Failure is not an option

[Gregory DG]

I was just wondering... How many times have you had to replay a level or mission over and over again until you succeeded? Everyone is so enamoured by the GTA3 games because they give you so much "freedom" inside the game world. But what about freedom to fail? If you fail a mission, you are still confined by that part of the game until you succeed.

 

There aren't too many games where if you fail a mission you are taken down a different branch of the story. (The Sims games maybe?) Imagine a version of GTA3 where you are on the run from the mob boss because you weren't able to take out his enemy or something...

 

Anyway, I'm surprised more modern games haven't taken this route....

[davepesc]

Unfortunately, although you are always free to roam the countryside in GTA, the plot won't advance unless you finish certain missions.

 

I feel like there must have been a game with pass/fail story arcs, but I can't think of one. You could kind of count the KOTOR/Fable type of light/dark side leanings.

[maibock]

I guess this is a good time to announce my idea related to said subject. Actually I've mentioned it before, but wouldn't it be cool to have game that when you died in the game, a bit of corrosive acid leaks out and destroys the game board in the cartridge?

 

No starting over.. nothing - talking about having nerves of steel

 

[sega saturn x]

Armored core did that.

[dinovelvet]

Unfortunately, although you are always free to roam the countryside in GTA, the plot won't advance unless you finish certain missions.

 

I feel like there must have been a game with pass/fail story arcs, but I can't think of one. You could kind of count the KOTOR/Fable type of light/dark side leanings.

883609[/snapback]

 

True Crime : Streets of LA did it.

[+Random Terrain]

This has been what I have been talking about since the late 1980s. You shouldn't have to finish a mission to move on. If you have to follow their lame piece of the story, why not give you the choice to ride along with another character that you talk into doing the mission for you?

 

 

And if you want to retry, I hate levels or missions that are the same every time. I don't want to learn their stupid 'dance steps.' If I have to chase some guy down, let his path be different every time and let characters have something to say about it. "Damn man! How many chances do you need to catch this guy?!!"

[Lord Thag]

Both of the Way of the Samurai games were like that, you could do anything you wanted. Morrowind is another good example, though there are story arcs. Lots of freedom to do all kinds of weird stuff (become a vampire, wereworlf, assasin -whatever)

[JB]

This has been what I have been talking about since the late 1980s. You shouldn't have to finish a mission to move on. If you have to follow their lame piece of the story, why not give you the choice to ride along with another character that you talk into doing the mission for you?

 

 

And if you want to retry, I hate levels or missions that are the same every time. I don't want to learn their stupid 'dance steps.' If I have to chase some guy down, let his path be different every time and let characters have something to say about it. "Damn man! How many chances do you need to catch this guy?!!"

883697[/snapback]

The problem is that for every alternative they offer, the game becomes that much more complex.

 

Every plot fork results in 2 versions of most future events, resulting in (hypothetical worst case scenario) a doubling of dialog, missions, cut scenes, etc.

We're nowhere near the level where we can just turn a bunch of AIs loose in the game and have it adapt to situations on the fly like a Star Trek holodeck, meaning every one of these alternative events has to be pre-scripted.

 

 

A game like what you envision is exponentially more complex than a stricter one, almost like developing 2 or 3 seperate more conventional games.

Hence why it's rarely done.

 

 

 

 

Having said that, I do greatly enjoy games with some randomization of things and a bit of event forking. The ability to actually affect events adds a lot to the experience.

 

...

 

Hell, just throwing in a game over ending sequence adds a lot in my opinion.

 

As an example, if you play Chrono Trigger and lose the final battle with Lavos, you get an end sequence where you watch him raze the planet's surface.

 

 

 

It was easier to do in the days before scripts, maps, etc.

And is a large part of why I like Asteroids so much. The rocks go in a diffrent direction every time, resulting in a new experience each time.

 

Space Invaders, by contrast, has the enemies locked into a rigid, set pattern that never changes. The first play is the same as the hundredth.

[sega saturn x]

I think it's kind of funny one of the game's that changes on your actions is K.o.t.o.r and Random Terrain hates that game.

[Flojomojo]

Yeah, RT is missing out on some good stuff with KOTOR. It's not so much a "game" as it is "interactive fiction" (a la Infocom), but it's nicely done.

 

The Wing Commander had success/failure trees. You could flub a few missions in a row before ultimate defeat. It's great from an immersion point of view, but it's frustrating since to really win, you end up replaying the decision point anyway. This was pretty easy back in the day since it was just a change in game script and a few different lines in the intermissions. Since so many games rely on cinematic "set pieces" these days, I can understand the desire to make the player see all your developed content the first time through.

 

There are some examples here.

# The success / failure outcomes at the end of each series is based on your performance throughout that series, not just how you perform on that last mission. If you are unsure which system you are in, go to your locker.

# The mission branching means that you won't fly every mission or go to every system in the game in one run.

[Clint Thompson]

Well.... I'm not sure about GTA but in Burnout 3 that's the way I feel in the crash courses. I must get gold in every single one! Damn I love that game!

[egdinger]

Deus Ex had this to some extent. I remember a part where if you talked to the right guy it would change the outcome of weather your pilot lived or died, but it was so late in the game it didn't make a difference to gameplay.

[sigma]

I find it kinda funny that whenever Random Terrain makes a post in a gaming thread sega saturn x always has to come in and give him grief no matter what. I wonder if RT abused him when ssx was a kid or something.

 

"Rar! Me no like RT! He no like kotor so him stupid head!"

[shep]

Rar! Me no like Sigma! He no like Rainbow Islands so him stuipid head!

Edited July 3, 2005 by shep

[+Random Terrain]

I've been busy for a day or two, so here I am for a short time.

 

I find it kinda funny that whenever Random Terrain makes a post in a gaming thread sega saturn x always has to come in and give him grief no matter what. I wonder if RT abused him when ssx was a kid or something.

 

"Rar! Me no like RT! He no like kotor so him stupid head!"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So I slapped him around a little. It wasn't illegal back then.

 

 

 

I think it's kind of funny one of the game's that changes on your actions is K.o.t.o.r and Random Terrain hates that game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actions? Actions? Now that's funny! You can only choose from a list of things and sit around while your guys fight for you. Not much 'action' to it.

 

 

 

Yeah, RT is missing out on some good stuff with KOTOR. It's not so much a "game" as it is "interactive fiction" (a la Infocom), but it's nicely done.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's an insult to Infocom. Although they weren't prefect, those old text adventures were more fun and gave you more freedom than KOTOR. Even the old semi-frustrating Scott Adams games were more fun.

 

 

 

The problem is that for every alternative they offer, the game becomes that much more complex.

 

Every plot fork results in 2 versions of most future events, resulting in (hypothetical worst case scenario) a doubling of dialog, missions, cut scenes, etc.

We're nowhere near the level where we can just turn a bunch of AIs loose in the game and have it adapt to situations on the fly like a Star Trek holodeck, meaning every one of these alternative events has to be pre-scripted.

 

 

A game like what you envision is exponentially more complex than a stricter one, almost like developing 2 or 3 seperate more conventional games.

Hence why it's rarely done.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right, but some things don't have to be that difficult. For example, the "Damn man! How many chances do you need to catch this guy?!!" type of lines can be used any time after the first try. Not a huge deal to throw in with the rest, especially for the newer systems that are coming out soon.

 

And similar to what I have said in other threads, it will be nice when we have holodeck-style AI, but until then we have Controlled Randomness. Say you are going to chase a guy who is on a motorcycle, instead of having him follow the same invisible 'track,' you could assign predetermined spots he would drive to. At the start of his run and at every one of his 'checkpoints,' the program would choose from at least 3 other checkpoints that are next in line on the way to the destination. Not a super-huge problem and except for possibly adding a few new lines about how many times you have tried to catch him, the "come on honey, try to catch me" lines would be the same no matter which 'checkpoint' the character has stopped at. The game world would feel more alive and playing along with the story wouldn't be so tedious.

Edited December 17, 2007 by Random Terrain

[BuzzTron451]

It's nice to have an open-ended story, but on a practical level, it just won't happen very often.

[JB]

The problem is that for every alternative they offer, the game becomes that much more complex.

 

Every plot fork results in 2 versions of most future events, resulting in (hypothetical worst case scenario) a doubling of dialog, missions, cut scenes, etc. 

We're nowhere near the level where we can just turn a bunch of AIs loose in the game and have it adapt to situations on the fly like a Star Trek holodeck, meaning every one of these alternative events has to be pre-scripted.

 

 

A game like what you envision is exponentially more complex than a stricter one, almost like developing 2 or 3 seperate more conventional games. 

Hence why it's rarely done.

883836[/snapback]

Right, but some things don't have to be that difficult. For example, the "Damn man! How many chances do you need to catch this guy?!!" type of lines can be used any time after the first try. Not a huge deal to throw in with the rest, especially for the newer systems that are coming out soon.

True.

 

I suspect the argument against that is that it breaks the illusion of reality.

Which isn't inherently bad. Metal Gear Solid acknowledged it's game status several times to good effect, most notably in the Psycho Mantis battle.

 

And similar to what I have said in other threads, it will be nice when we have holodeck-style AI,

Yup.

 

but until then we have Controlled Randomness. Say you are going to chase a guy who is on a motorcycle, instead of having him follow the same invisible 'track,' you could assign predetermined spots he would drive to. At the start of his run and at every one of his 'checkpoints,' the program would choose from at least 3 other checkpoints that are next in line on the way to the destination. Not a super-huge problem and except for possibly adding a few new lines about how many times you have tried to catch him, the "come on honey, try to catch me" lines would be the same no matter which 'checkpoint' the character has stopped at. The game world would feel more alive and playing along with the story wouldn't be so tedious.

885039[/snapback]

*nods*

I've never really understood why they don't add that limited degree of variety.

Perhaps bad memories of games where the AI walked into a wall and didn't realize it needed to change direction to get where it needed to go.

 

One of hte GameBoy Megaman games DID acknowledge if you keptgetting beaten. After several continues, Light would come in, express his surprise at how badly you were doing, and upgrade your gun.

[sega saturn x]

You're right me and Random Terrain are just to different i should just give up. But who know's if i will.

[xenomorpher]

Well.... I'm not sure about GTA but in Burnout 3 that's the way I feel in the crash courses. I must get gold in every single one! Damn I love that game!

884493[/snapback]

 

Same here. I just got that game a few days ago for the XBOX. I always redo it until I get a gold unless its hard as heck and I settle for a silver or bronze. Its very addicting, and I LOVE the Road Rage mode. Great game.

[Clock]

 

 

The problem is that for every alternative they offer, the game becomes that much more complex.

 

Every plot fork results in 2 versions of most future events, resulting in (hypothetical worst case scenario) a doubling of dialog, missions, cut scenes, etc. 

We're nowhere near the level where we can just turn a bunch of AIs loose in the game and have it adapt to situations on the fly like a Star Trek holodeck, meaning every one of these alternative events has to be pre-scripted.

 

 

A game like what you envision is exponentially more complex than a stricter one, almost like developing 2 or 3 seperate more conventional games. 

Hence why it's rarely done.

883836[/snapback]

Right, but some things don't have to be that difficult. For example, the "Damn man! How many chances do you need to catch this guy?!!" type of lines can be used any time after the first try. Not a huge deal to throw in with the rest, especially for the newer systems that are coming out soon.

 

And similar to what I have said in other threads, it will be nice when we have holodeck-style AI, but until then we have Controlled Randomness. Say you are going to chase a guy who is on a motorcycle, instead of having him follow the same invisible 'track,' you could assign predetermined spots he would drive to. At the start of his run and at every one of his 'checkpoints,' the program would choose from at least 3 other checkpoints that are next in line on the way to the destination. Not a super-huge problem and except for possibly adding a few new lines about how many times you have tried to catch him, the "come on honey, try to catch me" lines would be the same no matter which 'checkpoint' the character has stopped at. The game world would feel more alive and playing along with the story wouldn't be so tedious.

885039[/snapback]

 

It's the old wise chess board tale from China. Take a grain of rice and place it on a square, then double it and place 2 grains on the next and double that and place 4 on the next etc until you get to 64..... if you haven't worked it out already, in 64 steps you need more grains of rice than there are in China. So for our branching game - that's a lot of plot lines that would take centuries to write, let alone program. Of course there are ways to avoid lots of this, but then you don't really get that 'unique game everytime you play' that we keep hearing about aka Fable, KotoR etc.

[JB]

 

 

The problem is that for every alternative they offer, the game becomes that much more complex.

 

Every plot fork results in 2 versions of most future events, resulting in (hypothetical worst case scenario) a doubling of dialog, missions, cut scenes, etc. 

We're nowhere near the level where we can just turn a bunch of AIs loose in the game and have it adapt to situations on the fly like a Star Trek holodeck, meaning every one of these alternative events has to be pre-scripted.

 

 

A game like what you envision is exponentially more complex than a stricter one, almost like developing 2 or 3 seperate more conventional games. 

Hence why it's rarely done.

883836[/snapback]

Right, but some things don't have to be that difficult. For example, the "Damn man! How many chances do you need to catch this guy?!!" type of lines can be used any time after the first try. Not a huge deal to throw in with the rest, especially for the newer systems that are coming out soon.

 

And similar to what I have said in other threads, it will be nice when we have holodeck-style AI, but until then we have Controlled Randomness. Say you are going to chase a guy who is on a motorcycle, instead of having him follow the same invisible 'track,' you could assign predetermined spots he would drive to. At the start of his run and at every one of his 'checkpoints,' the program would choose from at least 3 other checkpoints that are next in line on the way to the destination. Not a super-huge problem and except for possibly adding a few new lines about how many times you have tried to catch him, the "come on honey, try to catch me" lines would be the same no matter which 'checkpoint' the character has stopped at. The game world would feel more alive and playing along with the story wouldn't be so tedious.

885039[/snapback]

 

It's the old wise chess board tale from China. Take a grain of rice and place it on a square, then double it and place 2 grains on the next and double that and place 4 on the next etc until you get to 64..... if you haven't worked it out already, in 64 steps you need more grains of rice than there are in China. So for our branching game - that's a lot of plot lines that would take centuries to write, let alone program. Of course there are ways to avoid lots of this, but then you don't really get that 'unique game everytime you play' that we keep hearing about aka Fable, KotoR etc.

886400[/snapback]

The limited randomness he's talking about(diffrent routes through the map for each car chase, for example) is doable.

 

 

And for simpler games, virtually unlimited randomness IS possible.

The Asteroids games, as I mentioned earlier, are diffrent each time.

It's only when you get complex maps and scripts in that it becomes problematic.