Sucess IS Boring

[onosendai7]

Success isn't mandatory in a video game at all. In PvP, for example, failure is quite common.

PvP is not solo but multiplayer.
I don't play CS to win, I play to have fun. If the opposing players are too good for me, I find another server. There is no fun in being crushed every round.

In linear games such as SPec Ops the Line, failure was the point of the plot - even while you succeeded in your endeavours, all was lost.

During gameplay, failure is constant and only a reload can help you. But you've still failed. I'd probably say that if you want to succeed in a video game, persistence is mandatory.

Problem is : video games are more and more for casual players. People who can't afford spending 1000+ hours on a game for roughly a 50h campaign (the rest being "try again" time). Hell, even WoW is now "casualized". And for any player, not getting the loot at the end of a raid is a failure (Where is that T56 helmet that boss is supposed to drop 0.05% times ?)
Try again ....

In any kind of Ironman/Insane death-resets-the-game game mode, it's quite possible you'll never finish the game at all. I don't know if I'd describe that as success.

Do you think the average player is looking for that game mode ?
For instance, less than 20% of borderlands 2 players have a lvl 50 character. Not even those hooked enough to farm loots with a 0.01% dropping rates. Some players actually do that. They are just very few.

I think organic storytelling is certainly possible - you can see it in the interactions of any half-decent AI in open world, sandbox games and even in the tactical response of the AI in shooters.

AI in shooters are generally buffed oponents (more HP, more armor, more damages and more accuracy).
There would be absolutly no difficulty for developers to build an unbeatable AI. But that would be really uninteresting.
There is also usualy the possibility to find an exploit in the map or in the AI tactics to bypass the difficulty (you know, when enemies gently charge in the corridor in front of your rocket launcher, or when that cover may not be flanked and their nades just fall short).

Certainly all decisions cannot be anticipated, not their failure results - but neither can that be done in PnP with a GM. GMs aren't omniscient, at best we paper over teh cracks. And we fail a lot - it's only the players willingness to overlook these glaring oversights on our part that the story continues.

So I don't really need a perfect AI, just one that papers over the cracks in my choices enough for me to pretend it looks good.

Well, at least a GM may improvise something.
Some are very good at it. Some are just lost without their prepared scenario.

 

[onosendai7]

Rather than success, what should be mandatory would be the chance of succeeding. If a player is skilled-clever enough, she/he should be able to overcome difficulties and tasks.

Yes. No task should be doomed to fail, whatever the player may decide or do.

But if success is a must, then where is the funny part of a challenge?

What is important is not the goal, it is the journey.
All of you are some P&P RPG players with many hours of gameplay. What do you recall most of your games : ends of stories or moments in the games where you all experienced some kind of emotion, some piece of great roleplay ?

In my opinion, especially if dealing with a cyberpunk world, players should never have success guaranteed. There would be choices, and consequences (and succeeding doesn't necessarily mean 100% good consequences).

But the experience is quite different when you accept a quest, and you do not actually know if you might be successfull or not.

Agreed.
But you at least expect you can fulfill the objectives of that quest.

 

[Sardukhar]

Ono, I think you've played Witcher 1 and 2, so you must realise that CDPR isn't interested in appealing to most players, casual gamers or really anoy other target demographic other than the RPG one. I think they stand a pretty good chance of building a semi-organic open-world game structure. One where your failures could define you as much as your successes.

In defense of this, as you point out, unlikely peice fo coding and gameplay coming together, CDPR are the people that gave us a divergent plot line in WItcher 2 - a whole game section that many players wouldn't see unless they made a specific choice in the story. A substantial section, too. Even today, I have friends who played W2 who havent' seen the alternate sections because they preferred "their" Geralt's choice.

That's pretty unusual in a game developer. I hope they try something as daring for CP 2077 and it's plot/story mechanics.

But, yes, I see where you are coming from: it's not like PnP and there is a reason for that. Video games are a different format and have different boundaries.

 

[onosendai7]

I entirely trust CDPR.
I enjoyed Witcher 1&2 (even bought the original books cause I liked the background and the caracters).

You may have many story arcs with different outcomes depending of the choices made and the objectives fulfilled (what Bioware promised and failed in ME3) in a video game. You may even have "quests" designed to fail to put the character in another situation (I think about the "jailed : find your stuff and escape" type of episode).
The richer the plot lines are, the happier I will be.

I simply disagree with the idea of "success is boring" for it is not. Easyness is boring. There is no interest to play a shooter in god mode.

 

[blank_redge]

I simply disagree with the idea of "success is boring" for it is not.

...meh? I suppose that becomes a semantic argument. Depends on how we want to define the parameters of "success."

If we want to define "success" as Easymode / no chance of failure, then yes, I'd agree.

If we define "success" as overcoming a challenging obstacle, I would (of course) disagree with the idea that success is boring.

 

[Sardukhar]

Well, Kilravok made it pretty clear in his original post that he's not talking about constant failure, but unpredictable success. The chance of failure is what matters. "And to keep the risk of failing alive, we need to fail occasionally, but failing should not always mean dieing and restart from last safe."

And that's what I find interesting. Where else can we go, other than fail-die-restart. Tired mechanic, really. Kil posts some interesting ideas, as well.

 

[blank_redge]

Well, Kilravok made it pretty clear in his

Her. Pay attention. ;-p

But, yes, totally agreed; I'd like to see a better mechanic than fail-die-restart.

 

[Val3ri]

But you at least expect you can fulfill the objectives of that quest.

Agreed. Players can expect that. But in a Cyberpunk enviroment, that's not guaranteed.

In fact, knowing that even if chances are 99% by your side, you might fail, is what can make the game interesting.

The point there would be that failing doesn't mean death, or the end, but simply one of the different steps within the journey.

 

[Sydanyo]

I'd like to see a better mechanic than fail-die-restart.

Fail-die-restart isn't optimal, at all.

I would personally like to see a game where the failure mechanic would be something more along the lines of "attempt - fail - move on", as in you can't and don't need to load from a save point, or attempt a quest again, or attempt an instance again, or anything like that, but instead you simply do what you do, and if you fail in it that's OK. You just move on to something else.

Obviously, the problem with this is the fact that most people want a reward for every single breath they take, for every single second they spend in a game. If then they are faced with let's say a random quest that pops up, which they then fail after spending some time (15 minutes, 30 minutes) on it, they'll feel like it was time wasted, since no variable was raised and no epics were gained.

 

[Val3ri]

Obviously, the problem with this is the fact that most people want a reward for every single breath they take, for every single second they spend in a game. If then they are faced with let's say a random quest that pops up, which they then fail after spending some time (15 minutes, 30 minutes) on it, they'll feel like it was time wasted, since no variable was raised and no epics were gained.

I agree with your whole comment.

But regarding that part, it might help if there is a system where players are rewarded for doing things (let's say, if you open a door, you improve your experience in that specific skill), and not only for finishing quests.

Success or failure could have different consequences.

But even if they fail, players can improve.

 

[onosendai7]

If we want to define "success" as Easymode / no chance of failure, then yes, I'd agree.

If we define "success" as overcoming a challenging obstacle, I would (of course) disagree with the idea that success is boring.

That is what I think.
Thanks for being clearer than I am

 

[onosendai7]

Agreed. Players can expect that. But in a Cyberpunk enviroment, that's not guaranteed.

Nothing is certain (and not only in a CP setting). Shit happens : allies are not, frendly fire isn't and lost bullets aren't. The best prepared plan do not survive the beginning of the combat

In fact, knowing that even if chances are 99% by your side, you might fail, is what can make the game interesting.

The point there would be that failing doesn't mean death, or the end, but simply one of the different steps within the journey.

"Certainty of death, *small* chance of success... What are we waiting for? " Gimli in LoTR.
You may even stage stories with 0.01% of success. And that usually lead to epic stories.
As I said, what matters is the journey.

 

[Val3ri]

Nothing is certain (and not only in a CP setting). Shit happens : allies are not, frendly fire isn't and lost bullets aren't. The best prepared plan do not survive the beginning of the combat

"Certainty of death, *small* chance of success... What are we waiting for? " Gimli in LoTR.
You may even stage stories with 0.01% of success. And that usually lead to epic stories.
As I said, what matters is the journey.

Precisely because what matters is the journey, I would like a journey where everything is considered, not one where I need success yes or yes to go on.

 

[onosendai7]

success yes or yes to go on.

Sorry, I don't get what you mean here. May you explain please ?

 

[Val3ri]

Sorry, I don't get what you mean here. May you explain please ?

Sure thing.

I would like a journey in which everything is considered, even failure. Not a journey in which being successful is compulsory in order to go ahead.

I definitely agree that every player must have chances of being successful. But if he/she is not, the story does not end there.

 

[onosendai7]

Well, I think we should define success.
As I understand it : complete the mission / quest main objective.
You may also have a quest : get the character badly wounded to have him / her comatose for 6 months and amnesic. O coourse, that quest is not presented as such. But it is impossible to complete the "official" objective : go buy some cigarettes. Sounds bad for the character but it is part of the journey and may begin a identity related quest.

In case the players screw up his quest and is left for dead in an alley, you may also use that exact quest to bring him / her back to the story. The important thing is the narrative and the development of the storytelling. What I mean by success is mandatory is that the show must go on. A simple Game Over / Try Again may do the trick, but is insatisfactory from a rp point of view. Introducing a new PC because the previous one is dead is difficult : how much does that change the story ?

This is not really a problem for a GM. It is for a video game because of the architecture otf the quests. Choices involve story-arcs. Failures may involve more story arcs. But they cannot be unlimited, as the outcomes of the quests designed by the Studio are not infinite.

Don't know if I'm very clear on this one

 

[Val3ri]

Indeed you are!

I will try to give an example, rather than lots of words.

Player: he/she has to carry secret documents from point A to point B.

a.- He manages to do so: success.
b.- He can't do that at the end (the documents are stolen, or whatever): failure.

Many times, when (a) is not possible, the player has to repeat it again and again, as without being successful, the storyline can't continue.

Now that's boring, as option A is the only possible one.

What I mean is "Hey! The storyline should continue even if the quest is failed. Failures should be part of the storyline as much as success would be, and offer consequences and a different setting. Both failure and success determine the development of a character, and both can improve its characteristics-skills".

I know there are limits, though within the story, depending on what happens, the storyline could be (at least slightly) different.

The important thing is the narrative and the development of the storytelling.

Loved that part.

PS. Yeah, perhaps what I want is too ideal. But it's simply what I would like.

 

[blank_redge]

I do like the idea that application of relevant skills goes towards leveling those skills up. That makes sense.

I like the idea of a "failure mechanic" in the game. If you don't complete whatever the objective is for your Job / Quest, there's consequences. Maybe you now owe the Mob a sum of money, or a "favor" they expect to collect on in the future. Maybe that Media set you up, and now has blackmail evidence on you. Maybe you've angered Arasaka, trying to steal that prototype next-gen ACPA, and now, they've found a suitable test for it's assault capabilities...

 

[SystemShock7]

The way I read the OP, it seems to me too black and white, sucess-failure. I prefer gray, lesser of two evils, give up this to achieve that, make me weigh the options before I make a decision type of thing... that's what I love about Witcher, and I want more of that. Success and failure (in terms of gaming today) should be somewhat irrelevant.

 

[wisdom000]

I do like the idea that application of relevant skills goes towards leveling those skills up. That makes sense.

I like the idea of a "failure mechanic" in the game. If you don't complete whatever the objective is for your Job / Quest, there's consequences. Maybe you now owe the Mob a sum of money, or a "favor" they expect to collect on in the future. Maybe that Media set you up, and now has blackmail evidence on you. Maybe you've angered Arasaka, trying to steal that prototype next-gen ACPA, and now, they've found a suitable test for it's assault capabilities...

Absolutely agreed... the more you use a skill, the better you should get at it...