Cognisant
cackling in the trenches
- Local time
- Today 8:55 AM
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2009
- Messages
- 11,155
I've been thinking about game design of late, as I do, and y'know there comes a time when ideas need to either be acted upon (not possible in this case), written down (which unsatisfying), or vented, hence this thread.
Intro's done, lets get started.
I've been thinking about the replayability of games, particularly RPGs & RPG/adventure games (like the Fable series for example) and it has occurred to me that the progressive-development philosophy that such games utilise is innately flawed. Obviously the flaw is the finite availability of items to acquire, tasks to complete, and places to explore; but I think I've got a solution to this, and I would really appreciate some feedback on it. Using Fable as an example, what if there was some element of decay acting to oppose/retard the player character's development?
In respect to the character itself this could be a gradual loss of overall potency over time, justified by the common real-world understanding that anything underutilised (brains, muscles, nervous systems) will atrophy, i.e. the term "getting rusty" which refers to under utilization of a skill resulting in a loss in proficiency with that skill. Furthermore this decay-dynamic could act as a sort of active level cap, preventing the player from getting their character to the pinnacle of any given skill/attribute without overspecializing to the detriment of other skills/attributes, thus increasing the game's overall longevity by making character development something to explore and experiment with, as opposed to simply something to conquer. Better still it would force players who seek a combat optimal character to work to maintain that character’s potency, while players who deviate from the path of war in pursuit of less malevolent goals (examples from the Fable games: cultivating a business empire, starting a family, or simply having fun for fun’s sake) will find their character becoming less combat proficient, but possibly developing in other ways, perhaps even presenting alternatives to direct confrontation.
Now in respect to the game-world itself, what if the world didn’t wait for the player to interact with it; now granted I’ve played a few space based RPGs where the various factions do exactly that, and consistently overwhelmed any & all efforts I make to establish myself, but then again those games are made for INTJs who specialise in spreadsheet battles of life-or-death accountancy. So imagine instead a game like the Elder Scrolls Oblivion, where the various bandits, goblins, necromancers, vampires, and whatever, act like factions vying for control of the various caves, ruins, and dungeons, scattered across Cyrodiil. Players actions (typically mass slaughter & looting) will affect the balance of power between these factions, resulting in cleared locations being overtaken by nearby (occupied) locations, or player-hostile wildlife, and far-away locations (implicitly unimpeded by player intervention) becoming more dangerous in direct proportion to the losses incurred by local ones. In effect what starts out as a uniformly dangerous world of a medium/low threat level, becomes a Tolkien-like dichotomy between relatively safe areas (where the player can chill-out and enjoy the local prosperity, i.e. the shire) and increasingly hostile territory, depending upon its distance from the player frequented areas.
Obviously the player will eventually find themself either travelling around the world playing wack-a-mole with anything powerful enough to be considered a worthy adversary, defending “the shire” from the ever impeding forces of darkness, and/or charging off into the deepest darkest depth of whatever hell they’ve inadvertently (and unwittingly) created in the pursuit of a epic, over the top, showdown with the biggest meanest eldritch abomination of suffering & terror they can find, and probably lose.
Oh right, and before I forget, player acquisitions like property, businesses, transport, etc, should also undergo some manner of decay if left unattended, provided there’s the option to hire attendees (or whatever), and well y’know, upkeep stuff. The point being that the player could take over the world, in theory, but without having first established themself fiscally they’ll lack the means to actually control it, e.g. with sufficient combat skill a player could fight their way through an army and capture a castle for themself, but without guards to protect it while they’re gone it’ll cease to be theirs as soon as their back is turned, but of course having guards isn’t enough either, candles don’t light & replace themselves, the castle isn’t going to keep itself clean, and who’s going to feed the people doing this stuff, and where is all this money going to come from?
Rivals/antagonists would make a good addition to this, imagine for example you were playing Fable and some random messenger ran up to you, informing you that your family had been taken hostage by whatever nemesis or faction; or perhaps one of your businesses keep getting robbed or otherwise sabotaged; or what about subtle (and decidedly unsubtle) assassination attempts, poisoned food or dangerously misleading information for example.
Btw, that started as a little rant
Intro's done, lets get started.
I've been thinking about the replayability of games, particularly RPGs & RPG/adventure games (like the Fable series for example) and it has occurred to me that the progressive-development philosophy that such games utilise is innately flawed. Obviously the flaw is the finite availability of items to acquire, tasks to complete, and places to explore; but I think I've got a solution to this, and I would really appreciate some feedback on it. Using Fable as an example, what if there was some element of decay acting to oppose/retard the player character's development?
In respect to the character itself this could be a gradual loss of overall potency over time, justified by the common real-world understanding that anything underutilised (brains, muscles, nervous systems) will atrophy, i.e. the term "getting rusty" which refers to under utilization of a skill resulting in a loss in proficiency with that skill. Furthermore this decay-dynamic could act as a sort of active level cap, preventing the player from getting their character to the pinnacle of any given skill/attribute without overspecializing to the detriment of other skills/attributes, thus increasing the game's overall longevity by making character development something to explore and experiment with, as opposed to simply something to conquer. Better still it would force players who seek a combat optimal character to work to maintain that character’s potency, while players who deviate from the path of war in pursuit of less malevolent goals (examples from the Fable games: cultivating a business empire, starting a family, or simply having fun for fun’s sake) will find their character becoming less combat proficient, but possibly developing in other ways, perhaps even presenting alternatives to direct confrontation.
Now in respect to the game-world itself, what if the world didn’t wait for the player to interact with it; now granted I’ve played a few space based RPGs where the various factions do exactly that, and consistently overwhelmed any & all efforts I make to establish myself, but then again those games are made for INTJs who specialise in spreadsheet battles of life-or-death accountancy. So imagine instead a game like the Elder Scrolls Oblivion, where the various bandits, goblins, necromancers, vampires, and whatever, act like factions vying for control of the various caves, ruins, and dungeons, scattered across Cyrodiil. Players actions (typically mass slaughter & looting) will affect the balance of power between these factions, resulting in cleared locations being overtaken by nearby (occupied) locations, or player-hostile wildlife, and far-away locations (implicitly unimpeded by player intervention) becoming more dangerous in direct proportion to the losses incurred by local ones. In effect what starts out as a uniformly dangerous world of a medium/low threat level, becomes a Tolkien-like dichotomy between relatively safe areas (where the player can chill-out and enjoy the local prosperity, i.e. the shire) and increasingly hostile territory, depending upon its distance from the player frequented areas.
Obviously the player will eventually find themself either travelling around the world playing wack-a-mole with anything powerful enough to be considered a worthy adversary, defending “the shire” from the ever impeding forces of darkness, and/or charging off into the deepest darkest depth of whatever hell they’ve inadvertently (and unwittingly) created in the pursuit of a epic, over the top, showdown with the biggest meanest eldritch abomination of suffering & terror they can find, and probably lose.
Oh right, and before I forget, player acquisitions like property, businesses, transport, etc, should also undergo some manner of decay if left unattended, provided there’s the option to hire attendees (or whatever), and well y’know, upkeep stuff. The point being that the player could take over the world, in theory, but without having first established themself fiscally they’ll lack the means to actually control it, e.g. with sufficient combat skill a player could fight their way through an army and capture a castle for themself, but without guards to protect it while they’re gone it’ll cease to be theirs as soon as their back is turned, but of course having guards isn’t enough either, candles don’t light & replace themselves, the castle isn’t going to keep itself clean, and who’s going to feed the people doing this stuff, and where is all this money going to come from?
Rivals/antagonists would make a good addition to this, imagine for example you were playing Fable and some random messenger ran up to you, informing you that your family had been taken hostage by whatever nemesis or faction; or perhaps one of your businesses keep getting robbed or otherwise sabotaged; or what about subtle (and decidedly unsubtle) assassination attempts, poisoned food or dangerously misleading information for example.
Btw, that started as a little rant
