Interactive Storytelling
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
I have to disagree with this. Branching stories are linear, of course. Multilinear, if you like. But truly non-linear storytelling is the one thing games are uniquely capable of. Look at anything in Oblivion that wasn't part of the main storyline, or really, most of WoW's questing - yes, it is suggested that you do things in a certain order, but gamers can freely take it upon themselves to explore and inhabit the world, creating their own stories as they go. Yes, the end product is inevitably a linear story, but it was one told with control almost exclusively in the player's hands: the definition of non-linear play.Yahtzee Croshaw said:
Whether that's a good thing or not is up to debate - I personally get unbearably bored when not directed by a decent linear plot - but don't discount it as if it's not there
A way to keep players within the playing field is to say that you need to stay within a certain proximity to a solar energy source or all your systems will go dead. Then just have jumpgates from star system to star system. Seems simple enough. Also an excuse one could use to not try to run away is that the enemies have long range laser cannons that are ineffective against shielded targets but you start without a shield or have an extremely faulty one.
With the concept and the idea they've had, it would've been haaard.SilverKyo said:
The whole point of a detective story is that you're trying to figure out the killer.
If the killer is random, that won't work.
If the killer changes depending on your actions, that would totally fuck up the whole HR universe. IRL, the person responsible for JFK's assassination won't change no matter what I do.
A tractor beam maybe? Not a very creative solution, but I think it's better than an insta-kill limitation. I hope the game works out, looking foward to seeing some screenshots and, maybe, eventually playing the completed version.
For the ship thing, how about saying they have a kind of magnetic field which pulls you back if you get too far away?
geldonyetich said:Okay, he just said it was "not non-linear," like, a million times. Happy now, A1? [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/6.181376.5383260]If not, I wish I could afford to fund a trip so you could visit the Mana Bar and ask him to write "linear" on a piece of paper. Then draw a line under it to clarify he understands the concept of linearity.
A-freaking-men. I must have created over a dozen little projects over the last couple years that I abandoned for this reason. Right now, I'm thinking maybe it's best to go completely freeform, which refutes something I believed earlier: that it's best to have the entire game designed in advance.Yahtzee said:
I can only assume that you're talking to me with that first part of your post (thank you for lacking clarity on that). Unfortunately Yahtzee doesn't really provide any new answers. He really only repeated something he already said in his video review. But worst of all he only addressed one particular aspect of the game and not the game itself. He has still done nothing to reconcile his contrasting statements and formulate one overarching and all-encompassing conclusion. So I guess we're going to be stuck in mixed and ambiguous territory for the foreseeable future.
About the space game hitch, how about the big ship deploying a mine field into the surrounding area, to inhibit any ships from disrupting their mission. Maybe they deactivate them when they leave so they can move out and reactivate them when they are clear, leaving the player to have to maneuver through them. It could be a good tutorial about maneuvering and avoiding harmful items.
I agree. The whole "gameplay has impact on the story" in never what it claims to be. I have the exact same problem with Mass Effect 2 - there was (and still is, I suppose) a lot of buzz around the whole "choises you made in ME1 will have impact on ME2" thing.
But they don't. All you get are subtle (ok, sometimes not so subtle) changes in specific point of the game, with no actual impact on the whole plot. And it sucks ass. I agonized about one decision in ME1, had to replay like an hour of gameplay to change it, and all I get in ME2 is 2 unique lines of dialog? Fuck that.
But they don't. All you get are subtle (ok, sometimes not so subtle) changes in specific point of the game, with no actual impact on the whole plot. And it sucks ass. I agonized about one decision in ME1, had to replay like an hour of gameplay to change it, and all I get in ME2 is 2 unique lines of dialog? Fuck that.
He could make it so that the ship can attatch to debris when close enough.EboMan7x said:
And maybe the ship could activate a cloaking device of some sorts that would explain why the enemy can't see you.
Then when they are gone, you can just disengage the camoflauge and launch the ship back off the debris.
Either that, or you give the enemy a vision range, (like a cone), that cannot look past the debris you're behind.
Fork's multiple story approach sounds like something I'd enjoy; though the exponential growth of the storytelling probably dooms it to development outside of bedroom programmers.
Best of luck with The Mana Bar and good to hear the latest about Exciting Space Game: The Game.
Best of luck with The Mana Bar and good to hear the latest about Exciting Space Game: The Game.
The idea for a game like Fork is very interesting, shame he never finished it. I always loved the story books that had things like that. It is interesting to see the development of FSG:TG through these articles though.
God I hate typing on my itouch. So annoying.
God I hate typing on my itouch. So annoying.
Whats wrong with Glasgow? (angryscotsface)Yhatzee said:
On the subject of "fun space game" im looking forward to it assuming it makes it into the real world.
As for fleeing the big/nasty techno loving bad guy ship. I thought the whole point was the cross diamiter wheel thing whith them? How about the only way for the player to jump from sector to sector (faster than light) is to hitch a ride on one of the big/nasty ships?
Makes sence to me, living like a parisite from a larger ship, in fear of not getting enough food/supplys from salvage and at the same time frightend that the host will find out about you some day.
Throw in a couple of blind spots so you can approach/leave a big/nasty without it wrecking you and you could be set?
You're infinite bounds in FSG:TG aren't really a problem just take a page from the old X-Wing games which let you fly off into space for forever and a day if you wanted but only had win conditions for the missions back where the danger was.
It seems as though your victory conditions are a little too vague at this point. Instead letting the player run away or avoid the big ship for a certain amount of time you should make them do something more specific like exit the area through a subspace gate at the far end of the asteroid belt or gather enough dilithium from the asteroids for them to warp out or have them lay a mine in the path of the big bad ship in order to destroy/disable it giving the player enough time to calibrate their hyperdrives and jump away.
It really doesn't matter what you do as long as winning is dependent on being near to the action.
It seems as though your victory conditions are a little too vague at this point. Instead letting the player run away or avoid the big ship for a certain amount of time you should make them do something more specific like exit the area through a subspace gate at the far end of the asteroid belt or gather enough dilithium from the asteroids for them to warp out or have them lay a mine in the path of the big bad ship in order to destroy/disable it giving the player enough time to calibrate their hyperdrives and jump away.
It really doesn't matter what you do as long as winning is dependent on being near to the action.