   Interactions That Convey Ideas
  It seems to me that many if not most of the momentary interactions we have in the majority of computer/console games available involve instinctual responses. We pick up something because we want it. We kill something because it threatens. Nevermind that what we might be picking up may be on the body of a bloody, rotten corpse (food in Bioshock) or that what we might be killing may be just as intelligent and aware as our avatar is supposed to be.But what happens when you use an interaction to convey an idea? What happens, for instance, if you have looting in a game but also introduce the notion of desecration of the dead or true property ownership? You're still free to loot-- there are now just factors to consider that bring to life the nature of the larger world, ideas like religion or salvage rights in the looting example.I thought of this in the framework of exploring a planet and finding dead explorers. At first I thought they'd make a great source of equipment upgrades, a treasure chest as it were. But then the callousness of the idea hit me-- these would be folks like you, ostensibly having failed (maybe tragically) at what you were doing. Making them pez dispensers for gear sounded pretty jacked up without adding something to it.So aside from the fact that such details immediately complicate your job as a developer I wonder if you've really improved the game experience? There seems to be a lot of hidden (or, especially in competitive games, not so hidden) pleasure in the instinctual, animal response. See, grab, threat, kill, etc.Complicating low level interactions-- as, say, distinct from story or mission goals-- seems to be asking for a lot of processing / thinking on the player's part.Thoughts? What do you think the overall impact would be?
  Re:Interactions in single player RPG type games that I remember were not instinctive. They were quite rich in story.In the way I remember them, older games took care of the context by using proper introduction and dialog. For example, if you do come across a corpse of an explorer that you may loot, the dialog with your buddy NPCs will put the situation back into perspective. In such designs, the player character has an identity within the game, and their actions are perceived by other NPCs in the game. There was no disconnection. The player cannnot just do whatever he wants without being judged. I think the 'instinctiveness' emerges with the multi-player setting. When you become too familiar with the 'feel' of multi-player gameplay culture and try to design an RPG, you suddenly discover the absurdity the situation has become in order to make it relevant and competitive as a multiplayer game.It is as if you had just been seeing something hedious and you need to rinse your eyes before you design. The two design types seem to be fundamentally different:Single player: more emersion, more thoughts, deeper thoughts, more unique and situationalMulti player: more convenience, more instinctive, more repetitiveThe reason a player goes to a corpse and wants to loot it, is that the gameplay is so generic and predictable that he knows that the meaning of the scene is detached from the interactive structure of the game. The player assumes that conduct is irrelevant, because the player is educated in the multiplayer setting where conduct has no effect on the overall outcome. In older games, the gameplay is not generic. When a player comes to a corpse, the player does not know and cannot predict what challenges lie ahead. The player does not know the 'philosophy' of the game world and assumes the same philosophy of the real world. ;Quote:Original post by WaiThe reason a player goes to a corpse and wants to loot it, is that the gameplay is so generic and predictable that he knows that the meaning of the scene is detached from the interactive structure of the game. The player assumes that conduct is irrelevant, because the player is educated in the multiplayer setting where conduct has no effect on the overall outcome. This I think strikes to the heart of the issue. Either it's, as you say, a case of the conduct being irrelevant because it has no consequence or the amount of repetition you experience dilutes the context of the action. I don't think this is limited to multiplayer games, though. I'm finally getting a chance to play Bioshock (I'm waaaaaaay behind the curve) and I've been paying attention to how the interactions have less and less philosophical impact. In the beginning I explored the ravaged environment carefully, finding it littered with corpses and hostile lunatics, and it was hard not to be affected by some of the options given. (Eat food from a corpse? Smoke a pipe lying in a pool of blood? Gross!)But repetition took its toll and I find myself not even thinking about the ideas behind the interactions now. The corpses have become treasure chest analogues and I don't even think anymore about what my actions mean.Maybe a good way to prevent this would be to have the world judge you in some fashion, as you mentioned with NPC reactions.   ;  If you're not careful though, players will perceive the NPCs' reaction as more of a nuisance than a guilt trip. Also, if the bodies of these failed explorers are in remote locations, how will NPCs ever know what you did? A number of polar explorers have ended up eating their huskies because in that sort of setting survival (and, by extension, getting on with the mission) takes priority over the eventual moral perceptions of others.   ;Quote:Original post by Robin SAlso, if the bodies of these failed explorers are in remote locations, how will NPCs ever know what you did? A number of polar explorers have ended up eating their huskies because in that sort of setting survival (and, by extension, getting on with the mission) takes priority over the eventual moral perceptions of others.Context is everything - nobody (excepting PETA) has an issue with starving explorers eating their huskies. Most people however would have an issue with you sitting down and eating your huskie right outside the local diner...And I think this is an important point - if NPC censure is just a game mechanic to prevent looting, then the player will regard it as such, and you might as well just not have looting. If an action is taboo, it needs to be available in contexts where it is acceptable, or at least ignored, for the taboo to have any practical meaning.   