~ The future of multiplayer adventure games ~

Started by Migs, Tue 16/03/2004 15:12:44

Previous topic - Next topic

Migs

Of course!  I'm very much aware of all this.  I was just trying to simplify it for InCreator's sake, and just so the fundamental point of the game doesn't get bogged down in all the details.  The idea is simple; creating it isn't.  The only way to approach this is one step at a time.

I think the best way the right balance can be found is by lots and lots of playtesting.  Once the game is functionally complete, we tweak the game often -- perhaps leave out some items, adjust how close the killer has to be to murder someone with a melee weapon, change the locations of where players and items can possibly start, etc. -- until it becomes a satisfactory, working product.
This signature intentionally left blank.

SSH

Here's a possibility for murderer's motive: lots of people on IRC seem to be the kind of people that would happily volunteer to be the murderer: maybe at the start of each game you can say if you want ot be or not. If no-one volunteers, an NPC (maybe need more than one so there is still some doubt) such as the butler becomes the murderer. Now, people might agree on #ags beforehand that no-one wants to be the murderer, but the truly devious murderer will be lying! Obviously, if more than one volunteers, only one is picked, but maybe still a small random chance of it being an NPC.
12

Migs

Quote from: SSH on Tue 23/03/2004 07:36:57Here's a possibility for murderer's motive: lots of people on IRC seem to be the kind of people that would happily volunteer to be the murderer: maybe at the start of each game you can say if you want ot be or not. If no-one volunteers, an NPC (maybe need more than one so there is still some doubt) such as the butler becomes the murderer. Now, people might agree on #ags beforehand that no-one wants to be the murderer, but the truly devious murderer will be lying! Obviously, if more than one volunteers, only one is picked, but maybe still a small random chance of it being an NPC.

So the motive is basically "I want to kill people"?  And why would people not want to be the murderer?  I think that's one reason people would keep playing the game, in hopes that they get selected as the killer!  Having a possible NPC killer might be interesting...obviously, it would require that NPCs exist in the first place regardless of whether they're selected as a killer or not.  It wouldn't be too difficult to tell who the NPCs are.  That could really be an interesting twist.  Of course, this would also require programming a somewhat complicated AI.
This signature intentionally left blank.

rogermun-444

Just have the "murderer" selected at random.  Start with a murder done by the "murderer" (who selects the mode of death or has it randomly selected).  The murderer and NPC victim start off in the same room, and the killer finishes the job while the other players gain their bearings (they maybe have limited space to walk about for the first couple minutes or so).  The murderer has time to hide the evidence (remove bullets/hide the knife, etc) in that scene and then the game proper begins.  There are numerous weapons/items throughout the area, and a limited space in which no weapon/item can be permenantly lost or destroyed (for example, a gun placed in the river leaves a "glint" object, a knife dropped down a well can be resurfaced and a rope can be pulled from the drawer at any time.  Weapon-sounds too could be "heard" within a certain distance (for example, if a gunshot is made in room A4, and you're in room A5, you might get a message saying "You hear a loud shot to the East," or "There is a scream to the East," whereas someone in B6 might hear "You think you hear a scream somewhere in the house."

Just like in other murder mystery games, everyone could take on a character with a particular past, and certain details could be inserted or altered at random at game-start-up from a pre-selected list.  The murderer would be told WHY they committed the murder (out of a randomized selection), and others PCs would be told at the start bits of information that their character "knows" about other player (or, their character could find it out by looking at other players).  The game would be set up such that if everyone collaborated, the evidence would point to one person, but that anyone could lie or be persuaded to join the conspiracy.

Further, create NPCs with certain skills that could not be emulated by just anyone.  Things like fingerprinting expertise, local lore, etc--in reality they are programmed to give clues about the murderer based on the actions the murderer took, but they just make investigating more practical.  Other players who are dead perhaps can still interact as "ghosts" with limited communication ability (say by moving things in the house from one location to another, etc., or can simply observe.  If someone solves the murder, they win, and if no one solves it before a certain time-out (several days game-time, when everyone has a chance to skip the country?), the murderer wins.  But the murderer has to cover their tracks because by default little clues like blood, tracks, fingerprints etc are left, including noises as above.  This would be reason why murderers would have to be very careful about covering their tracks, and the information held by others would be reason to kill more people off.

In my view, this would mean programming many responses, possibilities and interactions with items (including the ability to trade), but the game itself would clearly be no more difficult than the creation of a fairly intensive game, since most puzzle-making would be fairly self-defining.

Migs

#44
Quote from: rogermun-444 on Thu 25/03/2004 03:11:10
Just have the "murderer" selected at random.  Start with a murder done by the "murderer" (who selects the mode of death or has it randomly selected).  The murderer and NPC victim start off in the same room, and the killer finishes the job while the other players gain their bearings (they maybe have limited space to walk about for the first couple minutes or so).  The murderer has time to hide the evidence (remove bullets/hide the knife, etc) in that scene and then the game proper begins.  There are numerous weapons/items throughout the area, and a limited space in which no weapon/item can be permenantly lost or destroyed (for example, a gun placed in the river leaves a "glint" object, a knife dropped down a well can be resurfaced and a rope can be pulled from the drawer at any time.  Weapon-sounds too could be "heard" within a certain distance (for example, if a gunshot is made in room A4, and you're in room A5, you might get a message saying "You hear a loud shot to the East," or "There is a scream to the East," whereas someone in B6 might hear "You think you hear a scream somewhere in the house."

I like your idea about including extra hiding places which entirely remove the item from sight, but still make it retrievable.  In my opinion, destructible objects should not be allowed at all.  Also, I'm not entirely sure clues should be planted at the beginning.

Here are my thoughts:

The players should feel as if they control the game, rather than feel like pawns subject to the game's design.  Although giving the killer the ability to choose how he carries out his first murder gives him some degree of control, this is still an automated procedure which restricts the player's options.  Different killers may want to adopt different strategies.  One killer may want to be sneaky and carefully plan every murder, check around for possible witnesses before he commits it, and make sure there's a good place nearby to stash the evidence.  Another killer may just grab a nearby chainsaw and start mutilating the crap out of everyone.  Placing the killer in a situation where he is instantly required to flee a crime scene may go against his own personal style of gameplay.

There are certain things the game should avoid doing, such as automatically planting clues linking the murders to the secret killer at the beginning.  While this would be a method to give the players something to start with, it would go against the game's philosophy of player control.  It would encourage the killer to react to the clues planted, rather than act as he wishes.

It's important to distinguish the difference between predictable and unpredictable computer involvement.  Predictable computer involvement includes, e.g., the functions of items.  Once players learn the system, they will learn what items can do and where they can be used.  They will learn some good places to drop items if they don't want them to be found.  Unpredictable computer involvement includes, e.g., the random placement of items and players at the beginning of the game.  Once the game starts, how it plays out should be left up to the players as much as possible, with automated [unpredictable] computer involvement kept to a minimum.

Alternatively, there could be a NPC murder at the beginning, without any clues left at all.  In this case, the players will have to wait for the killer to make a move, while they look for the "ultimate clue" (mentioned earlier), which could be something like the killer's secret journal, or, going with the notion of a haunted mansion, invoking the spirit of the murdered NPC who reveals who the killer is.  I think the idea of an ultimate clue is really what the normal players need, so they don't just wander around aimlessly waiting for the killer to strike.  It would give the game a good objective for the killer and non-killers.

Quote from: rogermun-444 on Thu 25/03/2004 03:11:10Just like in other murder mystery games, everyone could take on a character with a particular past, and certain details could be inserted or altered at random at game-start-up from a pre-selected list.  The murderer would be told WHY they committed the murder (out of a randomized selection), and others PCs would be told at the start bits of information that their character "knows" about other player (or, their character could find it out by looking at other players).  The game would be set up such that if everyone collaborated, the evidence would point to one person, but that anyone could lie or be persuaded to join the conspiracy.

For now, I believe it's best to go with the "bare-bones philosophy"...keep the game as simple as possible.  This includes little or no NPC interaction, since NPCs have to be designed and programmed.  I like your ideas, though, and I think they'd work very well in a future version of the game.  We'll definitely have to keep that in mind.

Quote from: rogermun-444 on Thu 25/03/2004 03:11:10Further, create NPCs with certain skills that could not be emulated by just anyone.  Things like fingerprinting expertise, local lore, etc--in reality they are programmed to give clues about the murderer based on the actions the murderer took, but they just make investigating more practical.  Other players who are dead perhaps can still interact as "ghosts" with limited communication ability (say by moving things in the house from one location to another, etc., or can simply observe.  If someone solves the murder, they win, and if no one solves it before a certain time-out (several days game-time, when everyone has a chance to skip the country?), the murderer wins.  But the murderer has to cover their tracks because by default little clues like blood, tracks, fingerprints etc are left, including noises as above.  This would be reason why murderers would have to be very careful about covering their tracks, and the information held by others would be reason to kill more people off.

The possibility of poltergeists was discussed earlier, but I think it would give an unfair advantage to the normal players.  All a ghost would have to do is follow the killer around until he enters a room with someone else and start madly picking up and dropping objects, so the player sees it and knows who the killer is.  The way I see it, if you're a ghost, you've lost the game.  The only thing you can do is wait it out.  Giving people the ability to walk around and talk with other ghosts is just something for them to do so they don't sit in limbo the whole time.  They could also just disconnect from the game and go walk their dog in the park if they want.

Alternatively, there could be a slight chance (25% or whatever) that one player is randomly selected as a psychic, and has the ability to commune with the dead.  It could put an interesting twist on the game, since you would never be entirely sure if anyone actually has the ability, and thus you wouldn't know whether to trust them or not.  The killer could be masquerading as the psychic (or in fact be the psychic...it might be funny if the killer could hear what the players say to him after he kills them).  This might encourage the ghosts to at least try to communicate with every player they meet.  Also, I would eventually like to see footprints, blood, setting traps, spying via binoculars through windows, and all sorts of features implemented, but most likely not in the first version (bare-bones philosophy).

Quote from: rogermun-444 on Thu 25/03/2004 03:11:10In my view, this would mean programming many responses, possibilities and interactions with items (including the ability to trade), but the game itself would clearly be no more difficult than the creation of a fairly intensive game, since most puzzle-making would be fairly self-defining.

Do you mean that NPCs would be carrying certain items that the PCs have to obtain from them?  That would be a nice way to include additional puzzles requiring NPC interaction.  I also think your idea of giving NPCs special abilities is a great one.  Definitely something to consider for a future version.  (I'm keeping a log of every idea mentioned, regardless of whether it would be necessary in the first version of the game or not.)
This signature intentionally left blank.

IntentInsane

Would players be able to chat to each other without pre-determined phrases? If yes, I would like toleak info about a Nanotech sequel, even before the Nanotech demo.
Intentionally Insane!
http://www.pauladmin.tk

Ozwalled

I was just in the middle of sleeping and an idea came to me, so I came down to the computer to type it out (sorry if it's not so lucid, as I'm not).

ANYway, if you're thinking of having a supernatural element (or even if not, I guess), a possible killer motive could be a constantly-climbing "Insanity Meter" or something of the sort. See, s/he's tormented and crazy (possibly due to the game's ghosts), and has to kill in order to not totally freak out (at which point, they'd be pretty easy to spot as the killer or something).

If you ran with such an idea, the ghosts of the dead players could come into play in (somehow) tormenting their killer, making things harder and harder for him/ her as more people were killed.

Did that make any sense?...

Migs

Quote from: IntentInsane on Sun 28/03/2004 21:41:50
Would players be able to chat to each other without pre-determined phrases? If yes, I would like toleak info about a Nanotech sequel, even before the Nanotech demo.

Yes, of course, no predetermined phrases.  That would be too limiting.  It would be just like a regular chat, except you can only chat with people in the same room as you.  A-v-o made a demo game where you just type in what you want to say and the character says it (in the Lucasartsian above-your-head style).  That's kind of what I imagine the in-game chat would be like.

Whether you want to use the in-game chat for your own insidious designs would be entirely up to you.  :)

Quote from: Ozwalled on Mon 29/03/2004 09:23:20I was just in the middle of sleeping and an idea came to me, so I came down to the computer to type it out (sorry if it's not so lucid, as I'm not).

ANYway, if you're thinking of having a supernatural element (or even if not, I guess), a possible killer motive could be a constantly-climbing "Insanity Meter" or something of the sort. See, s/he's tormented and crazy (possibly due to the game's ghosts), and has to kill in order to not totally freak out (at which point, they'd be pretty easy to spot as the killer or something).

If you ran with such an idea, the ghosts of the dead players could come into play in (somehow) tormenting their killer, making things harder and harder for him/ her as more people were killed.

Did that make any sense?...

Thanks for your idea (and not going back to sleep)!  It would be a great way to inject some personality into the killer.  I think this could be implemented, but it would have to be done carefully.  For one thing, the killer needs to feel free to go at his own pace, since different killers might act differently...one player may be a tactful, thoughtful killer, planning each move carefully, while another player may be a reckless killer, hoping to quickly eliminate people before they have a chance to regroup and share secrets.  However, I think making it so the killer can automatically see the ghosts of dead players might be a nice thing to put in, so the players are in charge of tormenting him.  This could also be an Easter Egg that occurs in just some of the games.  Maybe dead players could move in front of objects so the killer can't click on them, or block entry into other rooms.  Ghosts could also have some sort of scary mode they can activate, that makes their head expand and their eyes pop out or something.

Your basic idea, making it more difficult for the killer, nails it right in the noggin.  It can't be too easy for the killer to win each time.  Ideally, once all players have figured out the mechanics of the game, each game should be roughly 50-50: half the time the normal players win, half the time the killer wins.
This signature intentionally left blank.

IntentInsane

Thanku Migs, in that case I'm going to start researching a potential Nanotech online.
Intentionally Insane!
http://www.pauladmin.tk

Legge

If AGS made multiplayer adventure games i would jump out of the window beacuse im so happy :P
He is fast

He is strong

But really, He is my dog

im a website hoster, i host websites(But not that much mb webspace)

Moox

I hope that windows pretty high.... lol

Have you ever considered for a start a no interaction online game? Like you can see the other character but theres no contact?

Migs

Quote from: LostTraveler on Sun 20/06/2004 23:02:33Have you ever considered for a start a no interaction online game? Like you can see the other character but theres no contact?

What would be the purpose of such a game?  Just to test the functionality?
This signature intentionally left blank.

Moox

Yes, You always need a base to work off of, You dont build a tower in the sand, you need a concrete foundation

Migs

Quote from: LostTraveler on Mon 21/06/2004 16:42:22
Yes, You always need a base to work off of, You dont build a tower in the sand, you need a concrete foundation

No disagreement here.  I mentioned I'd like to make a smaller game first.  But your idea and more has already been accomplished in a-v-o's test game: http://a-v-o.selfhost.de/ags/  Players can walk (materialize) around and talk to each other.
This signature intentionally left blank.


Migs

This signature intentionally left blank.

Babar

anything happen of this? I was really interested in this project and was wondering if any progress had been made
The ultimate Professional Amateur

Now, with his very own game: Alien Time Zone

Einoo

Quote from: Babar on Thu 05/08/2004 00:56:14
anything happen of this? I was really interested in this project and was wondering if any progress had been made

Yeah, is this forum dead? What happened?
Now let's find out if gasoline is flammable!

JD

Hey Migs, what happened to this project? I remember testing avo's tcp/ip demo with you, that was like a year ago.

Brentz

Is this game still in progress ??? it sounded really cool and i had some ideas. What if depending on how long you survived, or if you figured out who the killer was or you are the killer and you won, you would get points. Then you could use the points to buy new clothes or hats or other things to change your characters apperence for fun or for deception. Also, what if the killer could find a mask or something and wear that when he kills someone, so if someone sees the murder through a window or something, they dont know who the killer is and the killer could place the mask somewhere where it would frame someone else. Or what if the killer didnt have anywhere to hide the evidence, he could hide under a bed or something, so when everyone came in he could wait there until they left (of course if you were found under the bed, you could say you were hiding from the killer). Also, what if you used a knife or something similer to kill someone, there would be blood on it, so if someone saw you putting down a bloody knife you would highly be a suspect

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk