The Escapist On The Road: PAX East 2013 - Future of RPGs Panel

[Marik Bentusi]

The concept of a player character that plays against my decisions and plays the game his own way is really abhorrent to me. I don't wanna raise an AI. I just wanna play video games.

Why's that simple goal being pushed away so frequently in recent times with integrated social networking and all other sorts of stuff leaving the impression they were demanded by some suit with no idea on how to actually improve the game/are so involved in everything surrounding games they think more surrounding elements will increase the core value.

I certainly wish them good luck with MMOs. Seeing how huge these projects are, they tend to involve little innovation and novelties that matter to me, which is why I personally am starting to pay greater and greater attention to the indie arm of the industry that's actually becoming a thing now and not only *can* take more risks in focused small titles, but actually *needs* either that or a good gimmick since they rely on word of mouth instead of multi-million-dollar marketing campaigns. Which is also why I hope we'll be getting more organic gameplay out of that sector, as stuff like Minecraft got so much popularity because of the "watercooler stories" as Yahtzee calls them.

 

[Mikeyfell]

This is making me sick.

Eventually we'll "progress" to the point where characters can ignore players.
I die a little inside every time I here an audience clap for a developer express their disdain for players.

That would be the end of a static universe and the beginning of a dynamic one. If that is how you interact in that world, the immersion would be higher. Wouldn't that be an ideal?

You push the game it then pushes back. Right?

Ideal? No, not even close.
A character that didn't do what you wanted it to would completely kill immersion for 99% of roll playing games
Because you wouldn't be in the roll of the player.


I could see it working for a specific type of game,
A more transient meta RPG where you as the player were controlling your character's conscience.
or like some sort of ghost from the future that knew something bad would happen to the character if it continued behaving the way it had been, and you have to nudge it onto a different moral path.
It would work well for that, but that's an entirely different genera from RPG's

It would be like in Mass Effect 2 if Shepard didn't 'want' to give Cerberus the Collector Base, it's making player choices moot, and you might as well just play a strictly liner game if you don't "actually" have any control over the main character.

 

[aelreth]

This is making me sick.

Eventually we'll "progress" to the point where characters can ignore players.
I die a little inside every time I here an audience clap for a developer express their disdain for players.

That would be the end of a static universe and the beginning of a dynamic one. If that is how you interact in that world, the immersion would be higher. Wouldn't that be an ideal?

You push the game it then pushes back. Right?

Ideal? No, not even close.
A character that didn't do what you wanted it to would completely kill immersion for 99% of roll playing games
Because you wouldn't be in the roll of the player.


I could see it working for a specific type of game,
A more transient meta RPG where you as the player were controlling your character's conscience.
or like some sort of ghost from the future that knew something bad would happen to the character if it continued behaving the way it had been, and you have to nudge it onto a different moral path.
It would work well for that, but that's an entirely different genera from RPG's

It would be like in Mass Effect 2 if Shepard didn't 'want' to give Cerberus the Collector Base, it's making player choices moot, and you might as well just play a strictly liner game if you don't "actually" have any control over the main character.

In that context I agree with you.

I just see synergy between AI and a procedural universe generation system. AI would control and manage the town. They could create their own problems by interacting with nearby objects.

 

[Mikeyfell]

This is making me sick.

Eventually we'll "progress" to the point where characters can ignore players.
I die a little inside every time I here an audience clap for a developer express their disdain for players.

That would be the end of a static universe and the beginning of a dynamic one. If that is how you interact in that world, the immersion would be higher. Wouldn't that be an ideal?

You push the game it then pushes back. Right?

Ideal? No, not even close.
A character that didn't do what you wanted it to would completely kill immersion for 99% of roll playing games
Because you wouldn't be in the roll of the player.


I could see it working for a specific type of game,
A more transient meta RPG where you as the player were controlling your character's conscience.
or like some sort of ghost from the future that knew something bad would happen to the character if it continued behaving the way it had been, and you have to nudge it onto a different moral path.
It would work well for that, but that's an entirely different genera from RPG's

It would be like in Mass Effect 2 if Shepard didn't 'want' to give Cerberus the Collector Base, it's making player choices moot, and you might as well just play a strictly liner game if you don't "actually" have any control over the main character.

In that context I agree with you.

I just see synergy between AI and a procedural universe generation system. AI would control and manage the town. They could create their own problems by interacting with nearby objects.

I could also see it working if they applied to other characters in the game
but the Player character seems like a terrible idea.