quote: Original post by superpig
So I broke one of my key rules last night and jotted down some notes and dialog for an RPG. A fantasy RPG, no less.

I've come up with the ending. The big finale. And yes, it's big - how does 'destroy magic' sound to you?

Nice. Really nice.

quote:
What I want to do is have the storyline build over a series of games, maybe five or seven or so.

This multiple game idea has been all over the last few days...

Are people really going to go for the epic and honor the consistency of time?? Be still my heart!

quote:
Plus, if I want the finale to be effective, I need the player to get immersed in the world. It's hard to do that with a single game.

Maybee.....

quote:
Does anyone have any techniques or tips for planning this kind of 'epic' thing out?

The same story planning rules apply, you just have to adjust your scale of time and event lines, and allow for deviations that would be viewed as complications in a normal plot line become episodic scale complications, so they are like sub quests, but huge ones that resemble LOTR, for example. They seemed to spend a long time just getting to one place they needed to go, but it ate a lot of screen time.

The thing to remember is that you are going to have a large time and event line, that certain events in that epic scale event matrix will provide you with a sense of pace, complexity and effort upon the part character(s) to meet the conditions of the arc of character dev and story dev that parallel each other.

The logical time, effort and space each event requires will give you natural break points to tailor your episodic length. Watching the original Star Wars trilogy all at once is a great example of this, as in one, luke had to get from a to r storywise, but in two, he had only to get from r to u, but the letters were all bold and big font effectually on the outcome and setup (forshadowing) of the Return of the Jedi, which was u to z, so to speak.

I always assign alphanumerics to my story and world elements, because each is going to consume time, action (upon the part of the player which must be accounted for in terms of how much they are going to be able to comprehend and effect [complexity or simplicity of AI opponents, puzzle design, size of level in terms of exploring/traversing] in a single play session) and footprint in assets in art, code, models.

Just by getting this time and perception balanced, you know how much and how long it will take, for your player to be able to take on easy, medium and hard core player levels. You design your scripted action choice sequences of individual level requirements for accmoplishment towards level goals, and it's progression representation to the overall achievement of the accomplishment of the game's final goals.

You can weave back and forth between the tasks at hand in the immediate here and now level, and the reflection one naturally takes on the bigger picture after said activity is accomplished (via POV during action but in alliterative expostion after action), and know where best and naturally for the perceptual and interpretive consideration of the player's ability to absorb new story exposition (and the degree to which you expose it depending on it's complexity and difficulty to interpret, or ease, for that matter).

There you have a working structure that relates all the story in terms of where the player/experiencer/interacter is most likely to obtain most entertainment/satisfaction and useful foreknowledge for next play session, whether they go immediately to the next level, or go to sleep thinking looking forward to playing your game more tommorrow.

There, and I did that all in as few words as I could, Superpig, saving readers from untimely alliteration. What can I say, you inspire me, even when you are soo wrong.....

Adventuredesign

[edited by - adventuredesign on July 22, 2003 5:32:50 AM]

Yay adventuredesign! I''ve been waiting for your opinion on this

quote: Original post by adventuredesign
This multiple game idea has been all over the last few days...

Are people really going to go for the epic and honor the consistency of time?? Be still my heart!

Has it? I hadn''t noticed (though I''ve not really been frequenting this forum as much as I used to ). Actually, I starting thinking about multiple games more from a marketing point of view - instant franchise - but when the storyline occured to me, it seemed just to fit multiple games pretty quickly.

quote:

quote:
Plus, if I want the finale to be effective, I need the player to get immersed in the world. It''s hard to do that with a single game.

Maybee.....

Well, ok, it''s not impossible. But taking the idea that the longer you''re exposed to a detailed world increases your level of immersion, by doing say four games you quadruple the exposure, and thus increase the chances of immersion fourfold. Or maybe I''m being too mathematical about it?

quote:
The same story planning rules apply, you just have to adjust your scale of time and event lines, and allow for deviations that would be viewed as complications in a normal plot line become episodic scale complications, so they are like sub quests, but huge ones that resemble LOTR, for example. They seemed to spend a long time just getting to one place they needed to go, but it ate a lot of screen time.

OK. The first game, that I''ve planned out most of, doesn''t seem to have anything to do with the events leading up to the finale (save for the brief appearance of a shady character who laters turns out to be fairly relevant). The ultimate ''goal'' of the series isn''t apparent from the start. That''s why going from A to Z, at least looking from the player''s point of view, is impossible.

quote: The thing to remember is that you are going to have a large time and event line, that certain events in that epic scale event matrix will provide you with a sense of pace, complexity and effort upon the part character(s) to meet the conditions of the arc of character dev and story dev that parallel each other.

The logical time, effort and space each event requires will give you natural break points to tailor your episodic length. Watching the original Star Wars trilogy all at once is a great example of this, as in one, luke had to get from a to r storywise, but in two, he had only to get from r to u, but the letters were all bold and big font effectually on the outcome and setup (forshadowing) of the Return of the Jedi, which was u to z, so to speak.

Gotcha. I think it lends itself well to the gameplay aspect of it as well - the first game serves almost to introduce the player to how to play the game, to ensure they''ve got the basic ''rules of the universe'' down for the rest. There''s a risk the first game ends up too easy, but if - unlike ''traditional'' RPGs - you''re not expected to hang around the events of the first game with a high-level character, then it shouldn''t be too hard.

quote: I always assign alphanumerics to my story and world elements, because each is going to consume time, action (upon the part of the player which must be accounted for in terms of how much they are going to be able to comprehend and effect [complexity or simplicity of AI opponents, puzzle design, size of level in terms of exploring/traversing] in a single play session) and footprint in assets in art, code, models.

Hmm, or perhaps a pie chart...

quote: Just by getting this time and perception balanced, you know how much and how long it will take, for your player to be able to take on easy, medium and hard core player levels. You design your scripted action choice sequences of individual level requirements for accmoplishment towards level goals, and it''s progression representation to the overall achievement of the accomplishment of the game''s final goals.

As far as player difficulty is concerned, I''m brainstorming a system which would adjust the difficulty according to the skill of the player (dynamic balancing). The nice thing about an RPG is that the player''s capabilities have a fairly clear initial definition - the character stats - so creatures can scale themselves based on how hardcore a foe they''re facing to begin with, and account for the player''s actual skill in using the character later on.

quote: You can weave back and forth between the tasks at hand in the immediate here and now level, and the reflection one naturally takes on the bigger picture after said activity is accomplished (via POV during action but in alliterative expostion after action), and know where best and naturally for the perceptual and interpretive consideration of the player''s ability to absorb new story exposition (and the degree to which you expose it depending on it''s complexity and difficulty to interpret, or ease, for that matter).

In the words of... someone, ''holy run on sentence, batman!'' I guess you''re right in thinking that far from all players are going to be prepared to look for symbolism and resonance in a storyline; but can it still effect them even if they don''t understand how or why?

quote: There, and I did that all in as few words as I could, Superpig, saving readers from untimely alliteration. What can I say, you inspire me, even when you are soo wrong.....

Oh addy.. so wrong, and yet, so good...

I think I''d better read this again after drinking *seriously* large amounts of coffee and borrowing a dictionary from someone

Superpig
- saving pigs from untimely fates, and when he''s not doing that, runs The Binary Refinery.
Enginuity1 | Enginuity2 | Enginuity3

quote: Original post by boolean
There was a Japanese guy who was given a budget of 200 million to make a series of games like you have suggested, but unfortunatly he spent 70% of the budget on the first episode, which was a pretty standard game anyway. When they said that they might be able to finish the 2nd part of the game (supposed to 5 parts), but thats it, this infuriated the people who funded him, and frustrated players who essentialy only had one fifth of a game.

Well, I guess that''s a pretty strong argument for planning out and estimating costs for the *whole* series, rather than just the first game. Do you happen to remember the name of the game?

Superpig
- saving pigs from untimely fates, and when he''s not doing that, runs The Binary Refinery.
Enginuity1 | Enginuity2 | Enginuity3

quote:
Plus, if I want the finale to be effective, I need the player to get immersed in the world. It''s hard to do that with a single game.

Maybee.....

Well, ok, it''s not impossible. But taking the idea that the longer you''re exposed to a detailed world increases your level of immersion, by doing say four games you quadruple the exposure, and thus increase the chances of immersion fourfold. Or maybe I''m being too mathematical about it?

Longer exposure to the details is only one element of immersion, though. The hook, or premise itself is constantly revisited emotionally by the player with every relative symbolic exposition of it, great or small, passive or active exposition.

I think if you''ve really got them hooked from the beginning on the premise, they are with you until you let them down by not sufficiently concluding the problem the premise proposed.

Despite all the thinking that goes into entertainment interpretation on the part of an active or passive participant, the end result is an emotional reaction, because this is where they get the payoff and percieve value, usually with oblique, indefinite answers like, "That was fun!".

People can pick a script or a design apart all day technically, but if they walk away with a good (or exciting, or whatever) feeling, you did your job. Critics may nay say otherwise, but do you see critics doing the important work of development? No sir. That''s all critics can do is criticize.

quote:
OK. The first game, that I''ve planned out most of, doesn''t seem to have anything to do with the events leading up to the finale (save for the brief appearance of a shady character who laters turns out to be fairly relevant).

Is this wise? Don''t you want to have your player at least have a peek at the big stakes driving the epic? It was good enough for Homer and Ulysses.

You have, as a result of naturally utilizing exposition, presented this shady character early on. Perhaps what this character has to say, where they say it from (the setting), the POV they use in saying it -- all these things can be utilized to give the player a glimpse or foreshadow of "what''s at stake" which somehow I believe must be communicated to the audience/player somehow, or they''re just lost and wondering/wandering through the content looking for relevance of connections. That''s not serving them well, imo.

A good example of this is Danny DeVito (sp?) in "War of the Roses".

quote:
The ultimate ''goal'' of the series isn''t apparent from the start. That''s why going from A to Z, at least looking from the player''s point of view, is impossible.

Them I recommend at least giving them some sort of clue that all that is there is not revealed right now, and since it is about magic, you can use quite mystic and surrealistic manners of exposition to do this.

That wouldn''t work in a romance, unless you had a premise that is about the mysteries of love, then all mysteriously exposed content is consistent with the premise, even if the premise is not fully revealed.

The player has to have some stability, or perhaps better said, something fixed to or related to emotionally or symbologically (I think this has to do with the chance a player or audience member cares a little bit more about the cause of the premise on deeper levels than the effects [fearures, gameplay] of the premise, such as the circumstances [levels, etc.]), unless the entire game is like the redline level from Max Payne. I''m not sure, tho.

quote:
Gotcha. I think it lends itself well to the gameplay aspect of it as well - the first game serves almost to introduce the player to how to play the game, to ensure they''ve got the basic ''rules of the universe'' down for the rest. There''s a risk the first game ends up too easy, but if - unlike ''traditional'' RPGs - you''re not expected to hang around the events of the first game with a high-level character, then it shouldn''t be too hard.

I''d say you might want to give them a peek. Remeber in the LOTR, they showed the whole reason why Bilbo Baggins got to be the ringbearer in the first place as a flashback that only took about five minutes before they got to the actual start of action (whereas the flashback was the actual start of the story) at the peaceful little shire for the birthday party.

quote:
Hmm, or perhaps a pie chart...

Well, you''re clearly a better graphic designer than I.... heheh

quote:
In the words of... someone, ''holy run on sentence, batman!'' I guess you''re right in thinking that far from all players are going to be prepared to look for symbolism and resonance in a storyline; but can it still effect them even if they don''t understand how or why?

Moreso than most people realize. It''s all making it into the perception when the subject is exposed to the total content, it does not all have to be immediately and consciously understood. Advertisers know this better than anyone, and, the subconscious drives the behavior, not the conscious mind (it''s more concerned with here and now activities).

The reason you get persuaded to buy new things you didn''t think you needed is because advertisers semi-subliminally and suggestively tweaked with your response mechanisms subconsciously via demonstrated behavior of the actor or symbolism in the background that you empathized with. The subconscious mind is approximately nine times more intelligent than your waking conscious self. Even if you don''t get it readily, the rest of you will. The funny thing is, it''s in charge, but people hate admitting that because it involved realizing you are not in control entirely. Hence, repression and denial are born, but I digress.

Example: lovely blonde haired blue eyed middle income woman suffering from hayfever with animated, surrealistically monsterized pollen producing plants on attack pathfinds toward her.

She reaches for the bottle of brand x drugco product, and sun comes out, sky turns blue, monster hay fever becomes a faded memory yet still graphically dies, and she is suddenly in a white picket fence front yard in her perfect rose garden country cottage.

Her clothes are now magically perfectly tailored, pressed and of higher stylization and highest quality fabrics. We see such an ideal that evolved people want to puke, however, all the exposure to all the different mindsets of a large demographic of hay fever sufferers (which is the common binding element the advertiser wants to effect) will cause an emotional reaction across a range of responses.

Such as: so many of the sufferers will respond to: a, they like to have no more suffering, b, they hate plants that cause pollen suffering, c, they have always wanted a cottage like that, d, they love roses, e, they want to be like ''her'', f, they like the sound of the seductive voice of the announcer articulating features and benefits of the brand assertion. The list could go on. Trust me, they pack these little things with as much symbolism as they can. Some of them are downright classist.


The point being that they will sell bottles of brand x from drugco to a wider variety of people because somebody from each individual background had an emotion tweaked by a symbol or surrogate emotion (actor in commercial experiences relief, and that is what I want also) experience across a range of symbologies slammed at them at a rate they cannot consciously percieve all of in 22 seconds of commerical time, but yet is all interpreted anyway cause it was captured in entirety by our congnitive skillsets.

quote: Oh addy.. so wrong, and yet, so good...

Well, there I go again, mr. run on. Yes, you are good.

quote:
I think I''d better read this again after drinking *seriously* large amounts of coffee and borrowing a dictionary from someone

How funny, I had to go drink seriously large amounts of coffee after writing this so I could be sure it was not just a bunch of subconscious drivel bubbling up, which I take great care in not lettting become the stylism I am known for.

Btw, does a binary refinery have to have ecological permits to operate?

As always, a pleasure superpig, and I liked the articles on the engine development also.

Adventuredesign

Hey superpig. It happens that I am also working on series of games. Trilogy, to be precise.

What do you think of an idea where first two games are happening before the third game and each of them are from different points of view(sides). The third game is supposed to be mix of these two styles and, as being their sequel, it would contain two stories from each point of view. That would be hard to make (two stories in RPG) but they overlap at some points.

It will be epic because it will combine two worlds (you can find them in games, movies and literature) that are completely opposite in their nature.

However, during research for first game, I''ve come across that
the audience doesn''t always want to see _your_ story so you must create a world where they would interact but not in that manner that you could change course of fifth game by killing some major family in game #2. You must pace it so that it won''t become boring. As an example, some events could be set in certain time from the beginning of the game, that is they are independent of you, because world is not there for you(player), you are in that world.

And since you are planning to create more than one game, think of an idea that epilogue should not be just some animation that is about you character, but it should somehow intrigue the player, like if it was an cliffhanger, so that player could play next part because he wants to see the explanation of what he saw.

When are you planning to finish your (first) game? Let''s see who will do it sonner(and better).

And superpig...keep up the good work.