131 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Here's the rules I think game designers should use:

(1) Respect the lore
That does not mean "slavishly adhere to every detail and never change it". Lore, after all, is often in-world knowledge brought to us by characters, and they can be wrong about things. But as a rule, writers and cinematic designers should consider themselves bound by the things written before and not change lore at a whim, even in minor things. Lore affects how the world as a whole is perceived, and to change even a detail can have unintended side effects.

(1a) Know your inviolable boundaries
Technically, nothing is beyond revision. You can always change things, and ways to rationalize them can be found for almost everything. But some things, if you change them, compromise the integrity or identity of your universe. There is no reason why there couldn't be an alien invasion with spaceships in the DA universe, but you might not want the world to change that way, so giving a character something that looks like a laser pistol is probably not a good idea. Also, in some cases the rationalization is as bad as the revision in the first place. I haven't read a convincing rationalization of "Hawke uses blood magic in the streets of Kirkwall and nobody comments on it and even the templars don't mention it".

(2) If you change lore, think the consequences through to the end.
If some character's action violates lore, consider that if this character can do it, there may be no way to reasonably rationalize that others can't do it as well, and this will possibly change the world quite a bit. Also, some character's action might not violate anything written but implicitly extend the lore, and this can have even more wide-ranging consequences. A good example of the latter is Legion's and Shepard's sacrifice in ME3, which extended ME lore in a way that violates the unwritten sci-fi genre conventions underlying the story and consequently made a lot of people unhappy. It may have been what the designers wanted, but it's doubtful if they understood how these changes would percolate back through the trilogy.

(3) Rationalize any change in terms that don't break the boundaries of your universe.
See (1a) above. Which kind of universe is this? How can you explain the things you want in ways that keep your universe's integrity and identity? It's possible to encompass a great  many changes that way, but if you find you can't find a way. consider abandoning the idea.

(4) Beware of the desire for coolness and drama to overrule existing lore on a whim.
If you want a change because you think it's cool or extra-dramatic, be extra-careful. Most likely, your idea applies only to one scene, but changed lore affects the whole game - or several games down the line. Be aware of the big picture.

Edit:
Knowing some development history can make things more acceptable here and there. Take the issue with DA2's teleporting mages. According to David Gaider, this was always supposed to be ultra-fast movement and look that way, but for technical reasons the visual effect never made it into the game. Personally, I find it much easier to forgive mistakes made in development, if they're explained to me, than to live with the feeling that "the developers expected me to swallow their bullsh*t without thinking" (looks sideways at ME3 and its invisible development team).

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 septembre 2013 - 10:47 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sir JK wrote...

The two are not related. It's perfectly possible to make a system that blends perfectly into the lore but is incredibly difficult to learn.

Then your lore is needlesly complicated, or your tutorials confusing.
It can happen, but it indicates faliure on your part.

Not perfect no.
But if you can't make reality fun, then you're messing something up.
Because reality isn't boring - despite what many people want to claim.

Infection and addiction are interesting ideas, I've yet to see them made into fun gameplay. I've yet to see realistic recovery from injury be added to a game. I've yet to see the tedium of the daily grind or the need for visiting the bathroom (the sims excepted) be made engaging.

Reality is exciting, yeah. Is all of it though?

It doesn't have to be, because you're not modeling all of it.
Only those things you show and need to model somehow anyway.

If you have people going to bathrooms as part of gameplay (The Sims) then that action should make sense in regards to real life.
If people won't be goingto bathrooms as part of gameplay, then there's no need to model it at all.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sir JK wrote...

Consider: hit points. An abstraction as old as wargames (roughly). Still used to day because it's a system that does what it's supposed to do and people are used to it. But realistic, it is not. One thing it does eliminate is luck as the final arbiter of whether someone lives or dies (unless the RNG determining damage is really swingy). IRL equipment and training matters for a lot, but only luck will determine whether that mortar falls on your head or not (at which point no equipment or training will save you).

Abstractions are necessary in a given situation and for a given genre...untill a different/better system comes up.

Note the difference between "abstraction necesssary for the game to be playable/ for there to BE a game" and "abstraction added because it is cool"

HP system in itself is currently a necessity in party-based games. But the level at which it is an abstraction varries from system to system. Soem handle it better, some worse.

But I am fairly certain that most people would be fairly annoyed at a game where this can happen. Where, with no warning, a mortar explodes near you and you have to reload. No warning, no second chances. Just like IRL.

There already are games like that. But they aren't party-based.
And they are good.

Should I thus write the setting so this cannot happen? That there are no such weapons and/or everything boils down to skill and the most hit points (perhaps going so far as to openly acknowledge them)?

Or perhaps in this case accept this gameplay and lore segregation and simply not drop any mortars on the player's head.

In this context, is there even a reason to drop a mortar on the palyers head? Is there a reason the player should die?
Yes, soldiers die. But do all soldiers die? Clearly there are many soldiers that have been in many battles, and never had a mortar fall on their head.  So it's not unrealistic for a mortar to *not* fall on the players head.

[Sir JK]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Then your lore is needlesly complicated, or your tutorials confusing.
It can happen, but it indicates faliure on your part.

Or I made a needlessly complicated system.

It doesn't have to be, because you're not modeling all of it.
Only those things you show and need to model somehow anyway.

If you have people going to bathrooms as part of gameplay (The Sims) then that action should make sense in regards to real life.
If people won't be goingto bathrooms as part of gameplay, then there's no need to model it at all.
...

Abstractions are necessary in a given situation and for a given genre...untill a different/better system comes up.

Note the difference between "abstraction necesssary for the game to be playable/ for there to BE a game" and "abstraction added because it is cool"

HP system in itself is currently a necessity in party-based games. But the level at which it is an abstraction varries from system to system. Soem handle it better, some worse.
In this context, is there even a reason to drop a mortar on the palyers head? Is there a reason the player should die?

....

Yes,
soldiers die. But do all soldiers die? Clearly there are many soldiers
that have been in many battles, and never had a mortar fall on their
head.  So it's not unrealistic for a mortar to *not* fall on the players
head.

Indeed, this is what I was aiming for. We don't want everything modelled. We don't want everything accurately depicted. Sometimes abstractions are useful. Sometimes you simply don't need to model it. Doesn't mean it does not happen/exist in the lore. Hence lore and gameplay segregation.

It's a fine line to walk though, I want to make that absolutely clear. It's very easy to upset the balance and make it too much or too little. And you should, as a designer, go to great lengths to make sure they go hand in hand. It should only ever be used to make both lore and gameplay better. Not at the expense of either.

All in all Lotion. I think we actually agree with one another

There already are games like that. But they aren't party-based.
And they are good.

Really? Games where luck matters more than skill or preparation and are more merciless than Minesweeper? I'm curious, which ones?

[Boiny Bunny]

I prefer to keep lore-breaking to the technicalities of combat (i.e. you don't die in one or two hits when wearing leather armour or a robe).

Also always happy for game developers to allow the PC to run permanently - even though I don't believe the peoples of Thedas can actually run (in heavy armour to boot) indefinitely from a lore perspective.

Then there are things like the teleporting mages in DA2 - which simply wasn't thought of before releasing the game - and an incredibly poor retcon had to be invented to explain how they were able to 'teleport' - despite 'teleportation' being technically impossible according to the lore. That kind of stuff is bad - I'd like to avoid seeing anything like that ever again.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sir JK wrote...
Really? Games where luck matters more than skill or preparation and are more merciless than Minesweeper? I'm curious, which ones?

Operation Flashpoint for example.

hunderds of AI-driven soldiers tanks and airplans shooting at eachother.
And you among them. Almost nothing scripted.
A shot to the leg can cripples you. A shot to the head kills you. And there are shots flying everywhere. Friendly fire.

The first thing you learn is to keep your head down.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Ah..but that was my point.
Break lore ONLY if you have to and can't find any other way to do it.

You may have to break it in the underlaying mechanic (like HP), but do you have to do it in the presentation (visuals)? No, you don't.

[In Exile]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Abstractions are necessary in a given situation and for a given genre...untill a different/better system comes up.

Note the difference between "abstraction necesssary for the game to be playable/ for there to BE a game" and "abstraction added because it is cool"

HP system in itself is currently a necessity in party-based games. But the level at which it is an abstraction varries from system to system. Soem handle it better, some worse.

Any game - any - will forever have an "HP" system in the sense that there has to be a numerical representation for damage because that's how computers work. But how the current HP system works - the entirely arbitrary damage pool of "no difference between being hurt" and "dead" at the 0 HP threshold - isn't functional anymore with the level of visual fidelity that we've reached. 

The original system where the abstraction took place - literally a physical game with miniatures - doesn't work for a video game. 

[crimzontearz]

Lokiwithrope wrote...

To you, when is it acceptable to break away from the lore in order to improve gameplay? In addition, when do you draw the line between lore and gameplay segregation, and if you have any, what are some things from the lore you would like to introduce to the gameplay?

lore and gameplay should be built together so that such separation is not necessary.


 
I especially HATE IT when it happens like it did in ME2

Modifié par crimzontearz, 23 septembre 2013 - 02:06 .

[Nashiktal]

The excellent web series Extra Credits has actually touched on this very topic. I can't find the video right now... (They have 7 seasons of vids. I'll post the link if I find it.) However they say that building Lore BEFORE you build gameplay is a mistake many people make.

Now I am talking from memory here so I might not get this right but I believe the reason was building lore before gameplay traps and narrows your design choking creativity and stifling the gameplay of... well the game. It was one of the #1 mistakes they saw rookie game devs make in the design process.

For reference the people behind extra credits all come from various parts of the game industry.

[Ieolus]

Sir JK wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

My conclusion is different.  Instead of keeping them seperate, you just should not make the game if you messed up that badly.

The thing is... gameplay design isn't terribly easy. You can't just drum something up and suddenly there's an enjoyable system. Sometimes you create a system you like that turns out to be terribly unintuitive and difficult to learn. Sometimes one that that's more tedium than challenge. Sometimes one that was supposed to challenge but turned out to be trivial.

Just look at Mass Effect 1's combat system, it was an interesting idea and was kind of okay. But as it turns out it did not exactly pit the player against any strategical challenges. With no need to conserve ammo, you could pretty much spray and pray only pausing occasionally to cool down. With frictionless materials, you didn't even have to do that. Decent system, did not work out fantastic. Definate room for improvement.

That aspect of the combat system was tied to the lore and they jumped through hoops to justify it, with limited success. Maybe they could have improved the system in a way consistent with their lore had they had unlimited time or money, but they didn't.

And that's the crux of it all. The quality of the gameplay is not the only constraint a game has. A game should not have to be perfect to be released now should it? And if I then decide to make a sequel, should lore prevent me from improving it even if the majority of my fanbase wants the change?

EDIT: To clarify, I am not saying that they should always be segregated or have no impact on one another. They should for as much as possible strenghten one another. Gameplay that contradicts lore should be avoided as much as possible. But they should never lead to one another's detriment.

ME1 to ME2 is a good example, thanks.  So first off, could they have tweaked the system in ME1 instead of changing it to a magazine based approach?  Did they NEED to "radically" change it, contradicting the lore, or did they just choose to do it?  Wouldn't tweaking the system in place actually be easier than replacing it totally with a new system that has to be balanced?

Anyway, what they did was change the system and then changed the lore to reflect it.  It wasn't the most elegent solution but that is how they went.  Atleast they didn't ignore the lore totally right?  They felt they had to justify it or else the entire setting would be in jeopardy of making no sense.

[crimzontearz]

Yep I remember that episode

They also mention rule if cool overriding lore in a negative way

[crimzontearz]

Ieolus wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

My conclusion is different.  Instead of keeping them seperate, you just should not make the game if you messed up that badly.

The thing is... gameplay design isn't terribly easy. You can't just drum something up and suddenly there's an enjoyable system. Sometimes you create a system you like that turns out to be terribly unintuitive and difficult to learn. Sometimes one that that's more tedium than challenge. Sometimes one that was supposed to challenge but turned out to be trivial.

Just look at Mass Effect 1's combat system, it was an interesting idea and was kind of okay. But as it turns out it did not exactly pit the player against any strategical challenges. With no need to conserve ammo, you could pretty much spray and pray only pausing occasionally to cool down. With frictionless materials, you didn't even have to do that. Decent system, did not work out fantastic. Definate room for improvement.

That aspect of the combat system was tied to the lore and they jumped through hoops to justify it, with limited success. Maybe they could have improved the system in a way consistent with their lore had they had unlimited time or money, but they didn't.

And that's the crux of it all. The quality of the gameplay is not the only constraint a game has. A game should not have to be perfect to be released now should it? And if I then decide to make a sequel, should lore prevent me from improving it even if the majority of my fanbase wants the change?

EDIT: To clarify, I am not saying that they should always be segregated or have no impact on one another. They should for as much as possible strenghten one another. Gameplay that contradicts lore should be avoided as much as possible. But they should never lead to one another's detriment.

ME1 to ME2 is a good example, thanks.  So first off, could they have tweaked the system in ME1 instead of changing it to a magazine based approach?  Did they NEED to "radically" change it, contradicting the lore, or did they just choose to do it?  Wouldn't tweaking the system in place actually be easier than replacing it totally with a new system that has to be balanced?

Anyway, what they did was change the system and then changed the lore to reflect it.  It wasn't the most elegent solution but that is how they went.  Atleast they didn't ignore the lore totally right?  They felt they had to justify it or else the entire setting would be in jeopardy of making no sense.

no, they did not


 
First off, their issue was not to limit the ammo for tactical purposes, because face it, you nearly never run out of ammo.

They admitted it was done to create tension and force you to "reload" that could have been easily accomplished by simply adding an active cooldown like many games before have (gears of war and Halo Reach come to mind) which would have made sense and would not have broken the lore


 
But at that point the COD crowd might not have liked it anymore (half kidding here)

[Ieolus]

crimzontearz wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

ME1 to ME2 is a good example, thanks.  So first off, could they have tweaked the system in ME1 instead of changing it to a magazine based approach?  Did they NEED to "radically" change it, contradicting the lore, or did they just choose to do it?  Wouldn't tweaking the system in place actually be easier than replacing it totally with a new system that has to be balanced?

Anyway, what they did was change the system and then changed the lore to reflect it.  It wasn't the most elegent solution but that is how they went.  Atleast they didn't ignore the lore totally right?  They felt they had to justify it or else the entire setting would be in jeopardy of making no sense.

no, they did not

First off, their issue was not to limit the ammo for tactical purposes, because face it, you nearly never run out of ammo.

They admitted it was done to create tension and force you to "reload" that could have been easily accomplished by simply adding an active cooldown like many games before have (gears of war and Halo Reach come to mind) which would have made sense and would not have broken the lore
 
But at that point the COD crowd might not have liked it anymore (half kidding here)

Exactly... so they could have tweaked the current combat instead of introducing a new mechanic and then having to retcon the lore.  Seems needlessly complicated and frankly a bad decision.

[crimzontearz]

What, my idea or theirs??

[Nashiktal]

Ieolus wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

ME1 to ME2 is a good example, thanks.  So first off, could they have tweaked the system in ME1 instead of changing it to a magazine based approach?  Did they NEED to "radically" change it, contradicting the lore, or did they just choose to do it?  Wouldn't tweaking the system in place actually be easier than replacing it totally with a new system that has to be balanced?

Anyway, what they did was change the system and then changed the lore to reflect it.  It wasn't the most elegent solution but that is how they went.  Atleast they didn't ignore the lore totally right?  They felt they had to justify it or else the entire setting would be in jeopardy of making no sense.

no, they did not

First off, their issue was not to limit the ammo for tactical purposes, because face it, you nearly never run out of ammo.

They admitted it was done to create tension and force you to "reload" that could have been easily accomplished by simply adding an active cooldown like many games before have (gears of war and Halo Reach come to mind) which would have made sense and would not have broken the lore
 
But at that point the COD crowd might not have liked it anymore (half kidding here)

Exactly... so they could have tweaked the current combat instead of introducing a new mechanic and then having to retcon the lore.  Seems needlessly complicated and frankly a bad decision.

Yes it does sound bad. However we also don't know the entire story of what happened during development. We don't know how it was examnined, who was giving the order, or any other outside factor.

For example, did you know there was an epidemic of the flu spread among the bioware staff during the development of ME2? It apparently got pretty bad. Whether or not that changed development in anyway is hard to say, but that is just one example of unknown factors.

Game development isn't easy. Just because we have the power of hindsight doesn't mean it was an easy design choice for bioware at the time.

Modifié par Nashiktal, 23 septembre 2013 - 02:53 .

[crimzontearz]

sickness should really have no influence on such a high concept decision....especially since it was shown in early builds that people disliked it to begin with

[Ieolus]

My point is, don't fix what isn't broken. Tweak... don't radically change. Especially if it conflicts with the lore and you have to go retconning for really no reason.

[Nashiktal]

crimzontearz wrote...

sickness should really have no influence on such a high concept decision....especially since it was shown in early builds that people disliked it to begin with

Not on the decision, but on the execution. Now this was years back so I might be remembering wrong but the developer who talked about it mentioning it hurting man hours pretty bad.

So your dev team is losing strength because people either can't work, or if they are can't operate at efficiency. That effects the entirety of development and make implimenting decisions more difficult and possibly having multiple people working multiple stations.

This is all baseless speculation of course but having an epidemic of the flu can hurt development in various ways and thus effect implimentation.

Altering high level concepts? Nah. Preventing effective execution in one or more areas? Possibility.

[Nashiktal]

Ieolus wrote...

My point is, don't fix what isn't broken. Tweak... don't radically change. Especially if it conflicts with the lore and you have to go retconning for really no reason.

Except it wasn't no reason. They definitely had reasons which they talked about at length many times during develoment during and afte ME2. I agree with you on not liking the change entirely but don't pull out hyperbole and say it was for no reason.

[Vilegrim]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lokiwithrope wrote...

To you, when is it acceptable to break away from the lore in order to improve gameplay?

Never.

If the gameplay doesn't work within the established lore, the designers should change the lore.

pretty much.  Except for abstractions that being a game not a book forces on the developers (HP bars, levels etc)

Modifié par Vilegrim, 23 septembre 2013 - 03:09 .

[Sir JK]

Ieolus wrote...

ME1 to ME2 is a good example, thanks.  So first off, could they have tweaked the system in ME1 instead of changing it to a magazine based approach?  Did they NEED to "radically" change it, contradicting the lore, or did they just choose to do it?  Wouldn't tweaking the system in place actually be easier than replacing it totally with a new system that has to be balanced?

Anyway, what they did was change the system and then changed the lore to reflect it.  It wasn't the most elegent solution but that is how they went.  Atleast they didn't ignore the lore totally right?  They felt they had to justify it or else the entire setting would be in jeopardy of making no sense.

Given that they work on a budget and limited time, I suspect that your question about whether it was easier to tweak should answer itself. Had it been the easier way to get the desired results by tweaking the old system they would have.

But yeah, they did try to handle it best they could in terms of lore. Not easy to change stuff like that once it's ingrained into the system. I doubt anyone was fully satisfied by that retcon. At best some of us just shrugged and went on with it.

Which is a neat example why it can be detrimental to tie game-mechanics too heavily to the lore. It makes changing anything a very controversial affair.

[Wulfram]

Nashiktal wrote...

The excellent web series Extra Credits has actually touched on this very topic. I can't find the video right now... (They have 7 seasons of vids. I'll post the link if I find it.) However they say that building Lore BEFORE you build gameplay is a mistake many people make.

Now I am talking from memory here so I might not get this right but I believe the reason was building lore before gameplay traps and narrows your design choking creativity and stifling the gameplay of... well the game. It was one of the #1 mistakes they saw rookie game devs make in the design process.

I'd think it would depend on whether your gameplay exists to serve the story, or if your story exists to serve the gameply.  The latter is probably true in most games, but I'm not so sure it applies, or at least that it should apply, for the sort of stuff Bioware does.

I mean, certainly the people on these forums seem to mostly judge the games based on their story content, not their gameplay.  I do, as long as the gameplay isn't too bad.  Might be a sampling issue of course.

But at least from my point of view I'd rather have the gameplay constrained by the story, than the story constrained by the gameplay.

For reference the people behind extra credits all come from various parts of the game industry.

I'm not entirely sure they get RPGs.  At least, I think they get different things out of 'em than I do.

[Nashiktal]

To be fair everyone gets something different from RPGS. Including the definition. :/

[crimzontearz]

Nashiktal wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

sickness should really have no influence on such a high concept decision....especially since it was shown in early builds that people disliked it to begin with

Not on the decision, but on the execution. Now this was years back so I might be remembering wrong but the developer who talked about it mentioning it hurting man hours pretty bad.

So your dev team is losing strength because people either can't work, or if they are can't operate at efficiency. That effects the entirety of development and make implimenting decisions more difficult and possibly having multiple people working multiple stations.

This is all baseless speculation of course but having an epidemic of the flu can hurt development in various ways and thus effect implimentation.

Altering high level concepts? Nah. Preventing effective execution in one or more areas? Possibility.

yeah...no...just no.

At a certain point the testers basically showed that Reloading was less liked than cool down (one of the builds had both) the decision from above was then NOT to keep and tweek the more used mechanic but to SCRAP IT in favor of a less liked, more retconny mechanic


 
That is not an issue of execution at all, it is a high level concept faux pas