"Interactive Movie"-like Gameplay

[beni]

When thinking about Gameplay and the Story I often think how the game should feel like when played. The things I talk about now are too early to put into the game or implement, but maybe should be used in the future.

According to some reports from the E3 in the US, many games put up an effort to make the game scenes feel like watching a movie. This would enhance the entertainment. Here are two examples:

In the newest Splinter Cell it should be possible to mark enemies while peeking into a room and then when entering the room Sam Fisher automatically kills all the marked enemies.

In Mass Effect 2 you should be able to choose your answer in a dialogue while the other person is still talking. That makes conversations more dynamic. Especially when you can cut the other guy and kick him out a window.


This is maybe something we should keep in mind when implementing, so the Gameplay never becomes stiff or awkward, but fluid and therefore more fun.

[x3n]

Uhm, autoaim is for lame console players with zero skills (or to prevent Wii players from accidentally throwing their whatever-it's-called-controller out of the window)

But you're right, the "interactive movie" thingie is quite popular at the moment. And it is indeed pointing into the right direction - as long as we're talking about the elements "big story", "intense feeling", "identifying with the protagonist", "impressive environment", "stunning effects", "unexpected twists", and so on. But never ever even consider making a game which is just a click-and-go movie. There's a reason why it's called a "game" - because you're playing it. And you're not just watching.

Think about games like GTA4 - according to some noobish newspaper, GTA4 "sets a new standard for what is possible in interactive arts", which isn't true at all, but at least it's a pretty good game. And it feels much like a movie, although it has none of the features you listed (no interactive dialogs, no autoaim). The protagonist is completely controlled by the player. The movie-feeling is based on features like an open world with many peoples, a protagonist who's having a comment about every shit and last but not least many funny and diversified missions telling the story (and not just "go to the end of the level an kill the boss")

[1337]

Anyone ever played 'No one lives forever'? It's quite old (released almost 9 nears ago) but I'd still consider it one of the better games compared with recent ones (where 'recent' in my world is still quite old, see http://www.xkcd.com/606/). The reason for this is quite simple: They put a lot of effort into dialogues and details.
I think it makes the difference while playing if you can listen to funny conversation between guards and then, well, you know what to do with guards...

But frankly, I'm the wrong guy to say this because I'll always be the one focusing on features rather than extensive content...

[beni]

@x3n: Granted, there are many other things to improve Gameplay and especially the autoaim is maybe not the best way to go. As expected from a gamer, who plays UT and that kind of stuff, that you're not willing to give up any part of control over the protagonist.
However, all games include animations and actions nowadays that you cannot control directly and are somewhat scripted. Another example would be the crazy acrobatics and combos in the newest Prince of Persia. There you can beat up an enemy with about 5 clicks/keystrokes while the prince is executing a long and complicated, but totally badass-to-look-at attack.

Don't get me wrong: I don't want to promote something like Fahrenheit, but I think it is important to see where games develop and why. The autoaim is of course for the console players (it's called WiiMote btw ). The interactive dialogues however I do really like. Even when there are no decisions to be made it gives you actually more control over the protagonist.
With GTA4 however you do have an autoaim (at least on the console, never played on PC), I would strongly recommend to not use this on PC though. The other things that GTA4 make so great is of course the feeling to be in a big and vivid world and the variation in the mission design. Much more important? I think so.

@1337: NOLF was great. The world was crazy and unique and the Gameplay was one of the best at that time. The gadgets were cool and the 60s feeling was something new. They put a lot of effort in making the levels organic and put in a lot of details as well.
The approach of not taking itself too serious works pretty good with this game.

[1337]

But I like the part where they didn't take themselves too seriously.
It gets real funny once you start reading those intelligence items

[x3n]

Look at this preview of Modern Warfare 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbqHOPTYjIU (starts at 0:44)

I think this shows pretty much what I think is the right approach for an 'interactive movie' gameplay. There are many heavily scripted scenes which tell the story, but are totally embedded into the gameplay (for example 2:20). Your mate is always talking to you, commenting his actions and those of the player.
The game uses several different techniques to lead the player on this path through the level, so he doesn't have to scan the whole area to find the next script trigger: There is either just one way, or your mate goes ahead, or you see the target on the minimap. Maybe those flags (4:20-5:40 and again at 10:30-11:00) also mark some sort of possible paths? But I'm not sure, could also be part of the environment. And if they really show the way, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to make it THAT obvious.
Anyway, another nice scene is at 11:00, where you and your mate slide down a snow hill and your mate turns around and aims at the top of the hill - at that point, the player knows exactly what will happen next and where he has to look at. This is a far better gamedesign than just place new random enemies at the bottom of the hill or let the player run around pointless for some time until he gets shot unexpectedly from behind.

[beni]

Totally agree on the points and criticism (flags) you pointed out.
Also getting a snowmobile at the end looks like something that happens spontaneous instead of a snowmobile just standing right where you need to flee. It's always so strange that there never is a bike, car or truck unless you need it to flee, right? So there your mate just kills one guy and the snowmobile just stops in the middle of those houses, which is a subtle hint for you to take that snowmobile to flee.
Right after planting the bomb, I wasn't sure what was going on, but I really liked how your mate got found out and you had to help him. The speed of the mission suddenly increased and the action was great. I really hate levels where you have to sneak around for the whole level. With a good mix of action and those sneak passages the level becomes a great experience.

I also love the kinda low-tech feeling of the game. There is a minimalistic HUD. The heart sensor is conveniently attacked to the gun. In the beginning where you climb up the wall the experience is also really great.

Of course this all works like a interactive movie and to be honest: The mission was really easy. There haven't really been many enemies and they like never fought back. Also the objective (just go up there and download the files) was kinda simple. However the mission was interesting and fun to watch and I believe it's also fun to play it.

[1337]

This is awesome! I haven't seen a real game demo movie for years...
But I like the concept, especially the fact that you don't need a 500 page user manual to play it.

[beni]

So let's draw our conclusion from this movie. Graphics are of course awesome and help a lot for the scenery, but we're not that strong in this area.
The lessons we can get from this movie are rather along the lines of storytelling (scripting / storyboard of a mission / methods of directing the player etc.) and simplicity (no large weapon arsenal, simple HUD, simple game mechanics and controlling etc.).
Maybe we want to have an extra look on simplicity as in "easy to get into, hard to master", since we also want to attract hard core gamers and not just casual gamers.

[x3n]

One of the biggest issues isn't even the graphics (we can get quite nice effects with some simple shaders, fog and particles - which are all based on code and don't need highskilled designers. also we don't need animations and facial expressions). The problem is, we have a serious lack of sounds and voice actors. Sounds are needed to give the player a good feeling of the game and voices are needed to tell the story and lead the player on this path. But I really don't know where to get them... except for computer synthesized speech...

The conclusion about the gameplay from this movie is, in my opinion: Don't let the player alone, always keep the 'flow' of the game, no "oh look, theres a vehicle right next to you and a big ramp in front of the fence, WHAT A COINCIDENCE" level design, many scripted events.


By the way, you mentioned the simplicity of the game (just one weapon, small HUD, easy oponents). But you also have to note it was a live demo at the E3. Of course they didn't wanted to die all the time, that's why the played the game probably in the easiest mode. Additionally they didn't wanted to show all features of the game, because it was just an early preview, that's why they only used one weapon (and maybe the others just weren't finished at that point). But there are definitely more weapons in the final version. However Reto's still right, you don't need manuals to play a game nowadays. Everything has to work intuitively.

Now about the HUD: There you're right, it's very small and minimalistic. But I'm not sure if this would also work in Orxonox. Large HUDs aren't bad by definition, think about a racing simulation with cockpit view. The questions are:
1) Do I get all information I need?
2) Do I understand all information I get?
3) Is all information I get really needed?

And, if the HUD is interactive, of course also:
4) Is the handling intuitive?

If you can answer all questions with Yes, a large HUD isn't wrong, because a smaller HUD necessarily contradicts point 1.

[beni]

Due to the HD crash in the server we lost a few posts in this thread.

I checked out eSpeak and since I know quite a lot about speech processing (2 lectures and 1 thesis) I think we can make the best out of it. eSpeak supports Speech Synthesis Markup Language (SSML) which is a special XML language (yay!) defined by W3C. The language allows to set emphasize on words and syllables, set pauses and so on.
I don't know how up to date eSpeak and SSML is, but considering the possibilities they allow, they seem pretty powerful if used correctly.

[x3n]

oh, damn that hd crash.

yeah sounds good. hope the result will do the same