Small choices

I've found really interesting this post about game design on rampant games, discuss about choices in videogames.
In comments I've found good point on not good or evil choices but gray choices, because truth cannot be on only one side, so thinking about quest system I realize point is about choices.
So many games today give you so limited choices, mine too of course! Player is always in one path and all can do is follow my direction as game/level designer.

What do you think about open game systems and small choices?

Quest system - part 6

(you can read other parts: part1 - part2 - part3 - part4 - part5)

Today I read a news about a new Elder Scrolls Game: Elder Scrolls V.

For who don't know Elder Scrolls Games, Google can help you: what does it matter now is that ESG games are big single player games with big quest systems

But there is one interesting comment on article on RPS that I think could be valuable to expand a little more. I report here:

Things I would like to see in Elder Scrolls V can almost all be seen in mods for Oblvivion. They really ought to look there for a large amount of inspiration. What would primarily interest me:

- A more believable living world – trade caravans, affectable economy perhaps even dynamic social structure.

- Realism options. There was some effort made in New Vegas (i know, different developer) but there is still a long long way to go. And yet, again, the modders did a perfect job of it. I’d like to see an optional realism mode, or a Hard Difficulty that includes realism options would be great.

- A big bugbear for me was the way they handled quests. I’d like to still see a massive range of quests but what I would REALLY like to see is quests interacting with each other. Decisions that the player makes in one area havign an effect elsewhere, cutting off routes and opening new ones. Given the nature of the game, I’d also love to see these side quest effecting the nature of the Main Quest. And lastly, I’d love to see these side quests expanded further – becoming entire stories in their own right. I’d settle for less side quests and a few long storylines.

In fact, my big issue with Oblivion was the way none of the independant elements of the game world interacted with each other convincingly or at all. Given that the entire game was intended as a sandbox experience, I would expect the world to react as a whole to my actions and it never did. I would like that to change for ESV really. I very quickly got bored of Oblivion simply because nothing I did seemed to matter at all. There was so much potential that it was painful. It was only when the modding community really got fired up that the possabilities were realised. But it was not ideal – most mods are in some incompatible. It would be far better, naturally, if the game was feature rich and exciting on release.

This comment is not only related to quest system, but can help designer to focus on a main concept of what a gamer want: interact, change, make difficult choices, make mistakes (but only mistakes that matters!) have in front a living system.

And another interesting point is "I would REALLY like to see is quests interacting with each other.", so what I'm thinking to add to my system is another dimension: quests.

One quest can stop/twist or ruin another quest. So following part-5 example, player can solve quest in different way:

• kill bandits: same as old example,
• run away: this decision ruin HM relation in a big way, no factions wants cowards in their rank, so next quest in HM faction (at least in zone near caravan attack or where npc survived wander around) is not possible to get. Or even better Jack try to track down player moves and then find him/her and try to kill it!
• steal from John body: Jack don't like that player steal from his brother's body, so try to kill player immediately. Player win, but all jack-related quest cannot be completed or can change.
• surrender to bandits: combat isn't only option. Player can surrender to bandits, ruin HM relation but open new quest for bandits faction? Player choose well, can change side and try to work for bandits

It's something really interesting and challenging, but I like difficult stuff like these.

Quest System - part 5

(you can read other parts: part1 - part2 - part3 - part4)

As I said before, a modern and interesting quest system has to be like a web, where player moves. Each time he/she touches part of this web, something change in other part. This process of feedback must active to player: no obscure statistics but real consequences. An image of what I mean is following:

Interconnection could be in many dimensions, so image it could be difficult, but image some properties (see part2) of this "matrix":

- factions relationship

- npc relations

- object

- places

I realize that these principles could be not so pratical, so I'll build an example on build of it, hoping someone found interesting.

Example 1

Settings: fantasy with humans, orcs and elves. Orcs have controls on plains, human hide from orc slaver but also work with them. Elves have a kingdom in forests in war with orcs

Factions: human mercenari (HM), orcs slave traders (OST) and elves kingdom (EK)

Story: Player start as affiliated to HM faction with a starting quest

Quest1: protect caravan from point A to B

Description: player must protect caravan from bandits from point A to B and during this job meet another John (HM) and this brother Jack (HM). Fight with bandits is fast and bloody and player can do nothing to save John life, but protect caravan. One bandit flee and left some clue that OST faction is involved with bandits

Consequences:

• John die.
• Relation with Jack is ruined (don't save his brother isn't a good thing).
• Relation with HM go up (one job done).
• Some objects looted from bandits dead body.
• Jack leave HM faction (He think that player must be punished, not promoted!)
• player can fast move from point A to B (no more bandits), caravan leader notice that to player
• in city A and B people talk about "no more bandits"
• in city A and B guards are interested in player because help to fight bandits
• relation with OST go down, because they are using bandits

Analysis: game must present to player in clear way John die and Jack ruined relation (using a dialog for example "Your inability killed my brother, I will not forget that!"). Good relation with HM faction could represented using another npc that give thanks ("You done well in protecting caravan, you will do career!") to player (also with quest log!) and a new mission. Some side effects are in city A and B and fast moving from A to B and good relation with HM faction means better prices for equipment!

This is just an experiment of design a good quest into a "good" quest system, more will follow :D

p.s: for quest design I've found this good article, keep an eye on it!

Din's curse demo

Din's Curse demo is out. I've wrote about this game some times ago, about quest systems.
After some hours of playing I'm in a sort of equilibrium between boring and excitements.

Pro
+ fast games,
+ addictive gameplay,
+ every new game, a new character, new abilities, new possibilities to explore,
+ easy to learn, hard to master (for now a good point),
+ player can choose difficulty of every new town,
+ failing quest will cause real consequences, but in demo this seems to be "blocked": many quest you can play don't have consequences beyond the solve/give me xp solutions..
+ no scroll for teleporting to town
+ during dungeon exploration you can see fights between monsters,
+ bestary,

Cons
- only one town, no surroundings area to explore,
- only one big dungeon with many underground levels,
- no talk-tree to any npc (Din's, a god, don't say anything special.. and have cursed you! )
- no customizable hero (face, hair and so on.. nothing),
- no customizable background for hero: nothing from player past life affect gameplay
- static npc
- anti-climati world (see discussion on Soldak Forum)

a game to play? YES! go and download demo now!

Quest system - part 4

(you can read other parts: part1 - part2 - part3)

Soldak is a little one-man company that build incredible games.
Current work is named "Din's Curse" and is the most promising game this time (like Alpha Protocol, but is AAA-Title) in quest system design.
In the forum are explained ways because "Our quest system is unique".. and i really like this system!

Consequences:

Two factions have been at war for a while, but now a representative of each is meeting with one another and trying to broker a truce. In a typical rpg, well neither of these things would probably be possible in the first place. In the remote case that they could, the two would sit in their location forever doing nothing until you killed them. In our game, they will only negotiate for so long. If they finish their meeting, they will declare peace with each other and possibly even declare war on the town now that they have the free time. If you can kill them both while they are still in the meeting though, their respective factions will think they have been betrayed and continue their war. And yes a war between two factions means they will fight and kill each other when they meet in the game.

Why i like this approach? Because modern games (rpg or not, is not important) lack of this prospective: don't bother player.
In this days i'm playing Borderlands: a great game, fps with some rpg element, with really cartoniish graphics, good sounds, multiplayer opportunity.. but quests is stupid, really really bothering me.
Why?
Because there is no hurry, no consequences, no failing, no real choices: all stuff that Din's promise.

I really have great hope for this game :D

Quest system - part 3

(you can read other parts: part1 - part2)

To design a decent quest system i see another games quest systems: often bests are rpg, but is not always true.
Main inspiration are great classics: Planetscape Torment, Baldur's Gate, etc.. but also Risen, FallOut3, Dragon Age: Origins, Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls: Oblivion and even Crysis, Crysis: warhead, Far Cry 2, Depth of Peril, Din's Quest, Geneforge, Warcraft3 and event Starcraft
All these games have one thing in common: they have quests.
But how there are organized? Are these quest system enogh deep for players and easy to understand and mantaing? I really don't know: i'm not a developer of any of this games, but i've played all of them a lot. Indeed, i'm playing some of these games even now (Risen).

Main quest systems aim to give all information to complete the quest to player (presentation problem), some give you coordinates for quest systems (localize problem) other give you idea of consequences of quests (consequence problem).
So after thinking some times about quest systems, there are tree problems to design a quest system:

- Presentation problem: how to show the quest to the player? using a npc? using a book? using just indication on screen?
- Localize problem: how player will find all the element to solve the quest? Using a radar map? Or with no sign?
- Consequence problem: what type of feedback system give to player?
Reading this three problems i can see a common factor: player. This is good, because quest system is for a videogame and player is the "first" actor of this kind of system.

In this enlighten post on developing Din's Curse, author wrote something really important in this topic:

"Like I said, the quests are very web like. There are many different things that lead to each quest and many possible other quests it can start."

Yes, great quest systems is a web (not only in Din's Quest, that i'm waiting to see in action), a web where when a spider move on a side, cause some moving in other part of a web. A web that is multi-dimensional: npc and factions relationships, objects, places and even codex (like codex in Dragon Age).

What do you think about?

Quest system - part 2

(you can read part 1 - here)

After thinking some time i realize this little uml about stories: trying to formalize ideas always help to understand better problems:




Uml self-explain itself: story is made of quests that involves npc (not-playing-characters), places and factions. Quest must have conseguences on npc, places. When you read this uml, think about player as Actor (i don't put Player Class here nly for non-overloading diagram).

What do you think?

Quest systems

Reading this i realize that there are so much way to improve existings type of quest system in games.
Soldak do a great job with Depths of Peril, building a new type of game. A mix between a hack&slack, a rpg and a city-simulator: if you can read italian, can found on Maschera Riposta a exaustive review.
By the way, the problem is: how we can build news, randomized games, with deep storyline and decent quest system?
Here some ideas about quest:

- always important: never simply go to kill a cow. Keep the mood of the game is the first point. If player is a hero and want to become THE hero, must be do something that no-one (no one!) could do, start from beginning,
- never without consequenses: killing a guild-master or a goblin.. always a consequences; one immediatly (XP, kill a threat), one mid-term (affect relationship with victim faction and relations/equilibrium between factions), one long term (change story end, or some key-quest-element of the story). Killing is an example: all the quest must be done without killing. Let player decide what he want to do, and let him/her pay for it!
- always help player: no vague descriptions, no some "random text". Help player, if he wants to be helped! Map, minimap, descriptions, clear and shot term (for example: quest system in warcraft3). But let player immerse into game world without force him/her to read everything! If player quit from the game for some time, help him to enter in zero-time into game again!
- always see the progress: quest progression can't be something static.. If player decide to complete a quest, something else cannot be done. Use this against player. Let him/here decide, use the graph and some key-quest to determinate what player gonna be done into future. Show to player when he fail and when he win: player put his/her time into game, you must feel him this!
- random: use randomness to keep attention to player. Random not-important npc, monsters. Keep some key element fixed, but change. Diablo docet! Use random into quest creation (and into subquest step) and reward system, level creation (see the beautiful Spelunky) and so on,

and into end: let be the quest fun! Player wants fun, always fun, every player into world!