the "sword in the stone" type thing. The sword is defined as a hold, without infinite strength. With enough force applied to it, the "hold" will break off and release itself from the surface it is attached to. This will make the sword a detached object with its own properties etc.

The trick is still to minimize mechanics, so that you are not doing a full physics system, yet providing very meaningful ways of interaction with ALL objects in the world through a common interface.


People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
Mad Keith the V.