8 replies to this topic

[sparhawk]

-random treasure spawns. An author would place a piece of optional treasure, and set a percentage chance that it will appear or not.

I dont' think that this would be a good idea in terms of gameply. How should the user ever know that a loot exists if it only spawns randomly. I can't really see a benefit for this. Most likely the majority of the users will consider this a bug.

-optional path nodes (although I think this might already be possible with Dromed). The AI can choose to ignore a node or go on a different, separate path altogether.

I think this is possible with Dromed already. There are guard which have a pattern set out, and the (more or less) randomly choose which one they will follow. The path is still predetermined, but there are variations because the can select thenode they want to follow.

-AI actions similar to NOLF2. I never played the game myself, but I'd heard they do things that are unexpected, at unexpected times. Many times I've played Thief and thought to myself, "why is that cook just pacing back and forth?" Clearly for gameplay, NOT realism. "Why would a guy just be standing here in a dark room, facing the wall, then turn to the fireplace, back to the wall, back to fireplace, etc?" Again, gameplay, not realism. I'd heard that in NOLF2, AI will often kick a can around, or fidget (already in Thief), or even leave patrol to go to the restroom. That sounds like a fantastic addition that might really lend some tension to the overall experience.

That sounds like an interesting idea. I never played NOLF but it got a good ranking the games magazine that I read. I think this could look rather convincing if a guard search for a thief it knows must be there and then kicks a can in frustration because it can not find it.

-AI ladder climbing. Touchy subject, that, as it eliminates some safety and comfort in the game, but probably a good addition.

Doom 3 seems to support ladders so we are investigating this. Personaly I consider this a hot topic, because the AI in the Thief games was quite easily fooled with such things.

[god_is_my_goldfish]

I was recently replaying goldeneye on n64, and it's interesting to see that gurads could climb ladders in that as well.

[SneaksieDave]

I dont' think that this would be a good idea in terms of gameply. How should the user ever know that a loot exists if it only spawns randomly. I can't really see a benefit for this. Most likely the majority of the users will consider this a bug.

Perhaps. I was mostly thinking towards something for replay value. But yes, it might be an "iffy" thing. Maybe a more refined idea could come from this.

Wait, how about then, instead of random loot spawns... randomized (within set locations) loot locations! I forget what game it was, damn... some game that was out a while ago had you looking for...um.. something(?!) and each time you played it could be in a different location. *WRACKS BRAIN* What the heck game was that? Anyway, imagine hitting Bafford's again, only to find that the scepter is NOT in the throne room? That instead, he left it near his fireplace in his bedroom. That little feature could add replay value to a mission - random choice of special loot (ugh, did I just use that phrase?) placement points. Maybe objectives would/could/(should?) change to go with it. "Steal the scepter. Lord Bafford has been sick recently, and hasn't been to his throne room for weeks."

That sounds like an interesting idea.  I never played NOLF but it got a good ranking the games magazine that I read. I think this could look rather convincing if a guard search for a thief it knows must be there and then kicks a can in frustration because it can not find it.

Right. As I was mentioning, it always struck me (only bothered me a little, but it bothered nonetheless) odd in Thief that sometimes people are just pacing. Guards? Yes, that's fine. But when a servant, or Lady of the house or whatever, is just pacing back and forth for no apparent reason, it just seems odd. It would be much better if they actually appeared to be doing something (which rests on the shoulders of the designer, ultimately), but if they can't be made to look like they're doing "something", every little bit that actually helps them look alive, helps.

Incidentally, why a new thread? Or was that just a posting error? I feel a spotlight on my back! *runs and hides*

[Springheel]

I agree with the pacing issue. We'll definitely be looking at it, but I don't know how difficult it would be to make them interact with their environment more. The random paths is already something we're planning, and that would certainly help.

It would be interesting to see if we could create 'AI objects' that could be interacted with by AI in the area, like a chair that they might wander over to and sit in, or a fire that they warm their hands at, or a book they look down at and flip a page. Little touches like that could add to the realism of the situation. The interaction could probably be scripted and attached to the object itself, so than any non-alerted AI (or perhaps only civilian AI) that comes near the object has a 20% chance of 'using' it.

This might require extra animation work, however, unless we stick to things that are already going to be animated.

I think the idea has endless comic relief value as well. For example, creating a wine bottle that AI occasionally stop and take a drink from, or a painting they occasionally stop and scratch their head in front of.

Edited by Springheel, 19 November 2004 - 01:03 PM.

[sparhawk]

Maybe objectives would/could/(should?) change to go with it.  "Steal the scepter.  Lord Bafford has been sick recently, and hasn't been to his throne room for weeks."

I mean. It sounds funny, but I can't really imagine how it would feel to play.

but if they can't be made to look like they're doing "something", every little bit that actually helps them look alive, helps.

Agreed.

Incidentally, why a new thread?  Or was that just a posting error?  I feel a spotlight on my back!  *runs and hides*

Because when multiple people post ideas in a single thread it is much harder to keep track of a discussion about particular ideas.

[SneaksieDave]

It would be interesting to see if we could create 'AI objects' that could be interacted with by AI in the area, like a chair that they might wander over to and sit in, or a fire that they warm their hands at, or a book they look down at and flip a page. Little touches like that could add to the realism of the situation. The interaction could probably be scripted and attached to the object itself, so than any non-alerted AI (or perhaps only civilian AI) that comes near the object has a 20% chance of 'using' it.

Mmm, yes!!

I mean. It sounds funny, but I can't really imagine how it would feel to play.

Let me try a better description:

What I'm trying to say in the simplest sense is, picture Bafford's, but instead of the scepter being in the throne room, the designer set it up so it's in say, one of three locations: throne room, master bedroom, or lost in the gardens. Each time you play, the actual location would be randomly determined. All for replay value. And!, the same principle could be applied to guards, so that on one play through, Benny is patrolling the main corridor rather heavily, but on another play through, Benny has fallen asleep, and George is snacking in the kitchen. That sort of thing.

[New Horizon]

Mmm, yes!!


Let me try a better description:

What I'm trying to say in the simplest sense is, picture Bafford's, but instead of the scepter being in the throne room, the designer set it up so it's in say, one of three locations: throne room, master bedroom, or lost in the gardens. Each time you play, the actual location would be randomly determined. All for replay value. And!, the same principle could be applied to guards, so that on one play through, Benny is patrolling the main corridor rather heavily, but on another play through, Benny has fallen asleep, and George is snacking in the kitchen. That sort of thing.

For something like this I can imagine that the FM author would set the player up in the lead in objectives, saying that the Sceptor is in the throne room. Once the player starts making his way to the throne room however he would stumble upon a notice or overhear a conversation that the sceptor was lost, perhaps while Bafford was out for his evening stroll...while the note would only have the facts that it was lost...the player could overhear a conversation that it was lost while Bafford was on his DRUNKEN stroll of the evening. It would then be up to the FM author to not only Spawn the Sceptre in a different place, but also script clues that would be tied into each outcome in order to help the player find the way to the lost item.

This could mean that Bafford took a different route in each circumstance. Perhaps he was found passed out in a different location in each instance...this would raise the question of how many routes should there be to each location.

Could be very fun and add a LOT of replayability!

[Domarius]

It would be a very good re-playability feature. It's not something you tend to see a lot of nowadays, games being made as a kind of interactive movie. Instead of like the original Worms game for the PC, which had a lot of work put into it's random level generator.
I've often wanted the very feature just described by SneaksieDave, in many newer games, for replayability. It wouldn't be more technically complex than having several player spawn points in a Doom 2 map.

[sparhawk]

It would be a very good re-playability feature. It's not something you tend to see a lot of nowadays, games being made as a kind of interactive movie. Instead of like the original Worms game for the PC, which had a lot of work put into it's random level generator.
I've often wanted the very feature just described by SneaksieDave, in many newer games, for replayability. It wouldn't be more technically complex than having several player spawn points in a Doom 2 map.

I think implementing this is probably not really an effort. Personally it would give me no invcentive for replaying. If I know that the items are placed differently with everything else being the same, it wouldn't give me enough motivation to replay a game just because of this. But that is, of course, a quite personal ting and differs from player to player.
When I replay a game it is usually not because I hope to find something new in there (though this might be fun) but usually because I liked the gameplay and the atmoshpere. I have many older games which I replay every now and then because I liked the mood and the emotions they conveyed or simply because they are fun to play (like Heroes of Might and Magic).

I don't say that we should or should not implement this feature but it is not a top priority right now. For a alpha version I would like to implement only the core features. Ideas like that are not strictly needed for that. But that is not just the case with this suggestion, it is also the case for other ideas that we discussed.

I think I have to play this feature to see how it feels. Curently I can't imagine that I will like it, but of course that might change when I see it in action.