(12-15-2012, 12:40 PM)MyRedNeptune Wrote: [ -> ]@Hirnwirbel: FG's goal is to evolve games as a viable storytelling medium. I think that's it, basically. 
I think, puzzles and horror are more important than the story.
In other words, I don't want a walking-simulator with AAA-story!
A game must be innovative and thoughtful, let the player "working" with the environment and use simply logics to get forward. The best example here is Penumbra Overture, and some parts of the others.
(12-15-2012, 06:10 PM)Googolplex Wrote: [ -> ] (12-15-2012, 12:40 PM)MyRedNeptune Wrote: [ -> ]@Hirnwirbel: FG's goal is to evolve games as a viable storytelling medium. I think that's it, basically.
I think, puzzles and horror are more important than the story.
In other words, I don't want a walking-simulator with AAA-story!
A game must be innovative and thoughtful, let the player "working" with the environment and use simply logics to get forward. The best example here is Penumbra Overture, and some parts of the others.
But storytelling still has to be a massive part of the game, with puzzles being realistic and thoughtful -- all the while dragging the player in deeper to the immersive world they've trapped themselves in. I think Amnesia: The Dark Descent did a beautiful job of this with the memories; you are introduced to a problem, which can be solved with logic and thoughtful decision making. But beware where you tread, as the voices of what terrible past befell the castle are doubtful to stay silent.
I think that a good immersive game should try to stay linear (set destinations and all that) but retain a greater sense of interaction with your environment. This way it's actually as if you're lost somewhere in a castle.
(12-15-2012, 06:10 PM)Googolplex Wrote: [ -> ] (12-15-2012, 12:40 PM)MyRedNeptune Wrote: [ -> ]@Hirnwirbel: FG's goal is to evolve games as a viable storytelling medium. I think that's it, basically.
I think, puzzles and horror are more important than the story.
In other words, I don't want a walking-simulator with AAA-story!
A game must be innovative and thoughtful, let the player "working" with the environment and use simply logics to get forward. The best example here is Penumbra Overture, and some parts of the others.
Yes, interaction with the environment is essential. It creates a sense of presence, which results in immersion, the main advantage of games versus other genres (for storytelling purposes, that is). That's where the horror comes from.
Intellectual challenges are a must if you want the player to remain intrigued, I however believe that puzzles are not the only means of presenting them, or, rather, puzzles as we know them right now aren't (pretty separated from the narrative, have the potential to break the flow, etc).
Quote: Intellectual challenges are a must if you want the player to remain intrigued, I however believe that puzzles are not the only means of presenting them, or, rather, puzzles as we know them right now aren't
(pretty separated from the narrative, have the potential to break the flow, etc).
Yes, I think that you can still have puzzle-like challenges, but their solutions should be more varied and organic to avoid having the player be stuck, because he can't find some item or can't figure out some special combination of items.
For example, you could give the player a broader mid-term goal like "find a way into that house" and then just let him figure something out. Kinda like the aforementioned Thief games did it - you sometimes had three or more ways to get into a place and none of them required any special item use (Okay, maybe a key every now and then.).
Same principle could apply to getting past an enemy or finding needed information or whatever.
I also wonder if maybe there's a way to have a challenge that is intellectual in a way, but has nothing to do with the usual problem-solving mechanics. I mean normally, a challenge in an adventure is "XY is blocking your way", be it a machine that needs to be repaired or a lock that needs to be opened somehow... its all problems that a monkey could solve if it was intelligent enough.
But in real life, we are faced with so many more kinds of mental challenges.
Moral choices for example - and I mean actual dilemmas, not that good/evil system so many games have.
Or the challenge of analyzing other people, deducing what they might be up to, based on the information given about them - and therefore knowing how to proceed when dealing with them. (Of course this would require well developed characters with logical motivations and actions)
Basically, everything that forces you to think in a more complex way, on problems where you can't just use trial and error to suceed (as is the case with simple "mechanical" puzzles).
(12-15-2012, 10:49 PM)MyRedNeptune Wrote: [ -> ] (12-15-2012, 06:10 PM)Googolplex Wrote: [ -> ] (12-15-2012, 12:40 PM)MyRedNeptune Wrote: [ -> ]@Hirnwirbel: FG's goal is to evolve games as a viable storytelling medium. I think that's it, basically.
I think, puzzles and horror are more important than the story.
In other words, I don't want a walking-simulator with AAA-story!
A game must be innovative and thoughtful, let the player "working" with the environment and use simply logics to get forward. The best example here is Penumbra Overture, and some parts of the others.
Yes, interaction with the environment is essential. It creates a sense of presence, which results in immersion, the main advantage of games versus other genres (for storytelling purposes, that is). That's where the horror comes from.
I disagree. There is no interaction with the environment in Dear Esther, yet I felt 100% immersed within that environment and totally connected with the story.
However, from reading interviews with Dan and Thomas over the past few months I'm 100% certain that AAMFP is going to have very good interaction with the environment.
Quote: I disagree. There is no interaction with the environment in Dear Esther, yet I felt 100% immersed within that environment and totally connected with the story.
Well, in the end even a movie can be immersive if it is well done...and Dear Esther is tremendously well done. I think the point is mainly, that a game with a lot of interaction is using the unique strength of the medium more than a game without. A game with minimum interaction is like a film with only still frames. It can work very well, but it doesn't make the most of the medium.
To me, Dear Esther was a great experience, but it would have had almost the same (not 100%) level of immersion if the game had consisted of a camera moving through the level instead of me pressing WASD myself.
I'm saying almost the same, because even that little bit of interaction already created a greater sense of presence for me. Now what if the game had allowed for much more interaction? More exploration, maybe a way to examine objects and get the characters thoughts about them? Maybe that would have increased the sense of presence even further. Or maybe it would have been distracting... I can't say without having tested it.
(12-16-2012, 12:48 AM)Hirnwirbel Wrote: [ -> ]Quote: I disagree. There is no interaction with the environment in Dear Esther, yet I felt 100% immersed within that environment and totally connected with the story.
Well, in the end even a movie can be immersive if it is well done...and Dear Esther is tremendously well done. I think the point is mainly, that a game with a lot of interaction is using the unique strength of the medium more than a game without. A game with minimum interaction is like a film with only still frames. It can work very well, but it doesn't make the most of the medium.
To me, Dear Esther was a great experience, but it would have had almost the same (not 100%) level of immersion if the game had consisted of a camera moving through the level instead of me pressing WASD myself.
I'm saying almost the same, because even that little bit of interaction already created a greater sense of presence for me. Now what if the game had allowed for much more interaction? More exploration, maybe a way to examine objects and get the characters thoughts about them? Maybe that would have increased the sense of presence even further. Or maybe it would have been distracting... I can't say without having tested it.
I dislike Dear Esther for different reasons altogether, e.g. it's pretentious, shallow, boring etc. but the fact that it almost isn't a game doesn't help. I wouldn't have liked it even if it was a film, because the story is uninteresting and (the way the game is designed) convoluted. The music wasn't bad which, coupled with the visuals, was the only thing remotely enjoyable about that game.
I like the puzzles, but I also like variety. Can't tell how many times I have read "Something must be wrong with the machinery" in TDD
I refuse to read any of this. What else could we still argue about? Didn't we already go through immersion, like 50-100 pages ago?
Quote: I refuse to read any of this.
Oh noes - you're breaking my heart!
If you have a more interesting topic that you'd like discussed instead, go ahead, no one is holding you back. Don't be shy, just post it! C'mon, you can do it!
