Interactive Storytelling

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

A1:

geldonyetich:

A1:

geldonyetich:

A1:

geldonyetich:

A1:
Exactly what you're talking about is not immediately apparent to me. Although I could probably figure it out by thinking it over for at least a little while. However I'm not going to because it doesn't sound particularly relevant.

So how would this be different from any other one of your replies to me so far? ;)

Upon closer inspection of your previous post I think you may simply be starting to project now.

At all times, I try to stick to the issue and not the people involved. However, there reaches a certain point of any discussion where the depth of the issue is exhausted and there's no place left for progress to go but over the limitations of the participants.

However, to hold an aspirations that anyone on the Internet would change their mind about anything seems to be a naive hope. I just find this particular instance with Yahtzee flat out calling Heavy Rain a bad, non-interactive game in direct words and your refusing to believe that he meant what he said to be an incredulous example.

The conclusion that you've just been bad at exerting the necessary effort for comprehension all this time, as you inadvertently admitted to doing in the topmost quote, is the more feasible explanation. Bad luck you stumbled across a tireless rebutter.

That's exactly the point. "Yahtzee flat out calling Heavy Rain a bad, non-interactive game"? He hasn't done any such thing. And that's exactly the problem. If he had, we wouldn't be having this debate.

What you've described is actually your opinion, not Yahtzee's. It MIGHT be Yahtzee's opinion but there is no way to know for sure without Yahtzee's own verification, which we may never get.

Is it really that hard to understand that I'm under the opinion that what Yahtzee expressed was a clear opinion while you're under the opinion that what Yahtzee expressed is an unclear opinion?

I mean, you could keep insisting that Yahtzee wasn't clear ad naseum, but it's not going to change my opinion to the contrary.

It's not my opinion. It's just an observation.

Of course, and my observation is that Yahtzee both said "as a game, Heavy Rain is a pile of poo poo pancakes" in his review and that in this supplemental article he called it "not interactive" many times. However, I suppose that these facts impacted my observation is moot so long as you're beholden to hold a contrary opinion.

I think I'm being very generous to call what's going on here a difference of opinion. You should probably accept that.

geldonyetich:

A1:

geldonyetich:

A1:

geldonyetich:

A1:

geldonyetich:

A1:
Exactly what you're talking about is not immediately apparent to me. Although I could probably figure it out by thinking it over for at least a little while. However I'm not going to because it doesn't sound particularly relevant.

So how would this be different from any other one of your replies to me so far? ;)

Upon closer inspection of your previous post I think you may simply be starting to project now.

At all times, I try to stick to the issue and not the people involved. However, there reaches a certain point of any discussion where the depth of the issue is exhausted and there's no place left for progress to go but over the limitations of the participants.

However, to hold an aspirations that anyone on the Internet would change their mind about anything seems to be a naive hope. I just find this particular instance with Yahtzee flat out calling Heavy Rain a bad, non-interactive game in direct words and your refusing to believe that he meant what he said to be an incredulous example.

The conclusion that you've just been bad at exerting the necessary effort for comprehension all this time, as you inadvertently admitted to doing in the topmost quote, is the more feasible explanation. Bad luck you stumbled across a tireless rebutter.

That's exactly the point. "Yahtzee flat out calling Heavy Rain a bad, non-interactive game"? He hasn't done any such thing. And that's exactly the problem. If he had, we wouldn't be having this debate.

What you've described is actually your opinion, not Yahtzee's. It MIGHT be Yahtzee's opinion but there is no way to know for sure without Yahtzee's own verification, which we may never get.

Is it really that hard to understand that I'm under the opinion that what Yahtzee expressed was a clear opinion while you're under the opinion that what Yahtzee expressed is an unclear opinion?

I mean, you could keep insisting that Yahtzee wasn't clear ad naseum, but it's not going to change my opinion to the contrary.

It's not my opinion. It's just an observation.

Of course, and my observation is that Yahtzee both said "as a game, Heavy Rain is a pile of poo poo pancakes" in his review and that in this supplemental article he called it "not interactive" many times. However, I suppose that these facts impacted my observation is moot so long as you're beholden to hold a contrary opinion.

I think I'm being very generous to call what's going on here a difference of opinion. You should probably accept that.

Actually you're drawing your own conclusions based on an observation. That's an opinion. I'm sticking to my observation by not drawing any conclusions about Yahtzee's opinion. I'm not saying that Yahtzee thinks such-and-such about Heavy Rain because he doesn't make it entirely clear, if at all.

And it's gets worse I'm afraid because your observation seems to be flawed. You only seem to be focusing on the stuff that you like and disregarding the rest of it, or in other words not taking in the whole picture. And I've looked over the Extra Punctation piece again and he never says "not interactive" or "non-interactive" or anything of the like when talking about Heavy Rain.

And incidentally I think it may also be important to note that Yahtzee had a lot of complaints with Assassin's Creed but he still said that he liked the game overall. It would seem to be yet another example of how unpredictable Yahtzee can be.

A1:

geldonyetich:

A1:

geldonyetich:

A1:

geldonyetich:

A1:

geldonyetich:

A1:
Exactly what you're talking about is not immediately apparent to me. Although I could probably figure it out by thinking it over for at least a little while. However I'm not going to because it doesn't sound particularly relevant.

So how would this be different from any other one of your replies to me so far? ;)

Upon closer inspection of your previous post I think you may simply be starting to project now.

At all times, I try to stick to the issue and not the people involved. However, there reaches a certain point of any discussion where the depth of the issue is exhausted and there's no place left for progress to go but over the limitations of the participants.

However, to hold an aspirations that anyone on the Internet would change their mind about anything seems to be a naive hope. I just find this particular instance with Yahtzee flat out calling Heavy Rain a bad, non-interactive game in direct words and your refusing to believe that he meant what he said to be an incredulous example.

The conclusion that you've just been bad at exerting the necessary effort for comprehension all this time, as you inadvertently admitted to doing in the topmost quote, is the more feasible explanation. Bad luck you stumbled across a tireless rebutter.

That's exactly the point. "Yahtzee flat out calling Heavy Rain a bad, non-interactive game"? He hasn't done any such thing. And that's exactly the problem. If he had, we wouldn't be having this debate.

What you've described is actually your opinion, not Yahtzee's. It MIGHT be Yahtzee's opinion but there is no way to know for sure without Yahtzee's own verification, which we may never get.

Is it really that hard to understand that I'm under the opinion that what Yahtzee expressed was a clear opinion while you're under the opinion that what Yahtzee expressed is an unclear opinion?

I mean, you could keep insisting that Yahtzee wasn't clear ad naseum, but it's not going to change my opinion to the contrary.

It's not my opinion. It's just an observation.

Of course, and my observation is that Yahtzee both said "as a game, Heavy Rain is a pile of poo poo pancakes" in his review and that in this supplemental article he called it "not interactive" many times. However, I suppose that these facts impacted my observation is moot so long as you're beholden to hold a contrary opinion.

I think I'm being very generous to call what's going on here a difference of opinion. You should probably accept that.

Actually you're drawing your own conclusions based on an observation. That's an opinion. I'm sticking to my observation by not drawing any conclusions about Yahtzee's opinion. I'm not saying that Yahtzee thinks such-and-such about Heavy Rain because he doesn't make it entirely clear, if at all.

Choosing non-action is still an action. You wouldn't have anything to say if you didn't have an opinion at this point.

And it's gets worse I'm afraid because your observation seems to be flawed. You only seem to be focusing on the stuff that you like and disregarding the rest of it, or in other words not taking in the whole picture. And I've looked over the Extra Punctation piece again and he never says "not interactive" or "non-interactive" or anything of the like when talking about Heavy Rain.

I'm working under the belief that Yahtzee isn't a complete tool who first says one thing and then says another at the end of his review. You think he just starts ranting at the beginning of every one of his reviews and goes from "as a game, is a pile of poo poo pancakes" to "this game keeps getting better and better" and because he's changing his mind? No, he has the whole thing written up from the start. When he said that, he meant it from beginning, the only reason he said it was getting better were due to the aspects that were not a game.

And incidentally I think it may also be important to note that Yahtzee had a lot of complaints with Assassin's Creed but he still said that he liked the game overall. It would seem to be yet another example of how unpredictable Yahtzee can be.

Completely irrelevant considering I'm talking specifically about Heavy Rain being bad "as a game" and "a non-interactive story" and nothing else about any other game he ever said a word about.

Patrol craft circling the debris field that mess up your lil salvage ship when you try to leave, thats what i would do anyway.

Come on Yahtzee give us some look at the game I'm so anxious images floating in my mind.

geldonyetich:

A1:

geldonyetich:

A1:

geldonyetich:

A1:

geldonyetich:

A1:

geldonyetich:

A1:
Exactly what you're talking about is not immediately apparent to me. Although I could probably figure it out by thinking it over for at least a little while. However I'm not going to because it doesn't sound particularly relevant.

So how would this be different from any other one of your replies to me so far? ;)

Upon closer inspection of your previous post I think you may simply be starting to project now.

At all times, I try to stick to the issue and not the people involved. However, there reaches a certain point of any discussion where the depth of the issue is exhausted and there's no place left for progress to go but over the limitations of the participants.

However, to hold an aspirations that anyone on the Internet would change their mind about anything seems to be a naive hope. I just find this particular instance with Yahtzee flat out calling Heavy Rain a bad, non-interactive game in direct words and your refusing to believe that he meant what he said to be an incredulous example.

The conclusion that you've just been bad at exerting the necessary effort for comprehension all this time, as you inadvertently admitted to doing in the topmost quote, is the more feasible explanation. Bad luck you stumbled across a tireless rebutter.

That's exactly the point. "Yahtzee flat out calling Heavy Rain a bad, non-interactive game"? He hasn't done any such thing. And that's exactly the problem. If he had, we wouldn't be having this debate.

What you've described is actually your opinion, not Yahtzee's. It MIGHT be Yahtzee's opinion but there is no way to know for sure without Yahtzee's own verification, which we may never get.

Is it really that hard to understand that I'm under the opinion that what Yahtzee expressed was a clear opinion while you're under the opinion that what Yahtzee expressed is an unclear opinion?

I mean, you could keep insisting that Yahtzee wasn't clear ad naseum, but it's not going to change my opinion to the contrary.

It's not my opinion. It's just an observation.

Of course, and my observation is that Yahtzee both said "as a game, Heavy Rain is a pile of poo poo pancakes" in his review and that in this supplemental article he called it "not interactive" many times. However, I suppose that these facts impacted my observation is moot so long as you're beholden to hold a contrary opinion.

I think I'm being very generous to call what's going on here a difference of opinion. You should probably accept that.

Actually you're drawing your own conclusions based on an observation. That's an opinion. I'm sticking to my observation by not drawing any conclusions about Yahtzee's opinion. I'm not saying that Yahtzee thinks such-and-such about Heavy Rain because he doesn't make it entirely clear, if at all.

Choosing non-action is still an action. You wouldn't have anything to say if you didn't have an opinion at this point.

And it's gets worse I'm afraid because your observation seems to be flawed. You only seem to be focusing on the stuff that you like and disregarding the rest of it, or in other words not taking in the whole picture. And I've looked over the Extra Punctation piece again and he never says "not interactive" or "non-interactive" or anything of the like when talking about Heavy Rain.

I'm working under the belief that Yahtzee isn't a complete tool who first says one thing and then says another at the end of his review. You think he just starts ranting at the beginning of every one of his reviews and goes from "as a game, is a pile of poo poo pancakes" to "this game keeps getting better and better" and because he's changing his mind? No, he has the whole thing written up from the start. When he said that, he meant it from beginning, the only reason he said it was getting better were due to the aspects that were not a game.

And incidentally I think it may also be important to note that Yahtzee had a lot of complaints with Assassin's Creed but he still said that he liked the game overall. It would seem to be yet another example of how unpredictable Yahtzee can be.

Completely irrelevant considering I'm talking specifically about Heavy Rain being bad "as a game" and "a non-interactive story" and nothing else about any other game he ever said a word about.

Yes I suppose choosing not to formulate an opinion would count as an action.

Making contrasting statements doesn't necessarily mean that he's changing his mind. It could simply mean that his opinion is simply complex.

But anyway the word that leaps out this time is "belief". The underlying problem with what your saying is that it's all belief and conjecture. You can't prove any of it. Only Yahtzee can do that since it's his opinion.

Another fine point by yahtee there.... on fun space game,why not make the game about manuvering within the garbage to treasure hunt the crate? some post apolcolypse future where food and lasers are a special treat? so in your little lugger you gotta fly with skill around this 3d platform of changing upse and downs...err like descent.... also the ships got to be able to stop, to survey and take a break....

as for the boss, could it not be like sinistar? faster than you, so as soon as you break from cover it's all over your ass trying to gobble you up or what not? so your free to explore the vast nothing ness away from the wreckage but you better move your ass about it.....

really all depends on the context you put the game in.

oh and I'll have the check out the bar when I'm in oz in a few month...games, booze,, and hopfully some bar snacks = a happy boy.

A1:
But anyway the word that leaps out this time is "belief". The underlying problem with what your saying is that it's all belief and conjecture. You can't prove any of it. Only Yahtzee can do that since it's his opinion.

Well, I'm under the "belief" that you wouldn't understand Yahtzee's opinion if he etched his answer into your forehead with a razor, in reverse, so you could read it in a mirror. That's probably where this discussion is going to end, because although Yahtzee had laid the matter out in very certain terms and I have expended a copious amount of my patience trying to clarify it for you, you seem as completely unwilling to make that cognitive leap. You can lead a horse to water, and all that.

Honestly, this Generation Y tendency to think you can avoid any responsibility by feigning ignorance is wearing thin. Would not hire.

Concerning the enemy spaceship: I would suggest explosive homing missiles with a large radius, but low damage. It could catch up to & hit a player as long as he was running away from it. Large explosion looks impressive, minor damage gives the player time to get back into a safe distance. Plus it gives a good reason for the ship not to fire it while the player's too close to it.

I always appreciated that Croshaw likes SH2 so much. I have yet to disagree with his opinion on what makes storytelling in games good and what players shouldN'T accept as the standard. And yeah, any game SHOULD be able to stand on single player alone.

(I can be agreeable sometimes.)

In reading it I remember him commenting on his annoyance in a lot of games how when they did stealth if you fouled up once you'd die. His thoughts on that might want to be factored in to the insta-kill thing he was looking at if you didn't steer clear well enough (at least without providing a useful context, like your ship is damaged or something similar)

Your Fork game sounds a lot like Masq, except Masq probably has more then 64 endings.

You should review it :)
http://www.alteraction.com/

geldonyetich:

A1:
But anyway the word that leaps out this time is "belief". The underlying problem with what your saying is that it's all belief and conjecture. You can't prove any of it. Only Yahtzee can do that since it's his opinion.

Well, I'm under the "belief" that you wouldn't understand Yahtzee's opinion if he etched his answer into your forehead with a razor, in reverse, so you could read it in a mirror. That's probably where this discussion is going to end, because although Yahtzee had laid the matter out in very certain terms and I have expended a copious amount of my patience trying to clarify it for you, you seem as completely unwilling to make that cognitive leap. You can lead a horse to water, and all that.

Honestly, this Generation Y tendency to think you can avoid any responsibility by feigning ignorance is wearing thin. Would not hire.

That's the problem. This is Yahtzee's opinion so he is the only one who can truly clarify it. As opposed to anyone else, including you.

It's pretty easy to half-heartedly discuss a concept as absurdly complex and difficult as altering who the killer in a game will be. I mean this isn't a game of Clue we're talking about, it's a multi-million dollar video game that has to appeal to the masses. If you were to make a game as complex as Yahtzee seems to believe "Heavy Rain" should've been, it would be ridiculously long, unjustly detached, and 99% of the content would undoubtedly be wasted on 99% of the gamer base.

Games like "Heavy Rain" are niche. So they do not have lavish budgets like mainstream games, and will never have a following like Final Fantasy, Zelda, etc. To implement enough features like Yahtzee idealizes is just unrealistic in an economical standpoint.

Well, this is a first. I have to disagree with Mr. Yahtzee on his aspect of interactivity of Heavy Rain. While I think his unashamed fondle of SH2 is completely warrentied, but I cant shake the feeling that his is missing a major point. While I belive that the choices made by the player affecting the core story to the extent they do SH2 is a brilliant aspect of the game and it gives it a surrealistic thrill to the whole experience (a la David Lynch films), that might not wrok neccessarily well in creating a Hitchcockian supsense thriller (which I belive Heavy Rain is trying to do) with MacGaffins, red hearings, and the obligatory plot twists (which unfortunetly Heavy Rain failed, I think they forgot to hire a script supervisor which would have helped tremendously).

I belive there are so many other things wrong that could have been point out, like the bad MacGaffins, inconsistent script (I am all for "fuck exposition" but some of the scene did seem tacked on to give it more action for action sake that adds relatively nothing to the ongoing plot or have a subsequent payoff in main story arc) and last but not least the cringeworthy voicework (I had it dubbed in French which I think helped ameliorate that aspect a bit, but it's still got its low points). But Yahtzee might have point in that a film critc might be better suited for reviewing Heavy Rain.

Journeythroughhell:

SilverKyo:

Journeythroughhell:
I still disagree with your "the killer never changes complaint". A murder mystery where the killer is always different can never have the wonderful things such as "foreshadowing" and "subtle nods". Yes, you might not see a point to replaying it (I did see one, though) because it's practically always the same but changing the killer would mean screwing up the story.'

Actually, they could have, and it wouldn't have been particularly hard to do either, just more work.

With the concept and the idea they've had, it would've been haaard.
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.

IRL, you don't have any forms of re-doing any of the actions involved in the JFK assassination, so you CAN'T change it regardless of any actions you take.
However, this is a game. It resets everything back to wherever the game decides to start from. Taking the JFK example, if you knew the shooter was going to come from the road beforehand, you could block off that part of the road to 'foil' THAT part of the plan.

There is a difference between hard and impossible. Hard would of just taken more time.

Dooly95:

Journeythroughhell:

SilverKyo:

Journeythroughhell:
I still disagree with your "the killer never changes complaint". A murder mystery where the killer is always different can never have the wonderful things such as "foreshadowing" and "subtle nods". Yes, you might not see a point to replaying it (I did see one, though) because it's practically always the same but changing the killer would mean screwing up the story.'

Actually, they could have, and it wouldn't have been particularly hard to do either, just more work.

With the concept and the idea they've had, it would've been haaard.
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.

IRL, you don't have any forms of re-doing any of the actions involved in the JFK assassination, so you CAN'T change it regardless of any actions you take.
However, this is a game. It resets everything back to wherever the game decides to start from. Taking the JFK example, if you knew the shooter was going to come from the road beforehand, you could block off that part of the road to 'foil' THAT part of the plan.

There is a difference between hard and impossible. Hard would of just taken more time.

In the world of the game, the murders began three years beforehand. So, the murderer is already established.

Honestly even if there wasnt much game in heavy rain it moved me. This is one of the few games that can go just on story alone. I only watched a walkthrough because i dont own a ps3 and even i felt the suspense and i was just watching someone play. I hope to see more of these games as these devs did a fantastic job.(also survival horror sandbox from what ive seen doesnt work but goodluck)

You can still make it insta-kill if you leave the area. If the player is starting to approach the edge of the area you want him to stay in, send him a report from, either a passerby, near by planet, or w/e saying that

a) They are part of a convoy that is under attack by a large number of ships and being destroyed. Player continues, they get insta-popped by giant fleet

b) Station reports a large solar flare that was just let off. If player continues they get irradiated and insta-die

c) you can always resort to an environmental barrier of somesort, gravity well because of a black hole, inpassible nebula, semi-passible nebula only with equipment found later on in the game. Astroid belt with lots of micro-meteors which your ship scanners are unable to detect and will kill you

List is potentially endless. I like the first 2, as they arn't very area spesific and the player only runs into them if they go looking for certain death, they can also be used as part of the story, or side quest later on. I would also say it adds to the immersion as it will feel to the player as they are not the only ones in the world to be doing something at the moment.

I doubt Yatzee even reads all these posts, but if he does. Good article.

btw for the game.
how about outside x area you're gonna get killed off by micro meteorites or radiation?

Yeah, Heavy rain kept the very same story, no matter what your choices were, and so left a disappointing feeling to the overacheivers. But then again, it's difficult for new games to take cues from older classics...for some reason :(
As for the enemy(ies) in your game, I'd go with either an energy field that won't let you escape, slow jump capacities (a bit like in EVE) or getting constantly shot in the engines, leaving you unable to escape from the enemy's reach

This may not be TOTALLY relevant but....

There are totally cats with opposable thumbs. Google that shit.

As for non-linear story lines I'm not sure. It seems like more of a linguistic dispute, non-linear being a term which doesn't accurately describe the way the story progresses. I suppose even stories told out of order or from shifting perspectives can't really be called "non-linear".

geldonyetich:

DuLt:
Why doesn't he add the "choice" of turning of the jet engines in FSG? So the space ship could pretend to be an asteroid?

Because adding easy "I win" buttons does not make for entertaining games.

Although I guess it depends if avoiding detection is 100% the goal or not.

Welcome to the forums, by the way. Not to be too alienating - your question was a bit more interesting than most of the stuff I see bouncing around here.

Well hello.

This wouldn't be an "I win" button.
You don't know the direction of the ship, I mean they could come your way and jumpstarting the engines would make them see you, plus you would be at the mercy of coming asteroids.
This was just a little tactic variation to add, so it wouldn't be just "hide from scanners with debries".
Heck he could even add dust clouds that helped conceal the engines for a brief period (to jump from asteroid to asteroid).

Stories are linear by nature, it's like asking for a cat with opposable thumbs.

I've actually owned a cat with opposable thumbs...

"I mentioned that I'd gone through the game expecting the plot twist of the killer's identity to change depending on what decisions you made. Because, damn it, that's what I would've done."

That's funny - when my roommate was playing heavy rain, I suggested that as a possible way the game might play out. That the killer's identity might be entirely dependent on your own actions. In fact, I think there's a text adventure mystery game that follows that same principle. Too bad Heavy Rain didn't do it.

Overall, I liked the game once you slog past that first hour, but like you said: it's NOT truly interactive storytelling. It's a choose your own adventure that happens to have very organic adventure choices. The problem is all these games that try it - be it with "moral choices" or "good/bad endings" or full on branching story lines - all try to solve it by adding content. That's the failure. A truly interactive story can't happen unless it's procedural. And until we figure out how to break down the storytelling formula into actual, definable algorithms, it's just not going to happen.

---edit---

On the subject of Space Game - I notice a lot of people are offering some very clever technical solutions to the "you can just run away" problem (and some incredibly shitty ones, but that's a given).

I submit, instead, to ignore physical restraints and go with a psychological solution. Instead of thinking of ways to reign the player in, think of ways to make the player not want to leave in the first place. I recommend looking up studies on what makes a person, say, want to risk their life (or put some large reward at risk, at least) in a given situation, rather than run to safety. You might find some interesting things science has to say about this...

Why not just let the ship leave the boss behind? If there are multiple big ships, in an open world scenario, make the reward for killing them good enough that the player can't help but come back, once he feels he has the wherewithal to fight it.

If it's more linear, then refuse to progress the plot until he defeats it.

As far as Fun Space Game was concerned, one could assume that the asteroid field disrupted enemy scanners, and that leaving it would leave the player vulnerable to detection/obliteration if they strayed into open space while a big bad enemy was around. The overall shape of the asteroid field could then be incorporated meaningfully into level design (or encounter design, or what have you).

I remember one of the first PS2 titles I had was called "Shadow of Destiny" by Konami.
You could get ending A,B,C,D and E, but B had two slight variations and there were two EX endings.

I remember how amazing the second and third play throughs were because of accessing and learning the greater mystery of the town, the protagonist and the homunculus. And yes, the endings were very different depending on what you did and all played into character development and the mystery.

Honestly, I'd like to see a squeal of that game.

Edit: I just checked and it has just been ported to PSP.

Journeythroughhell:

With the concept and the idea they've had, it would've been haaard.
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.

The killer wouldn't be random, though. Based on varied actions, a different (but still pre-determined) killer would be responsible. This is little different from the other selection methods for varying endings. Whether or not that's a good thing, I'm not sure I care.

However, if you want to go real world, the real world analogy is that the kind of case a mystery would revolve around likely has many suspects who could be the killer. Adding a variable (but still pre-determined) ending could readily mimic such a reality. It plays things a little fast and loose, but that's why I don't turn to realism as an example of good storytelling. JFK is such a terrible murder mystery that people often invent things to make it more compelling. Which they could readily avoid simply by realizing there is a lot of good storytelling to be had outside of that element.

Heavy Rain seemed to promote the choices have consequences. As Yahtzee said in his review, the choices seem pretty anvilicious. This would be a great way for the choies to have consequences.

Yahtzee Croshaw:
Extra Punctuation: Interactive Storytelling

Why Heavy Rain was not the interactive storytelling game it promised to be.

Read Full Article

You said something about trouble controlling the player's movement with maybe a "super hitscan weapon"?

In deep space cosmic radiation can be RIDICULOUSLY high (especially if you are in the space between galaxies) so try that perhaps exploiting that.

I appreciate that space is very empty but there is still loads of stuff out there that cause trouble, like tiny particles flying everywhere at 50% the speed of light, huge fluxes in ionising radiation, micro-meteorites. Still mostly a vacuum but lots of stuff out there that can bugger up even an advanced intergalactic space ship. Hell you can't travel at high speed through a dust cloud, you'll be torn to shreds.

The space we are familiar with (what am I saying WE are familiar with, I mean we as humanity in our limited space exploration) just beyond the earth's atmosphere is pretty calm waters, protected by the earth's magnetosphere, the "gravity sinks" like the gas giants and the sun.

I know space sims aren't supposed to be that realistic, but you have precedent to make areas out of bounds due to radiation and particles.

I would agree entirely, there is no such thing as a non-linear story. Even (if you think about it from a certain perspective) your Fork game, despite the player being allowed to make "choices", there are only so many paths available, and only so many endings. One could trace these 64 different stories as lines, only that they all have the same beginning.
To have a truly non-linear story, the player must have near-total freedom, to be able to change course at will. The one example that I might have seen of this is The Path. Unfortunately, this all too frequently winds up in the territory of "weird".

Journeythroughhell:

Hubilub:
Shame, I was hoping he would address Michael Atkinson in this issue.

Oh well, maybe he'll comment on it later

He apathetically adressed that one in Twitter.

For those who can't be bothered to look for it, I figured I'd make it easy:

"So everyone's demanding that I mention Michael Atkinson stepping down. Okay then. That was it."
--Yahtzee

Link.

As far as the game:

sszebra:
Why not just let the ship leave the boss behind? If there are multiple big ships, in an open world scenario, make the reward for killing them good enough that the player can't help but come back, once he feels he has the wherewithal to fight it.

If it's more linear, then refuse to progress the plot until he defeats it.

You could even force the player to fight the first one, almost let the player get killed, and then have freak circumstance destroy the giant enemy... Maybe one of the many asteroids or pieces of debris will wreck the large ship?

Then, the player can see that it is full of awesome loot and have an incentive for going after enemies who are so powerful.

I've always wondered how a Horror game would fair with Heavy Rains controls...

I would be scared as hell!!

"which ending you got depended on subtle differences in actions throughout the game that implied different things about the protagonist's state of mind; running around with frequently low health made it more likely to get the suicide ending, etc."

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. did the same thing if you remember. I personally got the "greedy" ending because I have a tendency to hoard money in games, especially ones where your equipment degrades at the rate of five bullets per Space Marine Power Armor suit, and of course being "prepared to replace all of your shit when it breaks" means "MONEY IS AWESOME FUCK YEAH I WANT TO HAVE MONEY RAIN FROM THE SKY ON ME"

If you're going to do that shit, you better make sure that it's something that cannot possibly be interpreted in another way by the player. Or it just makes the gameplay experience worse.

I must dispute the claim that there's no such thing as non-linear storytelling. Case in point, Robert Coover's short story, "The Babysitter." Yeah, yeah, it's words, not a game, but still.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here