I'm going to write for a moment about what would make a dream game for me. I know that there's a little bit of irony in doing this, since I make games, but there are ideas that I have no way to bring to fruition that would be incredibly cool, and other people might have the chance to do so.
Before I begin, I want to quickly point out that what I'm thinking of is almost certainly classified as an "RPG" under current standards, though it may have some notable differences in execution compared to modern titles. I'm not going to get into the nitty-gritty of any particular game mechanic, instead going into the broader concepts that I would want to see in a game.
The Concept
I've always been intrigued by the notion of having some sort of transhuman science-fiction video game that fully embodies the question of transhumanism. A lot of "transhuman" titles fall within postcyberpunk or cyberpunk genre boundaries, and don't explore questions related to what it means to be human versus something that comes after or around that central human identity and where those boundaries can be drawn.
I think it also opens up the path to a lot of game mechanics and conventions that make a lot of sense in the setting and also are convenience features. In an advanced enough future, you can achieve things that would only make sense in game terms in some other settings; things like respawning, the ability to quickly create customized gear that isn't the quality of something scraped together in a garage, inventory management, and the like all can make a little more sense when they've got some impetus to work.
You can do a lot of these things in a fantasy setting as well, but not really in a strictly "realistic" setting.
So the concept would definitely be a sort of transhuman universe, but I'd like to see one that's otherwise conceptually clear; not cyberpunk or postcyberpunk, but a world that allows the exploration of a variety of themes and isn't predisposed toward any particular theme.
Other things to note as important things are that this game would be presented in first or third person perspectives, with alternate interfaces available as appropriate (after all, you can reflect heightened awareness or external sensors via third-person viewpoints), and it would rely on systems-driven play with the ability to do multiplayer.
Image courtesy Pixabay
I think the best way to explain the concept I have would be to say that it's like the recent Netflix hit (and less recent novel) Altered Carbon, but with a little more idealism. There are still meaningful conflicts, but they're a product of the human condition at rest, rather than a time of change that provokes vitriol and knee-jerk reactions.
Players placed into the world have a lot of freedom to decide what they want to do. Rather than facing the penalty of death as the main deterrent, they face the consequences of having their character lose influence and identity as the main source of loss, with that eventually leading to a more permanent character retirement if the player continues to do things that are dramatically bad (or if they make exceptionally risky choices).
The game generally encourages players to find their own path, but there are story frames that exist in the universe that players can drop into, essentially connecting paths between series of events that can be radically different due to the influences of emergent systems. Each story has its own themes and motifs that follow the player, and these stories take place in instanced versions of the world; the player can come and go freely, but when they're in the "story" actions they take elsewhere don't impact that particular section of the universe and vice-versa, allowing them to experiment with different courses of action in that same scenario later without messing up their larger role in the universe.
This also permits players experimenting with different modes of play; in one story they may be a rank-and-file soldier on a backwater world just trying to make it to the next sunrise, in another they could be negotiating billion-dollar deals in the core of the galaxy, digging up dirt to get an edge on competitors.
Emergent Systems-Driven Play
One of the things that I think any really solid "perfect game" has to have is a systems-driven design that is meaningful and deep.
Right now the best example of this that I can think of is Dwarf Fortress, which has probably fifteen interactive system layers simulating everything from temperature to relationships.
I don't think that these emergent systems are necessary for a good experience, but if you want to have replayability and novel experiences on a broad scale, you need deep emergence.
Having a game world that is interconnected goes a long way toward creating immersion, but it's not enough to have Skyrim or Far Cry style NPC encounters. Things like weather, time, and climate (if appropriate to the setting of the game) need to interact meaningfully with all actors in the game, and other important events need to be represented.
I find it interesting that it is often a handful of scripted elements that provide a lot of immersion in current games, like NPCs that only show up in certain places at certain times. High-performance AI with the ability to consider multiple factors for behavior and a game world that stores information on broad scales is a key to having these systems work.
Layers, Nodes, Systems, and Interactions
The idea behind this system is that objects have a lot of qualities and can interact with each other. Most of the time only a couple layers are probably relevant in a particular scenario, but since they exist universally (they would not all need to be "always on", and "resting states" could be used to reflect this), they could interact with each other.
Each of these layers has a variety of systems, interacting with each other on different conditions. For instance, there might be a layer to reflect temperature and stored energy, and another to reflect physical location and material. Within layers these interactions are important, but generally it is nodes, specific entities in the system, that change. Since they exist within multiple layers, they determine what is really important.
Image courtesy Pixabay
The other point of these layered systems is that you can have things interact. For instance, social hierarchy matters more when the dominant organization has a presence. Managing things this way opens up opportunities like having some NPCs act less lawfully when there is nobody around to police them.
All of this comes together to create a dynamic world that can respond to players' actions and change meaningfully without requiring a writer to pre-ordain what happens as a result of certain actions. If an important member of a faction dies, their influence is lost, but others can take their place. The responses people have to the replacement can determine what happens next, creating naturally rippling effects that are mechanically simple but systematically satisfying.
Quality Storytelling, On Demand
One of the issues with many games is that their storytelling is shallow, and it's not just procedurally generated stories that have this issue.
I'd like to see hand-tailored stories layered above the emergent world, with the addition of procedural generation that considers narrative flow rather than simple dynamics that you see in a lot of current games.
My go-to example for this is always the roguelike GearHead, which uses a handful of static plot elements and procedurally generates a story based on a handful of concepts (like having a nemesis, allies, and climactic threat). Although its storytelling is largely determined by random number generator gaps between scripted elements, the latter wouldn't be too hard to replace with truly procedural mechanisms given enough time and enough emergent game systems.
This is something that deviates from the current "procedural stories" in a lot of games, because they tend to be more along the lines of random quests rather than stories, with a clear objective for the player but no change in their relationship to the world or characters around them.
Ultima Ratio Regum, another roguelike, is an example of having generated hierarchies within which the player has a particular role and position. In a game with sufficiently emergent systems, there is room for players to become a hero without the use of scripted events.
Writers would probably create a core experience, both to serve as a foundation for common communication about the game world and to provide a model for players, but these deeper emergent systems allow for more emergent experiences and opportunities to unfold, meaning essentially unlimited replay potential and deeper world exploration than would be possible in a traditional game.
On an unrelated note, Kurt Vonnegut has provided some ideas for how stories follow common patterns, though there are other frameworks that do this as well in a way that a machine could be expected to follow convincingly.
Multiplayer Shared Worlds, Distinct Experiences
One of the things about most multiplayer games these days is that they have a hard time really figuring out how to tell stories with multiple protagonists. It's hard to write a story for multiple heroes, and especially hard to write one where you can have one or multiple heroes.
Of course, a lot of games get around this by having some really blatant disconnects between play and story.
The foundation of my dream game, however, are layers of emergent systems. This makes it possible for multiple players to interact seamlessly with the same world, and get results that bind them together. This would be possible by adding a layer for perceived connections in the eyes of NPCs so that if a group of players are together for long enough they begin to be drawn along the same narrative paths.
At an advanced enough level, player characters could even take on a role parallel to each other; where in other games an NPC may, as a narrative device, send another NPC off to do something, the various player characters could actually have events like that occur:
"I needed someone to clear the monsters around the well, but I already asked Tim to do it. When you get a moment, could you help me settle a dispute with my neighbors?"
By anchoring particular distinctive elements within emergent layers, players can impact their world in ways that allow meaningful storytelling and changes without requiring significant human direction.
For the sake of simplicity, each world would either be hosted on a central server and accessible to many players, or hosted by a single player. Player characters are entities reflected almost identically to NPCs, with players defining their avatars' personalities during a character creation process and by decisions made during play.
Image courtesy Pixabay
Asynchronous Multiplayer
Because of setting conceits and the emergent systems powering the game, it would be possible to have player avatars join you even when their players are not active.
In addition to having this provide a way for players to enjoy the benefits of playing with a group when others are offline (or when they have to be offline, though the data transfer would likely require a connection to a shared server or having already downloaded an avatar from another player), it gives an encouragement to meet and join other players.
Player and Character Skill Distinctions
There are a few reasons why I want to see this, but there are really three reasons I'll get into:
- Accessibility for people with disabilities
- Allowing multiple equally treated control interfaces
- Removing player skill barriers to meaningful play
It's worth noting that there are other elements to this. A character may have the ability to do things that a player simply can't emulate; in a multiplayer session, you can't have one player slowing down time and giving an unfair advantage to team-mates, and it would be annoying to be stuck in slow motion at a disadvantage.
Another advantage of creating these systems is that it can allow player avatars to already have an established baseline for performance. While they would need to be "trained" by players (either through point investment or practice during play), they would be able to have the same role as an AI companion as they would in a group with the player behind the wheel.
Accessibility
One of the overlooked problems facing gaming is the difficulty that game designers and engineers have had when trying to create games that are accessible to people with motor dysfunction or other disabilities that impair the use of traditional control methods.
Because a lot of the game could be boiled down to choosing contextual actions for a character to undertake, exposing the AI avatar for players during play sessions to allow them to send commands is an option that makes it possible to engage with the world in other ways.
While there's still some complexity factor here, you would be able to create a game that's accessible to probably 80% of the players who would have difficulty with a game that didn't make concessions for accommodating them with a relatively small set of changes.
Alternate Control Interfaces
I'm a hardcore PC gamer, and I use a gaming mouse and keyboard exclusively. This means that at any given time I have roughly forty buttons that I can comfortably press, and many of these buttons can be pressed in combination or in sequence, creating an incredible amount of options for commands.
However, there are people who prefer to use controllers, and advantages to doing so (like inputs that aren't all or nothing or tied to artificial deadzones that can cause issues), and even a venerable giant of the interface world like the humble mouse and keyboard may one day fall to challengers.
However, to return to the point at hand, there are things that would be problematic for many people with certain controllers. I'm an "early adopter" for VR (meaning that I have one before they're standard-issue), and I've found that certain features like Fallout 4 VR's VATS has a great utility without taking anything away from the game.
Allowing characters to contribute where players don't want to due to the interface they're using is good no matter which interface you use.
Low Skill Barrier
One of the issues with skill barriers is that they can be a gateway to play. I'm a pretty decent gamer, but there are games I'm just not willing to put the investment into, like EVE Online.
Letting characters offload things that players don't want to do or aren't capable of doing is important if you want to have a game where players aren't limited strictly by their own skill. Since character strength is a function of time and effort invested, it gives the opportunity for these characters to do what they need to do while having the player be decent regardless.
As I said earlier, in a transhuman world many people are not going to be able to keep up with their characters, but we don't necessarily need to look beyond normal capabilities to see abstractions used to facilitate play.
For instance, we don't typically make players determine how well a character does in a sports game by seeing whether or not they can react on the drop of a pin, but a good athlete has to be able to do that.
Abstracting out things that are too difficult for an amateur doesn't mean that those systems don't exist in the game. A skilled player can still use these systems, but any player should be able to make an impact in the world.
Wrapping Up
I've had this concept in my head for a while, but it's really only due to the Archdruid Gaming contest that I cared to put it into print.
As a tabletop game creator, I have the privilege of working with games that tell a broad range of stories on a daily basis, but I also get to experience the eternal frustration of leaving that relatively infinite canvas when I enjoy a video game. If I had all the time, money, and skill in the world, this is the game that I would make.
Yes, I prefer to use the good old-fashioned controller whenever possible. This past year, I found a device that lets me use my gamecube controller to play my PC games on Steam. Being able to map out all the keystrokes to the controller is a dream come true for me... until you try to play something like ANY Elder Scrolls game. Ahh! I swear MMO's were never meant to be played on a controller, because the developers had too many always active button commands that could be pressed. Controlling camera and movement alone takes eight different directional control buttons, and quite a bit of finesse to master the proper timing in a battle situation. This is definitely where VR leaves all other control methods in the dust. If only they could make it so that it doesn't cause me pain for using for multiple hours. Maybe one day, I'll be able to use a normal computer monitor with a camera that responds to my head movements to be able change my view, to look in various directions.
There are already head-trackers that can do some of that, though obviously you're limited to a degree by the technology since not every game will support it and the fixed screen places its own limitations on the motions you can have before you're no longer looking at the screen past a certain point.
TrackIR is the most notable one and has been around for ages, though there are others out there that I can't speak to the performance of. I've never used any head-tracking setups myself but definitely would consider trying one out.
EDIT: I don't know if you care about Morrowind, but OpenMW has a usable controller interface as of last time I tested it. The others are definitely not anything I'd care to play with a controller (or at least not a traditional controller; Bethesda's VR titles work really well).
Hi loreshapergames,
Visit curiesteem.com or join the Curie Discord community to learn more.
Wow, thanks for this! It is really interesting to have a game designer's perspective on what would make a great game! Many things there that I would never have thought about as a player!
I mean, I can't really claim too much mastery because I primarily work in different media (dice as opposed to microprocessors), but there are things that come up from having a different set of priorities. For instance, I definitely don't care about a lot of the little features, while I have some fairly large high-concept concerns when I look at a game.
Being a game creator and couldn't make the dream game isn't necessarily something bad as making a great game always have a strong team behind. And after reading all the details of how would you like to be the game, thought in advance, just shows how calculated and dedicated you are to this passion.
To be honest I've had this passion too, even from my youth and I even thought about becoming a game creator one day because playing so many games you get this feeling that you could also come out with a great game that will be a success for gamers, but then again you don't know from where to start or if you could do it by your own so I believe that sharing your ideas with a very experienced team would be both a successful for you but also for them and a nice collaboration that will end up in an amazing game.
Now talking about the description of the games. I do believe that they are really important as depending on what you are reading or seeing if we are thinking about a trailer, depends if you want to try that game out or not. And I do think that you have to be very creative and know how to transmit with the people the real story of the game so they could also feel it, but then there are lots of games that are taking advance of this fact and create false hopes to the gamers that are all faced when trying the game, resulting in many bad reviews in a short time (I remember many AAA titles when receiving rough impressions on steam).
These being said, I really hope one day I will play the dream game you have and totally enjoy it! I'm have no doubt about that 😊
I think the thing that drives me as a creator is a sense of realism. I may not make my dream game, but I can set the foundations for it, moving the industry in that direction and encouraging others to move in a way that leads to it.
Really, the thing that I'd suggest if you want to be a game creator is to not put it off and start doing a little designing every day. Start with a simple board game or a tiny game in GameMaker or another simple tool and get a feel for it. Move on to whatever feels right to you, and don't forget to follow your passions. Eventually you can learn to finish stuff (it took me a decade), but you can't get started unless you start doing.
The real thing to remember when talking about games is that you don't necessarily have the same vocabulary going on at the designer and player level. A lot of terms that are really important to a developer (things like "procedural", which has come to mean "random" in the eyes of consumers due to no small amount of misuse and ineptitude) don't really mean a whole lot to outsiders, and they don't market well. Large companies try to make their games marketable, but do so by using methods that don't actually reflect a good product (No Man's Sky launched with billions of unique, but not distinct, planets). It's a question of whether designers stick to principles and reality, or if they overpromise and try to spin things that don't really exist into their core selling point.
I couldn't say it better than you did, and that example with the No Man's Sky is perfect. You are so damn right! :)
I was very much looking forward to your entry into this, since I was excited to see a game designer's take on the concept!
I very nearly didn't do one, but I'm glad I did.
So interesting.
procedural generation that considers narrative flow rather than simple dynamics that you see in a lot of current games.
That would make the game feel much real and much felt.
I think that a lot of things that we call procedural really aren't.
Procedural comes from the term process, but a lot of people feed random numbers in and call it a day, like Skyrim's Radiant quests. Yes, there's some setting considerations going on, but it doesn't feel distinct from rolling a die and seeing which cave the bad guy is in.
Really good play happens when complicated systems interact in ways players don't necessarily expect, but which they can intuit. If there are fewer people out because of bad weather, which means that the police chasing the bank robbing players (because, let's face it, players love causing chaos) have a clear shot and don't have to worry about collateral damage, that's a meaningful distinction that isn't necessarily transparent.
Many games love shouting and hollering when a system like that is in play. It's in little details, however, that you can create a unique experience.
Likewise, to tell a story you really don't need a human at the wheel (though I do hope to one day become a novelist, so I should be careful how much I say that), because these complex and interconnected systems are stories in their own rights. They can have characters, outcomes, and plotlines that resemble stories that have been hand-crafted, because the system increasingly reflects reality and stories are a means of talking about reality. There's some aimlessness, sure, but there's also room to find purpose where there was previously only entropy or a void.
Wow, the difference between a description of a game from the perspective of a gamer and the perspective of a gamedev is clear here. This is more like a blueprint of your dream game.
To be fair, some of this is because I'm noncommittal and I like everything. I couldn't really pick a particularly distinctive starting point because I don't have strong enough preferences to build that into a game, so I went abstract.
Congratulations @loreshapergames! You have completed the following achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You published a post every day of the week
Award for the total payout received
Click on the badge to view your Board of Honor.
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP
To support your work, I also upvoted your post!
My post is along these lines too, I'm finishing it while on a course about data-warehousing... I'm focused more on the game-design part as well... It's incredible how many things take shape once you start thinking of them from a game designer perspective...
I'm glad I'm not the only one who had difficulty with the 3k word limit, I'm at 2986 and trying to squeeze something else in :D
Tabletop games are fun for playing with friends and really original people, the things that can be seen are awesome indeed, but videogames are limited to what we can code... maybe 20 years or 30 years on we could see totally TRUE virtual worlds where we can do anything at all with the AI generating situations that evolve into full quests, but coding that is pretty damn impossible with modern technology, instead we end up with those random things they call quests...
Nice post for the contest, but I'm not planning to lose!!!, see you up there on the podium.
Yeah, one of the challenges (and eye-opening moments) in my early game design career was realizing how much work went into games. When I put game design on hiatus for a while to become a game reviewer, I think I was always a little tender toward games because I recognized the work that went into them, but also because I saw them in the sense of having interesting and novel features. That these features were often pretty bad for players didn't really matter, in a sort of mad scientist sense.
I always run afoul of word limits, but this one was pretty easy for me, because I told myself at the very start that I wasn't going to do any of the endless specific things that I don't really need, but like to see.
I'm fairly certain that a lot of the "technical limitations" that we currently see in video games are products of having the desire to create an experience that is very heavily focused on particular elements. Something like Dwarf Fortress or Rimworld is closer to this vision than people would care to admit, and they simulate relatively large worlds with an incredible number of interconnections. Getting that complexity to the point where you can take on the role of a single person and explore the world in a convincing manner is the difficulty. A lot of roguelikes are cutting edge in this sense; games like Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead or GearHead do things that no AAA or even A-list title has gone beyond merely dreaming of in how systems and narratives unfold. But, of course, they're freed of the burden of representing these by limiting themselves to a very selective, hard-core audience. GearHead is actually a counter-point to this, and I consider it to be my favorite roguelike and one of the more "accessible" true roguelikes.
We'll see how it goes. I'm not really sure that I'm in the running for the top prize because this isn't your typical "dream game" and there's a lot of stuff that could be fleshed out further. However, maybe that's a virtue in a tight competition.
Haven't even heard of those two games, I have heard about Dwarf Fortress and Rimworld though. And yes, these games have incredibly good AI for simulation. Most players don't really know what they want, just like most people (me included) don't know what they want most of the time and we just go with the flow.
In fact I think I've only heard one person ever say that he doesn't like open-ended worlds without objective or meaning. I do agree to a certain degree there, but I think it depends ultimately on what we like to do.
Well, my concept of "dream game" is somewhat similar to yours and while I agree that many things could be fleshed out, to me at least it's interesting to see the justification behind your choices. My post is the same in that regard, it's not about my "dream" game since I have tons, but it's mostly about the reasons why a game would be considered a dream game...
Will check out those two games.
I'm a wealth of wisdom on obscure games. A while back someone asked if anyone in my local group could "Remember Infantry Online?" and I was the only person in the room who had even heard of it (other than him) and played it (albeit not very much, because I discovered it well past its glory days and was more interested on a theoretical level).
Sadly, my knowledge of more modern games is less expansive than that of the games that were around when I was a kid.
But that's cool, a lot of modern games aren't really that good as some people make them to be. I have a draft ready to give some love to old Tabletop RPG games. I admit I thought they were really boring until I actually played them.
I mean, the thing about modern games is that they need to iterate successfully over old ones to be worth playing for people who have had good experiences for old games. Some of it's taste, but there's also a lot of questions about whether or not people are really delivering quality. I think there are a lot of good modern games, and that maybe even games on average are better than they used to be, but they struggle to really break even with old classics.
Wow - I think you've just blown my mind with your knowlege and passion for putting this across in so detailed a manner. I'm afraid that a lot of it was well beyond my comprehension as a non gamer, I'm excited to see you considering requirements and possibilities for players with disabilities, as well as looking a removing barriers to access for those with lower skillsets. I work with learning disabled young people, and they can gain so much through gaming and meaningful play. So big round of applause that you have this mapped.
Massive congratulations on the Curie vote!
E x
I don't want to harp on too much about accessibility because I've rarely had to deal with it. Roleplaying games in print actually do have some considerations there, but generally screen readers and the like have advanced faster than barriers in that field, and all my games are available digitally.
However, I'm always keeping an eye out for it, and since my passion for games derives from a belief in their power to bring meaning, exploration, and wonder I'm always looking for ways to spread games to people who might not otherwise get a chance to experience them.
Very indepth write up! I love the idea of transhumanism as an upgrade interface. Letting certain skilled components of gameplay be optionally automated would be really interesting to see implemented as well.
I love this! Certain 'quests' really only need to be done by certain characters, and there is no reason my mage should be out hunting for pelts when any hunter should have already taken care of that while the mage was out picking potion ingredients!
This is an incredibly in depth and complex game, approximating real life basically with all the emergent system layers, but I would sign up for the beta ;p
I'm a huge proponent of transhumanism (in a responsible sense, though I'd honestly probably settle for a dystopian cyberpunk future), and I think that it can be a neat gameplay component. I was a little bit disappointed by The Surge when it came out and was transhuman in name only, but I thought that things like Deus Ex managed to tell a richer story because of how the themes and subjects of transhumanism lead us to ask deeper questions about what it means to be human.
One of my favorite video game quests as a child was in a game where a bartender would occasionally send an NPC from the town out to refuel a still. If he failed to return, then you'd get the quest to go and check up on him (given you had a sufficiently positive reputation). In hindsight, one wonders what my parents were thinking by letting me play a game in which I was checking up on people fueling stills for bartenders. Gosh, GearHead really did prepare me for like 90% of game designing, though I don't think I processed that at the time.
However, it didn't do me much harm, and I think it was actually kind of influential in how I approached systems. Having that sort of depth doesn't necessarily tax systems so much.
GearHead has something like a dozen binary ratings that determine your character's perceived personality, and therefore how they become happy or unhappy and what jobs they will be offered. Combine that with NPC connections (which, as far as I can tell, are actually just a single tag: "ally", "enemy", and so forth) and you can get really interesting branching narratives. Given that it's a game made by an English teacher more than a decade ago (if my math is correct, which it is), I am always perpetually disappointed that most modern games with "dynamic storytelling" pale in comparison to this.
The first game is highly linear, but the second game actually has a few distinct branches that are pretty broad. I'm always a sucker for the first, however, because nostalgia is a heck of a drug.
More world interaction is really something lacking these days unless the entire world is one of those voxel types where you can dig and damage anything in it.
Black Desert Online had a really interesting node system and how it interacted in the world. They had a bunch of things like sawmills, mines, corn fields, and so on around the world. You could set up a route to them by spending points to connect to them. Then you hire workers that you feed with beer and in return they would produce the raw ingredients from that node.
The city’s also had workshops in them and you could pay to unlock these nods as well and have worker in them using your stuff up to make items. It was really cool to make a furnace for instance you first had to have workers farming for those ingredients that then transported every cycle up to your storage. Where it was then pulled out by the system and used to craft a furnace. You could also buy the materials off the market but that would cut into your profit margin where other players could undercut your profits.