72 réponses à ce sujet

[ledod]

eyesofastorm wrote...

Navasha wrote...
Don't get me wrong I would love for games to explore grey aspects.    I fully endorse having outcomes that are darker or unexpected.   Say, like choosing to save the innocent girl might seem to be the right thing to do only to learn later that she butchered her parents or something.    Its just the randomness of your suggestion that bugs me, I guess.    Seemingly random outcomes never work.

Let me try to explain how I am viewing it.      Say you are trying to train your dog to fetch a ball.   You throw the ball, the dog brings it to you.   You praise the dog.   If they do again, you praise the dog.   Eventually the dog learns that fetching the ball is what they are supposed to do.

Now throw in randomness of consequence.   The dog brings you the ball.   You roll a dice...  On a 1,2,3, or 4 you praise the dog.   On a 5 or 6 you scold the dog.    Now it doesn't matter that you praise the dog the majority of the time.   The dog will stop bringing you the ball.   It isn't learning that its actions matter.   It learns that the consequences of its actions are unpredictable and will grow fearful of performing the activity because the possibility of a negative outcome is present. 

This might seem a silly analogy, but in terms of players and gaming its actually a similar idea.    Players will not enjoy a game where decisions result in a random consequence. 

But it's not true randomness.  In your scenario, you throw the ball and you throw the ball and you throw the ball.  An element of randomness means that even though you have trained your dog with positive reinforcement and he brings the ball back almost every time, there is a chance that on one occassion he will see a squirrel and chase it rather than bring the ball back to you.

Can one call that random, or merely an imperfect model ?

[Wulfram]

If I was going to have randomness, I'd rather have it in lots of little things. So that in the long run they can more or less even out.

That's why it generally works for combat - there are enough rolls going on that the luck evens out and the result really depends on your choices.

But bringing it into big decisions wouldn't work for me. I don't want the outcome of a major segment of the game to effectively come down to a single roll of the dice.

[Sylvius the Mad]

eyesofastorm wrote...

Mitt Romney was certain he was going to win the Presidency.  But was he really?  Really?  We may have gut feelings that lead us towards believing there is a very high probability for success, but deep down, we all know that nothing in life is certain.  You of the cold, hard facts have to know this... right?

I know that some people believe things absolutely, despite a lack of evidence (or even in spite of mountains of contrary evidence).

Try roleplaying a devoutly religious person.  Those people believe some far out things, and there's no doubt in their minds.

[eyesofastorm]

Well, I think I've seen enough to know what the general sentiment is and that I'm not going to change most peoples' minds. I do understand a lot of the hesitancy and agree that there are certainly drawbacks involved. I don't personally believe that those drawbacks outweigh the possible benefits. I am truly surprised by how little support there is for the idea and it's possibilities. To those who believe that an element of chance would ruin the game, I would offer one last thought. Nearly every non-video game we have involve elements of chance. Poker? Check... the hand you're dealt. American football? Check... that oddly shaped ball bounces funny sometimes. Baseball? Check... a sudden gust of wind can blow a fair ball foul or an easy pop fly out into the stands. I don't see why an element of chance wouldn't add the same excitement in a video game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

eyesofastorm wrote...

Well, I think I've seen enough to know what the general sentiment is and that I'm not going to change most peoples' minds. I do understand a lot of the hesitancy and agree that there are certainly drawbacks involved. I don't personally believe that those drawbacks outweigh the possible benefits. I am truly surprised by how little support there is for the idea and it's possibilities. To those who believe that an element of chance would ruin the game, I would offer one last thought. Nearly every non-video game we have involve elements of chance. Poker? Check... the hand you're dealt. American football? Check... that oddly shaped ball bounces funny sometimes. Baseball? Check... a sudden gust of wind can blow a fair ball foul or an easy pop fly out into the stands. I don't see why an element of chance wouldn't add the same excitement in a video game.

It would.  That's kind of the problem.

In your three examples, the player is actually participating in the randomness.  In a roleplaying game, it is the character who is participating in the randomness.  Roleplaying games are different-in-kind from other games.

[eyesofastorm]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

It would.  That's kind of the problem.

In your three examples, the player is actually participating in the randomness.  In a roleplaying game, it is the character who is participating in the randomness.  Roleplaying games are different-in-kind from other games.

In a crafted story, there is absolutely no randomness though.  The PC doesn't know that, but the fact remains true.  The only possibility for randomness is for the player to simulate it, but there is really very little the player can do inside the confines of the crafted story to create randomness for the PC to have to deal with.

Modifié par eyesofastorm, 09 novembre 2012 - 12:53 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

eyesofastorm wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

It would.  That's kind of the problem.

In your three examples, the player is actually participating in the randomness.  In a roleplaying game, it is the character who is participating in the randomness.  Roleplaying games are different-in-kind from other games.

In a crafted story, there is absolutely no randomness though.  The PC doesn't know that, but the fact remains true. 

But because the PC doesn't know it, the fact remains irrelevant.

[eyesofastorm]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

It would.  That's kind of the problem.

In your three examples, the player is actually participating in the randomness.  In a roleplaying game, it is the character who is participating in the randomness.  Roleplaying games are different-in-kind from other games.

In a crafted story, there is absolutely no randomness though.  The PC doesn't know that, but the fact remains true. 

But because the PC doesn't know it, the fact remains irrelevant.

I'll concede that point, but only so far as it concerns you.  You are the only person I've ever known that draws so clean a line between yourself and your character.  You play RPGs like they are a person simulator... or something.  I, and most people I think, change ourselves to play the chosen role and use the PC simply as an avatar.  I think *most* people who have a richer experience with the introduction of at least some degree of randomness.

[Wulfram]

eyesofastorm wrote...

Well, I think I've seen enough to know what the general sentiment is and that I'm not going to change most peoples' minds. I do understand a lot of the hesitancy and agree that there are certainly drawbacks involved. I don't personally believe that those drawbacks outweigh the possible benefits. I am truly surprised by how little support there is for the idea and it's possibilities. To those who believe that an element of chance would ruin the game, I would offer one last thought. Nearly every non-video game we have involve elements of chance. Poker? Check... the hand you're dealt. American football? Check... that oddly shaped ball bounces funny sometimes. Baseball? Check... a sudden gust of wind can blow a fair ball foul or an easy pop fly out into the stands. I don't see why an element of chance wouldn't add the same excitement in a video game.

There are two reasons I don't think your comparisons apply

1.  A major attraction to Bioware's games, is not just the "game" element, but also the presence of a what is fundamentally an authored story, even if an interactive one.  And it's that authored story that you're proposing to add chance to, rather than the game element where randomness already exists.  I do not think people wish randomness added to their books or TV shows - indeed, I think people would probably be rather outraged if they were informed that the outcome of some major event had been decided by the roll of a dice, rather than being chosen by the author.

In a different style of game, with more of an emergent narrative - like The Sims, or Crusader Kings - your proposal would fit better.

2.  Most sporting events allow randomness on the small scale, but do not consider it desirable on the large scale.  The randomness is an event that tests the skills of the participants to deal with, but it's ultimately supposed to be the skills and mental fortitude of the participants that determines the result.  You do get situations like penalty shoot-outs and other means of resolving tied games that do have a strong random element to them, but this is generally considered an undesirable necessity, not a desirable thing.

Stuff like the fate of an entire village, as you mentioned in your post, is closer to the outcome of a match, than the result of a single play.

Modifié par Wulfram, 09 novembre 2012 - 01:03 .

[Navasha]

Maybe you just hit on the exact reason I personally wouldn't like it. I don't play games of chance, not even in computer games. I never played the slots in Mass Effect. I never played any of the games in New Vegas. I never even rolled the dice games in Witcher. I am not a gambler in anyway. For me, the risk of loss based on chance outweighs ANY chance at gain.

I guess this is why your idea doesn't appeal to me. However, I can now see where it might appeal to others. I would have to see how it would actually play out in a game. Am I given a chance to react to the randomness after it is known it will turn out differently? That might do it. I like complexity and I don't mind things going wrong as long as I am given a chance to attempt to correct them later.

[Plaintiff]

I think it would be terrible. I don't think this idea should be implemented ever.

If the outcome ultimately comes down to a dice roll, then why bother making any decisions at all?

If all my inputs are the same in one playthrough as they were for a previous one, then it makes no sense whatsoever for the outcome to be different.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 09 novembre 2012 - 01:28 .

[the_one_54321]

I'm actually a little on board with it. Depends on implementation, and limiting the actual level of randomness.

[Sylvius the Mad]

eyesofastorm wrote...

I'll concede that point, but only so far as it concerns you.  You are the only person I've ever known that draws so clean a line between yourself and your character.  You play RPGs like they are a person simulator... or something.

That's what roleplaying is.

I, and most people I think, change ourselves to play the chosen role and use the PC simply as an avatar.  I think *most* people who have a richer experience with the introduction of at least some degree of randomness.

But that's not what you're doing.  the vast majority of us would not, thrust into these situations, pick up a sword and fight.  Most of us would probably run away.  You're playing an idealised version of yourself.  You're simulating a person as much as I am, but you simply fail to perceive the salient differences between yourself and your character.  As such, the incongruity of your character's state of mind being impacted by your emotional state or awareness of details goes unnoticed by you.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Given that I made a thread earlier propsing this exact same thing, my position on this is clear.

Yes.

[Kidd]

eyesofastorm wrote...

Mitt Romney was certain he was going to win the Presidency.  But was he really?  Really?  We may have gut feelings that lead us towards believing there is a very high probability for success, but deep down, we all know that nothing in life is certain.  You of the cold, hard facts have to know this... right?

The votes were not random though. I doubt any substantial amount of voters decided to vote depending on the results of dice. If anything, you've just shown how a series of choices may work together.

I'm a big fan of how the Rannoch&Tuchanka situations were handled in ME3 on a technical level. Shepard got a single dialogue wheel of choices at the end, but what choices were available on that wheel depended on several other choices done throughout the adventure.

The end result almost certainly can feel random to the player since you don't really know why one of your characters was able to pick something while another of your Shepards weren't allowed that choice. But it's not random, there's nothing that can be solved by reloading to just before the final conversation, it's all based on very real choice of yours from the very beginning until the end.

Navasha wrote...

* long dog analogy *

That was incredibly well thought out. The player would function very much like the dog here. Woof woof! *wiggles her tail at Navasha*

ledod wrote...

In life, how truly random is any outcome? With exception to certain biological phenomena, cancer/mutations, are not most events explained by some predetermined set of contexts? In other words, what may seem random is actually entirely predictable if one had all of the unknowable information surrounding an event?

This very line of thinking is why I consider myself to be a determinist. Not interested in a discussion about religion, just saying it was pretty interesting you just summed up my beliefs like that =)

[AlexJK]

Plaintiff wrote...

I think it would be terrible. I don't think this idea should be implemented ever.
If the outcome ultimately comes down to a dice roll, then why bother making any decisions at all?
If all my inputs are the same in one playthrough as they were for a previous one, then it makes no sense whatsoever for the outcome to be different.

Totally agree with this.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Plaintiff wrote...

I think it would be terrible. I don't think this idea should be implemented ever.

If the outcome ultimately comes down to a dice roll, then why bother making any decisions at all?

If all my inputs are the same in one playthrough as they were for a previous one, then it makes no sense whatsoever for the outcome to be different.

Who said the outcome would be no different whatsoever?

And it would only work for a few quests, so even if quests A were to end up 100% the same (which it wouldn't), all other quests can still end up differently.


Dice say Connor flips out (even tough there was only a 10% chance of that happening). Tough luck. But the aftermath may change depending on steps you took to push the dice in your favor.
Less people die.
Specific NPCs survive.
Connor is contained.
etc..

Wether or not Connor will go all killy or not is NOT fully within the players or PC's control.
But he can reduce the chances of it happening.
He can prepare for that scenario and reduce the fallout.

[Bernhardtbr]

eyesofastorm wrote...

Currently in Bioware games, taking path A leads the player to outcome A and taking path B leads to outcome B.  How would you feel about playing a game where, in certain cases, taking path A might give you a 70% chance of getting outcome A and a 30% chance of getting outcome B and where taking path B might give you a 40% chance of getting outcome A and a 60% chance of getting outcome B?  Basically, the choices you make ingame would tilt the odds of different outcomes happening, but not guarantee them.  I think this idea might be used to great effect in matters of moral ambiguity, really making you weigh decisions since your decision to exsanguinate the virgin in order to save the village instead of saving her and her virgin goodness might actually backfire with the village getting destroyed anywy.   Also it could potentially make additional playthroughs more exciting because choosing a different path might or might not lead you to a new destination.  Thoughts?  Would you support losing a little bit of control as the protagonist to invite a level of uncertainty into your game?

Percentages fail because many people reload when they don´t get the outcome they want. It´s that simple. I favor qualitative approaches (that is, either your skills, that you carefully nurtured, allow you to do something or they don´t). IF the game didn´t allow such easy reloading I might endorse percentages here and there, but the way the current games are, no.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Wulfram wrote...
1.  A major attraction to Bioware's games, is not just the "game" element, but also the presence of a what is fundamentally an authored story, even if an interactive one.  And it's that authored story that you're proposing to add chance to, rather than the game element where randomness already exists.  I do not think people wish randomness added to their books or TV shows - indeed, I think people would probably be rather outraged if they were informed that the outcome of some major event had been decided by the roll of a dice, rather than being chosen by the author.

But that even was written by the author. Thus making it also chosen.

Unless you mean the player as the author - but that is just an illusion.
The player in CRPG ALWAYS reacts to what the DM/writer throws at them. He has no influence on what will be thrown at them. The world and quests are not oftheri making.

They are "autors" in the sense that they drive the PC's action (and even then to a limited degree) - and only the PCs actions.

Why is this concept so hard to grasp for some people?
Did you want Anders to blow up the Chantry?
Did you want Connor to not accept the deal?
Did you want Meredith to go insane?

You got no choice there. They are NOT your characters. You do not control them.
The writers could have easily done the opposite and you would still have no choice.

Would that be any better? Would that be any worse? Nope. Same thing. The difference is purely one of prefference, liking one story twist and not the other - nothing more.

So why complain if it can go both ways randomly?
You STILL have the exact same amount of control you had before - ZERO.

The quest goes a different way.
The results are somewhat different.
Life goes on. PC reacts, solves quests and moves on.

Stuff like the fate of an entire village, as you mentioned in your post, is closer to the outcome of a match, than the result of a single play.

Not in the grand scale of things.

I also don't see why should the PC be the sole arbiter and only factor in the events in the gameworld.

I mean, I do see it from a psychological perspective - escapism.
Being in control and on top of everything and changing everything probably feels cathartic to people who don't have much control in RL. After all, no one wants to feel powerless in RL.

but for a game as  I hole, I don't see why games should have only the goal of player gratification. Games are a media. And as such they should be about MORE than just fun.

Hear, look at this:
http://penny-arcade....sode/beyond-fun

[Lotion Soronarr]

Bernhardtbr wrote...
Percentages fail because many people reload when they don´t get the outcome they want. It´s that simple. I favor qualitative approaches (that is, either your skills, that you carefully nurtured, allow you to do something or they don´t). IF the game didn´t allow such easy reloading I might endorse percentages here and there, but the way the current games are, no.

Well, with percentages easily implementable as a game option (at least when it comes to quest results*), I don't see why people who don't want them would turn it on in the first place.

But if you consider that a problem, an easy fix is that the chance becomes static after being rolled the first time. Meaning re-loading won't help you.




* mening that are many ways percentages can be implemented. From what quest you will recive, to what happens in quests (branching) to quest results.

[Wulfram]

@Lotion

I meant the games writers as authors, mostly.

My point was simply that inserting chance into a story is different from inserting chance into a game, and that determining the fate a few points here and there is different from determining the life or death of a village

[the_one_54321]

This is the glory of accurately applied statistics; Nate Silver predicted the election outcome with near perfection.

If the data is available, we should be able to predict the ranges of outcomes. Even in real life.

[Sir JK]

I'm not very fond of random number generators (such as dice) being the only determinator of success. RNGs have a place; they symbolize plain chance. Luck. In rpg combat, often the little things such as putting your foot on loose gravel or similar events. Things that no skill in the world could have prevented. But ultimately, while the RNG influences the successrate it is in most system how the character has been built that is the primary arbitor. If I have built a good swordsman, then the likelyhood of success is greater. The RNG is the same. The RNG affects the success, but does not determine it solely.

But for story and social aspects, chance isn't exactly adding any benefit. A stpry does not really become better because it's outcome is random. Stories become better due to carefully thought out twists, well conveyed suspense, enthralling drama. It becomes better by making you care about the people in it. And randomness does not do that. The illusion of randomness might. But noone would be very happy if the last boss suffered a random fatal heart attack just before your final showdown, the one everything has been built up to, and lets you win by fiat. That would be robbing you of a good story.

The other argument in favour of it would be that randomness increases the versimilitude (the illusion of reality). But this is not so. Because social interaction and world events are not random.
Let me explain by means of an analogy.
Chess has an element of chance. But it is not random. The chance consists of the fact that you do not know how your opponent will move their pieces. Both sides have the same pieces, the same disposition and the same goal. If you knew how your opponent would move, you'd defeat him/her in a few moves. Winning in chess is about outwitting, outmanouvering and/or manipulating your opponent.

This is also how everything social works. It might, to the individual, seem random. But that is because there's just so many details and "moves" to keep track of that it's virtually impossible. You don't fail to convince someone because the stars were not right. You fail because you did not do enough research, that you unknowlingly insulted them, that you failed to put enough emotion in your presentation, that you nervously stuttered enough to lose their interest or a myriad of other factors. You do not fail speaking by stepping on loose gravel. You fail because, like in chess, you did the wrong thing.

Chance fits poorly to add into this. Rather focus ought to lie to flesh out the story/interaction to such degree that it consists of a myriad of factors that will affect the outcome. Of choices, some possibly even going far back, that together determine the final conclusion.

So that you work for your success, rather than hope for it. And that will be far more suspenseful, and far more engaging, than a random element will ever be. Especially if it actually is so big, like in reality, that it is very very difficult to know for certain that you will succeed. You then know it's all skill and what you hope for is not that you're lucky, but that you're good enough.

So yeah, in my humble opinion. Social interaction and storyline should be deterministic. Preferably difficult to predict, but deterministic.

Modifié par Sir JK, 09 novembre 2012 - 05:20 .