(04-05-2012, 01:46 PM)nemesis567 Wrote: A game can only include things such as loneliness if it can fully immerse you. As you can consider loneliness as a parameter of reduced immersion since it does not relate directly to the real world.
That said loneliness and the absense of friendly NPCs or any advanced Artificial Intelligence(AI) at all was the biggest fault of amnesia. If Amnesia couldn't do it, custom stories will very doubtfully be good by using that parameter of development.
The feeling of loneliness can be implemented without leaving the player alone at all. A few encounters with some form of AI will immerse the player to a deeper level, thus allowing things that would reduce immersion to be implemented and it's advantages to be used.
I disagree with this line, "consider loneliness as a parameter of reduced immersion since it does not relate directly to the real world". On the contrary, loneliness is very real, and is probably an emotion we can relate to far more easily than pure terror.
Interaction with some form of AI can immerse the player more, if interaction with something seemingly intelligent is the depth of immersion your trying to aim for. At the same time, I agree that you can achieve that feeling of loneliness with having other characters or AI, but there the aspect of loneliness will come from the contrast of having others around you, then not having them around you. The flip side of that is, that if you do try to include AI, but fail to make them convincing, that can break the immersion completely if thats your focus.
I'm not going to try to include AI, this is not the right engine for it. Other engines are built with intelligent AI in mind, such as seen in recent Bethesda games. When you see the seams of how that is built, however, the illusion is broken. By not including AI at all, you dont need to worry about getting that effect right, instead you have to focus on completely different elements to try and immerse the player, and you have to think about how those elements can be broken. Many games these days try to get that effect right as a means of immersing players, trying something different is my goal.
Did you find that once you figure out how the enemies work in Amnesia, the paths they follow and the mechanics of how they look for you, where they won't look etc, after you work that out they become far less terrifying, just a series of commands to be avoided? I never got to that point with Amnesia, but I did with Penumbra.
In relation to previous posts, I'll say what I think about gaming, as with all other forms of art:
There are two ways to play a product: playing it, and analyzing it.
Playing it is the way we go for entertainment, we try not to pay too much attention to the technical qualities of the game unless they really stand out/bother us. We just try to go along, and enjoy the whole thing, and suspend our disbelief as much as we can.
Analyzing a game is when you break it down in terms of merit, both artistic, and technical. This is mainly the path you have to take if you're aiming to make you review of a game as in-depth as possible. The power of analyzing a game is further strengthened if one understands the fundamentals of how the actual game in question works, like how we do with Amnesia. With this knowledge we can break the game down even further, even to the point of seeing all in game events as lines of codes, and entitycollide areas.
It should go without saying that playing a game is more fun than analyzing it. However to improve one's skills in making games, while both ways work to some extent, analyzing with reap the best results for the eager minds.
Also, I think that once one has the proper knowledge about a game engine, the act of analyzing will become a bit of a sub-conscious act, a bit like what Adrianis said about the illusion of NPC AI being broken. I still believe that even if you reach this stage you can still have the proper fun with a game if you are willing to suppress your analyzing impulse, and just go ahead, and have fun with the game. Of course, the quality of the AI in question is also important. There's a point in gaming when it just reaches the point where it's just unacceptable.
Not that saying analyzing is bad, sometimes it's proper to suspend your disbelief to have fun, and that's one of the core aspects of gaming, just as important as story-telling.
(This post was last modified: 04-05-2012, 04:06 PM by Kreekakon.)
You can actually make a NPC if you are good enough to model a npc and can animate and script well then there is not much to stop you from having an NPC in the game
(04-05-2012, 04:23 PM)SilentStriker Wrote: You can actually make a NPC if you are good enough to model a npc and can animate and script well then there is not much to stop you from having an NPC in the game
I'd agree that it's very possible to have NPCs in Amnesia. The problem I think at hand is whether or not they can be done well enough to further enhance the overall experience rather than hinder it.
(04-05-2012, 04:23 PM)SilentStriker Wrote: You can actually make a NPC if you are good enough to model a npc and can animate and script well then there is not much to stop you from having an NPC in the game
I'd agree that it's very possible to have NPCs in Amnesia. The problem I think at hand is whether or not they can be done well enough to further enhance the overall experience rather than hinder it.
Exactly, you could definitely make an NPC, but a convincing AI? You could only go so far with it. You could botch together pathfinding an some dynamic action stuff that it doesn't currently do with script, maybe if your really good some form of rudimentary conversation system, but it would be pretty inefficient, and for most CSs an FCs ultimately, wouldn't be necessary. Fun to try, no doubt, it would show some serious skill, but that time would be better spent improving other aspects of your mod, or using another engine. Maybe it'll be easier in HPL3?
Your definitely right about analyzing Kreekakon, though I think it's harder for some to switch off that part and just play the thing, especially for us something made on HPL. For reviews I feel it's better that the reviewer doesn't have knowledge of the underlying systems, as ultimately it doesn't matter how technically good your system is, it's all about how it shows to the player. Likewise a rudimentary system doesn't matter if what the player experiences works perfectly well for the game, so if you were going to script an AI in HPL2 it wouldn't have to be complicated so long as there's no need for complicated actions and no suggestion to the player that its as capable as other AI systems.
I think it's the player's role to understand how the game plays and how to interact with the game, but it's the designer's role to understand the systems in play and analyze every detail. Ever notice how a game loses its fun when the intrigue is stripped away? This is how I felt when I played Civilization...the minute the player understands how to game the system and understand how everything works, the less enjoying it becomes, in my opinion at least.
(04-05-2012, 09:56 PM)Putmalk Wrote: I think it's the player's role to understand how the game plays and how to interact with the game, but it's the designer's role to understand the systems in play and analyze every detail. Ever notice how a game loses its fun when the intrigue is stripped away? This is how I felt when I played Civilization...the minute the player understands how to game the system and understand how everything works, the less enjoying it becomes, in my opinion at least.
Agreed, although in some games, particularly old complicated games, it can help to understand poorly explained in depth mechanics in order to get the most out of it. Baldur's Gate for example, I found a hell of a lot more enjoyable once I played D&D and actually understood how all the mechanics interact with each other. I wasn't getting the most out of it before that because I couldn't understand it all. For Civilization, it was definitely a lot more fun when you get surprised by the complexity of AI's actions. But after a long campaign or two, as you say, that gets stripped away and you can predict it all.
By the way, you guys can post videos in this thread for critique. It is an open discussion on design.
So, here goes. New custom story I'm working on, I'm working on my scripting and mapping.
My design goals here was to set up a feasible introduction that doesn't leave the player confused on what's going on. I leave a note in the prison cell that explains a little backstory, about how there's a war going on and people are being imprisoned by an oppressive and brutal regime. Not much too spoiled here, but a little intrigue to get the player going.
This map isn't as linear as it seems...well, okay, it is, but if you explore in the second prison cell and stuff, you'll find an item that'll help you complete an optional quest later on in the game, that may or may not lead to an alternate ending. XD
Do you agree with the design decision that favors exploration for the player finding secrets that will be in use later on? Or should I go the Amnesia route with a clearly defined goal that gives the player a choice at that time, but exploration won't really do much for them.
(04-04-2012, 08:04 PM)Datguy5 Wrote: Here is a good tip for you allONT MAKE FLYING JESUSES!
I would like to elaborate on this statement.
Don't ****ing make Flying Jesuses! Lol...they are so bad, it's not even funny.
This would go under my "cheap jump scares" thing I posted in my OP.
You know, there's about 2 posts like this a day. Did somebody make a map recently that was particularly bad, or have they always been really common? Is that all there is to say about level design?
I meant to reply to this earlier. These maps are really common.
Search
Member List
IRC
Help
Open-ended discussion on creation and design
ONT MAKE FLYING JESUSES!