Interactive Storytelling
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
'cause that would make dodging asteroids too easy and therefore make the game boring, exactly as he said.
i suppose you could have a complete shutdown mode where you can't do anything, as long as it took ages to start up again or some other penalty.
Edit: sorry, screwed up my quoting, twice. i've got it right now
i suppose you could have a complete shutdown mode where you can't do anything, as long as it took ages to start up again or some other penalty.
Edit: sorry, screwed up my quoting, twice. i've got it right now
perhaps have it that when the ship comes in to salvage it puts up some kinda sheild around the area for protection against pirates or whatever. then when the ship finishes salvaging it leaves a bomb behind to destroy anything thats useless to them but they don't want their enemies to find. as it leaves it doesn't take down the sheild because it needs it to contain the explosion. instead it makes a hole in it, to get out you have to sneak close behind the big ship (perhaps attach yourself to it?) to get through the hole before it closes or you blow up. when you get out you're free to check out everything blowing up as you float safely outside the sheild.k-ossuburb said:
this could be used as a tutorial for sneaking or something.
I'm afraid Yahtzee has misconstrued the intent of Heavy Rain's developers. Replay value was not in fact any kind of priority for them. David Cage (the writer/director) even explicitly said in an interview that his best-case-scenario of a player's reaction would be for the player to play the game through and then set it down, because that would be his own personal story, unique to him. Even though I am replaying it extensively, I'm very pleased with that design philosophy, because it means the developers didn't skimp on any of the endings or story branches - a disturbing trend in many recent western RPGs.
With regard to the killer always being the same, I believe that there's a very important line of dialogue that sets the stage for the whole game in the first chapter. Ethan explains to his son, "Sometimes, things just have to happen - even when you don't want them too." It obviously foreshadows the premise of the mystery, but more subtly initiates the player into the dynamics of the game's concept of control. There is much control over the game's story by way of determining what choices the characters make, but the four protagonists are the ONLY thing under your control. The outside world continues as it would have, reacting to your choices only when you directly affect it. The killer's identity is just one more thing that "has to happen - even if you don't want it to" because it is outside of your characters' power to change it.
With regard to the killer always being the same, I believe that there's a very important line of dialogue that sets the stage for the whole game in the first chapter. Ethan explains to his son, "Sometimes, things just have to happen - even when you don't want them too." It obviously foreshadows the premise of the mystery, but more subtly initiates the player into the dynamics of the game's concept of control. There is much control over the game's story by way of determining what choices the characters make, but the four protagonists are the ONLY thing under your control. The outside world continues as it would have, reacting to your choices only when you directly affect it. The killer's identity is just one more thing that "has to happen - even if you don't want it to" because it is outside of your characters' power to change it.
But clues in a detective story are passive, not active, things. They are always there for the detective to see or ignore. The killer identity is also a constant thing and should not be changed according to the player's actions.pyrus7 said:
What might be nice, is to give the player the option to be a good detective and follow the leads to the kiiler. Be a bad detective that follow the leads but finds the wrong killer.... Or be a corrupt detective and "find" evidence, that will help you put the blame on certain characters for certain personal reasons (and you can even fail doing that, and end up in prison yourself).
Regarding the space game: Maybe the containers should contain some weapon or cloaking device that you need to destroy the boss.. You will always have the option to just run away, but eventually you will have to face him this way or the other.
Not sure what's been suggested so far about the space game, but here's my two cents. You could make it take a few seconds to switch speeds when in battle, some mumbo jumbo about it taking longer to power because of shields or whatever. But this leaves you stationary and vulnerable for a chunk of time, and unless you're in great cover the enemy will most likely be able to get a shot off and disrupt you from escaping.
Took the idea from world of warcraft's hearthstone feature, the item that lets you teleport to your home inn from anywhere but takes 5-10 seconds to cast and any hits you take forces you to start over.
Took the idea from world of warcraft's hearthstone feature, the item that lets you teleport to your home inn from anywhere but takes 5-10 seconds to cast and any hits you take forces you to start over.
geldonyetich said:
You're only seeing what you want to see.
And besides, you seem to be bordering on self-contradiction here. To say "I thought" strongly implies some degree of uncertainty, as opposed to something like "I know" or "I understand". But then you outright use the word "understand".
With regards to FSG:TG, I'd like to offer a humble solution.
Let them go in any direction forever, but give your sensors a finite range (because any sensor has a maximum resolution, and going beyond that point would put things beyond your draw distance). Once you have reached that point, have them hit an invisible wall, but because there is nothing out there, they dont know it. Space is a very empty place, so just make the particle effects fade to nothing the farther you get from the objective.
The player would always be able to get back to the objectives, even when they were beyond his scan range, because the enemy ships all have IFF transponders, and their broadcast power is many orders of magnitude beyond your own.
Your objectives are within the sphere of the enemy ships scan range, so leaving that range serves no real purpose, beyond simply curiosity. Once players realize that there really is nothing interesting in open space, they will return.
As another overall game-flow idea; why not allow the players access to maybe half of the objectives, with the options to do them in any order you want.
I.E. - A single area has maybe 3 tier 1 objectives, 3 tier 2, and 3 tier 3. Each offers a different method of achieving it (Pure stealth, decoys, distraction followed by snatch&grab)
Some are dead ends, others offer multiple subsequent options upon completion, others offer only one path forward. So you would end up with 2 successful outcomes, all with different rewards, which would then help you on later missions. Maybe they would reflect the manner in which you completed the objectives? i.e. using decoys would reward you with better/more varied decoy methods.
Let them go in any direction forever, but give your sensors a finite range (because any sensor has a maximum resolution, and going beyond that point would put things beyond your draw distance). Once you have reached that point, have them hit an invisible wall, but because there is nothing out there, they dont know it. Space is a very empty place, so just make the particle effects fade to nothing the farther you get from the objective.
The player would always be able to get back to the objectives, even when they were beyond his scan range, because the enemy ships all have IFF transponders, and their broadcast power is many orders of magnitude beyond your own.
Your objectives are within the sphere of the enemy ships scan range, so leaving that range serves no real purpose, beyond simply curiosity. Once players realize that there really is nothing interesting in open space, they will return.
As another overall game-flow idea; why not allow the players access to maybe half of the objectives, with the options to do them in any order you want.
I.E. - A single area has maybe 3 tier 1 objectives, 3 tier 2, and 3 tier 3. Each offers a different method of achieving it (Pure stealth, decoys, distraction followed by snatch&grab)
Some are dead ends, others offer multiple subsequent options upon completion, others offer only one path forward. So you would end up with 2 successful outcomes, all with different rewards, which would then help you on later missions. Maybe they would reflect the manner in which you completed the objectives? i.e. using decoys would reward you with better/more varied decoy methods.
For "Fun space game : the game", have it so that you need to scavenge the wreck for fuel or spare parts in order to escape, the "WHEEL" can still be an ominous and interesting presence but without the overkill it would create if it destroyed you whenever you attempt to leave.
That you are the type of fellow to nitpick in such a way as to readily believe a person can know or understand something without thinking it goes far to explaining why you cannot reach an inner consensus on what Yahtzee has said.A1 said:
The first part of this write-up, before Yahtzee tangentalizes off on his game idea for Metal Gear Solid in Space, just makes me think that Yahtzee has never played, nor read about Chrono Trigger.
Hey Yahtzee, in your conundrum of why your protagonist in Space Game would have to not steer clear of the bad guys, why not something along the lines of what Bioshock did with Big Daddies. I mean, there you *could* just cruise past or avoid if you wanted, but the benefit in not doing so was worth the risk. Everyone does risk/benefit differently in their mind, but it shouldn't be too hard to find a common-enough ground for people to want to take risk (xp advancement, trophies/achievements, collection of an item that 'improves' game experience, your mum. . .)
Thanks as always for the quality free entertainment. . .
Thanks as always for the quality free entertainment. . .
See, I'd like Heavy Rain if it was on the DS or PSP. The reason is that one of my favorite games of all time is Hotel Dusk: Room 215, which is more like a book then anything else (you even hold the DS sideways). The game is very linear, the puzzles are meh, but the story, dialogue, and characters are so well written that I play it over and over again, just like reading a favorite book of mine. And since the game is on a portable console, I can read it on planes or cars or other places where I need to kill an hour or so.
But Heavy Rain is a console game, which means you can only play it sitting at home. And that doesn't sound like fun to me. It's like having a book that's chained to a wall. You can't take it with you anywhere. And, as much as I love reading, I don't sit around my house reading books when there is TV and the internet to explore.
Anyways, good luck on the space game. And I can sympathize with you on Fork. I tried to write a "choose your own adventure" type novel once, and I abandoned it for the same reason as you.
But Heavy Rain is a console game, which means you can only play it sitting at home. And that doesn't sound like fun to me. It's like having a book that's chained to a wall. You can't take it with you anywhere. And, as much as I love reading, I don't sit around my house reading books when there is TV and the internet to explore.
Anyways, good luck on the space game. And I can sympathize with you on Fork. I tried to write a "choose your own adventure" type novel once, and I abandoned it for the same reason as you.