Dear terrablade, are you part of the development team?
anyway back to what brought down the aurora. ancient civilization long gone now there world is under water. I can think of two good ideas for what happed to the aurora. one: ancient weapons platform, very old decaying installation. I see like it being in a very deep sea trench, dome like structure with ancient pillars and city towers that circle the dome. strange energy field protects it( another use for diamonds to construct laser to open small portal through energy field. past that something similar to get into the ancient outpost. make it badly damaged with all kinds of dangers inside to extreme radiation( maybe player needs hardcore radiation suit) to extreme temperature fluxes. created by the installations own ancient power source or thermal. you can add lava by dome or something crazy. OR a ancient installation power generator created by the long dead civilization to by there permanent solution to there energy needs. but it does not work.. messing with the planets atmosphere and magnetic fields. Turning the alien planet into a mostly large body of ocean. dooming a once powerful ancient civilization. you can even throw in alien artifacts, technologies, and bones. and even incorporate this into the aurora. like my past posts, you can get the aurora out of the water bring power and the AI back online. but its not enough... the Aurora needs a power source of great magnitude in order to escape the atmosphere of this very alien world. you can even give the installation offensive and defensive capabilities. or creatures that offer that.. say a leviathan nest. you can have a lot of fun with this world
See, I do like the idea of being able to find various story elements and bits of lore, and finding out what shot down the Aurora would be cool. But I still don't want an ending. I just feel like having some sort of final end would narrow the focus of the game to much. I want players to be able to decide what they want to do on their own. No matter how many story options and alternate endings you put in, there will still be finite possibilitys. But if you leave it up to players, then it will never get old.
My view on storyline has changed multiple times on the course of this conversation. It's been thrilling; good arguments everywhere. A few more thoughts then...
I believe it might also be worthwhile to address this in terms of developer resources. A game is also meant to make money, and that is one of the things that define the process of making a game. A story is central to this game, and how they do it will also have an effect on future possibilities. For the sake of conversation I will assume the following possibilities:
1.) The game is released with an awesome storyline that eventually ends in a way that is final. After the main plot is completed the player does not really have a purpose in the world. He either flies off or will establish a colony with other Alterra operatives or something just as final (this part is just speculation).
Now as I'm not really invested in the economics of making a game, I can't really be sure what this would mean. I'm prone to think that it may have a negative effect on replayability and lifetime of the game, but then theres always the possibility that the game is just that awesome that people want to play it again a few times; especially if you can "complete" the game in a large variety of ways. This game certainly has that potential.
2.) The game is released with an awesome storyline that reaches a "half ending". When this is reached the player has accomplished something important, like contacting Alterra corp or so. The player however is not "done" with the planet storywise.
Here's a danger that @TerraBlade mentioned. A half-assed ending that does not satisfy the player, even if it would make sense storywise. Theres also another possibility; the half ending is a successful cliffhanger that tickles the curiosity of the player. That might open a possibility for the devs to eventually produce a sequel, that utilizes the same game mechanics and resources that are already there.
3.) The game is released with a tickling, but limited storyline. Emphasis is then more on the open world or "sandbox" experience, and the player does not really have a given objective to aspire towards.
In the best scenario the player is given the means to truly make his way in the world, which might add to replayability and game time. In the worst case the player has no sense of purpose and when everything has been thoroughly researched and explored, the player may not feel as if he has accomplished anything. In a way that COULD make sense storywise; you're stranded, and no one is coming to get you. Although it might be quite frustrating to realize this after a good 60 hours of gameplay.
So what do you guys think would be the best way? I'm sure we all would love a developer view as well.
See, I do like the idea of being able to find various story elements and bits of lore, and finding out what shot down the Aurora would be cool. But I still don't want an ending. I just feel like having some sort of final end would narrow the focus of the game to much. I want players to be able to decide what they want to do on their own. No matter how many story options and alternate endings you put in, there will still be finite possibilitys. But if you leave it up to players, then it will never get old.
So you want to be able to find out what happened...but not end up doing anything about it? That is saying you want conflict, you want intrigue, you just want nothing to resolve it. Personally I would find that maddening. I also have to point out that not resolving anything is in itself a finite possibility, and while some might enjoy sitting around the forums tossing out fan explanations to the story most won't.
'All roads lead to Rome', and eventually all gamers will get tired of the game. But give players the ability to mix it up, where they feel rewarded for being 'clever' to solve the problems laid before them, and you will have a stronger playerbase and community. This is why games like Payday still have strong community even with the limited number of maps, because there were multiple ways each map could play out.
All a story is, at the most basic level, is challenges before a character and how the character overcomes or fails to overcome those challenges. To not ask for a story, or a finite ending, is to basically not ask for a challenging game. In this case I really don't see how you can have your cake and eat it too. Because either there are challenges set up by the devs for us to overcome, including a climax and thus reach an end of the trials; or we don't have any challenges and thus no conflict to overcome. Which, incidentally, is about where the game is now...and people are clamoring for more.
The challenge of a sandbox survival game should be to survive. Once you have that under control, the challenge becomes building and exploring. Also, I think it would be good for the story if you found out what shot down the Aurora and you could not do anything about it. It would enhance the certainty that no one is coming to save you, and that you will have to make your way on your own. Of course, with the general theory that the Aurora was shot down by some sort of planetary cannon, then the ruins that it is in could contain some useful tech, and plenty of lore. You do have a point about the current system being that you have to go to different places to get materials you need, but in the current system, you still have the freedom to do that when you want, or not at all, if you feel like it. If you have some sort of main quest that you have to complete, then a player will feel like they are being forced to do that, at a certain time, in a certain order.
No. What you are describing is a linear story. Not an organic, story driven sandbox. There is no debate about how crappy linear stories are.
If the challenge is to survive, then what do you do once you have reached everything you need to survive? Once there is no more areas to explore, and you have pretty much build all there is to build?
The challenge of a sandbox survival game should be to survive. Once you have that under control, the challenge becomes building and exploring. Also, I think it would be good for the story if you found out what shot down the Aurora and you could not do anything about it. It would enhance the certainty that no one is coming to save you, and that you will have to make your way on your own. Of course, with the general theory that the Aurora was shot down by some sort of planetary cannon, then the ruins that it is in could contain some useful tech, and plenty of lore. You do have a point about the current system being that you have to go to different places to get materials you need, but in the current system, you still have the freedom to do that when you want, or not at all, if you feel like it. If you have some sort of main quest that you have to complete, then a player will feel like they are being forced to do that, at a certain time, in a certain order.
Have you not listened to what I have been saying? You don't have to have a linear goal system to tell a story, in fact games are unique in how you can flat out avoid this if you wish unlike other mediums. As example Raven210 stated the goals could be to fix the Aurora. This does NOT mean that you must do one thing before doing another, and if the devs implemented such a system they would be smart not to. Say you are working on the comms and during the course of that you stumble upon the wreckage that might lead to getting into the Captain's room, which you might need because you hit a block in accessing restricted tech files from the science lab. You could toss out a buoy and come back later, choose to go back to working on the lab, or maybe go back to base and continue researching or working on some other part of the ship. All of which are organic choices in YOUR story to fix the ship.
Nobody has asked, or stated, that the story itself needs to be linear. The only statement, or rather question, is in what the form of the overall objective will be? Because yes there needs to be a goal, you want things to explore, which means places to go and things to do. In a static map, you WILL eventually run out of things to explore at which point...what then? Just closing the game, uninstalling it, and loading the next escapism world to enter just seems a waste of the game's potential. There probably will be, and should be, some overall objective to reach for which to which you 'win' the survival experience. What form should this take? That was the original question.
For me, the overarching question is, 'why did we crash and why am I the only survivor?' Right there you have mystery, exploration, discovery, and survival all ready for a story to take shape. Does it mean we need the character narrating his/her thoughts to us? No. But the mystery is there and can be taken as you wish, or even potentially not if you feel survival and escape should be the higher priority. Personally I would absolutely love ancient alien structures of a bygone age to discover and explore (maybe even with traps to overcome) that tell the potentially tragic end to an entire civilization. Maybe the origins and purpose of the device that brought down the Aurora, all told in scan-able locations that we might need to recover/build tech in our seabase to decode. Heck I would even be willing to pay for DLC that expanded the concept further with other ancient dangers and locations to explore across the planet.
So you see exploration, discovery, and survival can all be enhanced with a story that has an end. The key is how it is implemented, and you apparently don't want a linear implementation. Neither do I, so we at least agree on that. But without some idea of the overall endgame goal, how can either of us give an informed opinion to the devs?
Fair enough, but I still feel like I don't want an ending, simply because I want to make my own goals, not have the game tell me what I should be ultimately working towards, even if their are multiple paths to it. And I also don't want an ending that removes all the progress I made. You mention that sandboxes without goals get old, but minecraft has yet to get old for me. Especially if you use mods, which I really hope will be in the game. I want story elements, just not an ending.
DmandomElliot Lake OnJoin Date: 2015-05-29Member: 205029Members
I think the endgame would not exist instead you would escape the planet then you could travel to other planets and get gear like in Starbound but you can always go back to the planet you started on and maybe the reason the Aurora crashed was cause some other ship shot it down (or someone went over and fus ro dahed it) so then the game wouldn't end but when you come back to the planet you first crashed on more creatures would be there like idk maybe a big giant squid the size of the Aurora that you could explore inside like in Wow With Vashjr and those giant squids near abyssal depths and shimmering expanse cause in one quest you go in the one near abyssal (as I remember I don't play Wow anymore) and yeah and then the creatures would be mutated cause of radiation from them biting your bases (cause maybe there would be a nuclear powered generator) for example the sea emperors would be those giant squids I spoke of. After that it's fun exploration!
It seems to me that Subnautica lends itself well to a 3-branched progression - zoology , archaeology and starship repair. While scavenging and crafting would tie to some of their requirements , the challenges should continue independently if possible.
Ruins with puzzles and intelligent guardians , deep wreckages with sneaky surprises and pack hunters , and shy creatures that would take patience and cunning to record on camera. Completionists would of course try to do all 3 , but with the right design players wouldn't feel required to complete a part they don't like. For instance , creature study would be a welcome change if you felt bored with scavenging. Deep diving would require some hardware , but it would be a means to an end and thus give a sense of purpose to whatever scavenging is required. But you could instead focus on the more freeform base building and terraforming.
Of course , fully fleshing out those 3 branches (especially with creature AI for believable zoological study) would take a lot of work. I don't know how much is already planned , but Subnautica always struck me as a "big" game anyway.
Again, why would having a concrete end be bad for the game's exploration?
Well, it wouldn't really be bad for exploration, it'd be bad for the survival and building aspect, like @sayerulz said. The devs have already created moonpools and glass corridors, and are working on generic corridors that open a world of endless base possibilities, and that's when the building and sandbox aspect of the game will really become apparent.
And actually, Skyrim and other games like it aren't sandbox games, they're open world games, which is a big difference. It's unfair to compare Subnautica to games of a different genre and gameplay design the way you did, because they're just nothing alike. Skyrim centers a lot around combat, you use combat to kill enemies, gain more currency, and unlock new loot, and that would absolutely kill Subnautica, so for the sake of discussion it's best to not compare the two. It's much more fair to compare Subnautica to a game like Minecraft, because they're extremely similar in game design. There's a massive, unexplored world, you have to eat and protect yourself to survive, you can build structures and vehicles that help you get around, and while there are things you can kill, combat isn't the focus of the game, but rather an option that you can take to remove of an immediate threat or to gain a specific resource.
I think THIS is the very reason why many sandox FAIL in the end. They are interesting while the novelty of discovery is present, but as soon as you start to get accustomed to the lay of the land, it gets boring because there is no story, nothing DRIVING you.
I highly disagree with this, particularly because sandbox games have always done extremely well, and the people who play them (like me) have gotten hundreds, if not thousands of hours of enjoyment out of them.
A sandbox only means that the game lets you do whatever you want in the order you want.
This is where a lot of people get confused, that is not what a sandbox game is, what you just explained is an open world game. A sandbox game is a game that lets you be the creator of your own destiny, and revolves around creativity with building and molding the world.
Skyrim is an open world game, Assassins creed is an open world game. Minecraft is a sandbox, Terraria is a sandbox, and I really do think Subnautica should stay on its current course of being a sandbox. NOT an open world RPG with an ending.
Are you saying you would NOT lose interest if there were NO main story at all?
I wouldn't. There are plenty of people who don't like playing games for the story. It's the same reason I don't like reading fiction, and why I don't like watching movies; I don't like hearing other people's stories. They bore me, and I just don't care, I'd MUCH rather create my own story, and sandbox games let me do that. Subnautica would be one of the first sandboxes that I can think of that is both 3d and uses normal graphics (other than garry's mod), and the fact that it has no story lets me create my own story WHILE I play the game. The less story a game has, the more you can fill in with your own creative juices, and I have a LOT of creative juices.
And, I honestly mean this in a non-offensive way, I really don't want to come off as rude, but from looking at some of your other posts, I really don't think you know what sandbox means. Open world games are ones in which you do whatever you want when you want, but they have a story and lore and quests/missions, sandboxes are games are the exact same thing, except they have no story at all, and they center around creating things. Think about what a sandbox is in real life, it's a box of sand in which you use tools (toys) to build things and create your own little story. A sandbox game is exactly that, it places you somewhere, gives you a terrain, and the tools to mold that terrain into whatever you want, and collect resources to build things.
That's exactly what Subnautica is, that's what the devs identify it as, and I hope that's how it stays. There can be progression, there can be missions, and there can be an endgame, but I'd really hate for there to be a conclusive end. It would completely DESTROY the point of spending hours on building big impressive seabases and other things like that, in the end it wouldn't matter how you made your seabase, what you did and how you did it, any of that, it would all be over.
It might even be a winning strategy not to have and endgame at all.
I cannot disagree more strongly.
No endgame at all is not a winning strategy, it's one way to make sure the game will be quickly forgetten once you get bored with it.
The millions of people who have played and still play minecraft disagree =P
I think ultimately your looking at it wrong. Minecraft exists as a world without purpose, allowing the player to move about, but there is no point to existence. Knowing the difference between sandbox and Open world games, the differences are actually slight, but definitely noticeable. Both revolve on progressions however. Having a story that plays in the back, creative areas hidden in dark caves and hidden places. Finding the story is one method, learning the world. More people play for story then those who don't care, and this game already has a story started. The fact that your just the first ship as well already supersedes that this is just some sandbox. Sandboxes ultimately are forgotten. Making your own story doesn't always work, and gives no incentive to keep on going, to keep you playing, long after. I much rather experience a breathing world where it does not focus on me.
Pressure to learn and explore the disaster of your ship should exist. Hell, I know it would in real life, and for our guy, it would for him too. Sandboxes ultimately are generic. The same thing done here can be done easily elsewhere. No matter what happens, you will leave no footprint, and will always forget it. It's better instead to fill the world with story and events that trigger if you go places. For example, you might trigger the coming of the Emperor when you find and destroy the thing that killed your friends on the Aurora. or maybe after you explore the aurora, you start picking up signals from pods elsewhere. Games like Skyrim and such count as sandboxes in the sense that you do have freedom of choice what you do, even if they are also open world games. One is not mutually exclusive of the other. I rather make a story, but eventually I wish to conclude a great chapter with something other then "New Game". There is no fulfillment. There is no love or care for the character. I want him to get out alive, but how? What must I do? These are questions the majority of players wish to ask. Appeal to both sides, don't exclude a very likely very well made story because of a fear of it being linear. Make it's components randomize through the world. Encourage sandbox, but don't deny the rest of us the satisfaction of knowing either.
Fair enough, but I still feel like I don't want an ending, simply because I want to make my own goals, not have the game tell me what I should be ultimately working towards, even if their are multiple paths to it. And I also don't want an ending that removes all the progress I made. You mention that sandboxes without goals get old, but minecraft has yet to get old for me. Especially if you use mods, which I really hope will be in the game. I want story elements, just not an ending.
Well it did get old or you would have not gotten mods. While I do enjoy mods for games, they are a way to make a game fresh again and are like community driven free DLC. I don't see how you can possibly have story elements and not have an ending. Story IS progression and progression eventually must end.
However I think the Aurora is a bit big for one person to fly. Then again if we took one of our subs, maybe one of our bigger ones, and it became a job to convert it to an aquatic capable spaceship...that could be fun (and a reason for building a larger ship to begin with).
Imagine this not only capable of carrying more stuff...but it be your spaceship!
Why would a story need to end? You can find out what shot down the Aurora, find stuff about a lost civilization on this planet, whatever. But that dose not mean that it has to lead to a definitive ending. It can just be cool stuff to find. Also, my point about mods is that if they are in the game, then there will always be something to keep it fresh.
Why would a story need to end? You can find out what shot down the Aurora, find stuff about a lost civilization on this planet, whatever. But that dose not mean that it has to lead to a definitive ending. It can just be cool stuff to find. Also, my point about mods is that if they are in the game, then there will always be something to keep it fresh.
But again, if you just have conflict and things to find with no resolution...how is that a story? All stories must eventually end, all chapters must finish. Just because it is definitive doesn't mean that the story can't continue in other ways either. All I said was that there needs to be a hard finish to the story, but there are games with stories that end that don't end the game itself. Bethesda games for example, I don't usually find them fully satisfying, but they are stories that have a definitive end but not an end to gameplay. Even the Mass Effect games, the second two in particular, put you back on the Normandy after the credits roll.
If their must be an end, at least make it an optional gamemode. I still would rater have a minecraft style sandbox, that gives the player maximum freedom.
So far the survivor is the only human on the planet. I would probaly go insane if it were me. What if the suit computer or whatever the thing that warns us about our oxygen levels and etc. assisinged tasks to the survivor to keep his mind. It suit computer could be following established guidelines to keep the survivor safe.
Such tasks could be scientific study on the lifeforms and the initial World itself. It could also be to find out what caused the Aurora to crash and what can be done to prevent it from happening Again (colony ships). Lastly the final goal could also be about escaping the alien world the Aurora crashlanded on. I know i certainly wouldnt want to stay in a world like that if i had the means to escape.
I do believe that having some kind of story goal in the game would benefit subnautica but it should not retrain the player.
Such tasks could be scientific study on the lifeforms and the initial World itself. It could also be to find out what caused the Aurora to crash and what can be done to prevent it from happening Again (colony ships). Lastly the final goal could also be about escaping the alien world the Aurora crashlanded on. I know i certainly wouldnt want to stay in a world like that if i had the means to escape.
I like the idea that you were on the Aurora initially because you are a scientist and it's your job to study this world for a possible colonization.
So in your PDA you already have some tasks listed as part of your scientific job.
Now you are stranded and alone, trying to survive; but would the surviving scientist give up on his job? Of course not. I'd say - just like you - that his job would probably keep him sane. So he might think, what the hell, might as well make the most of it and do my job as if I will be rescued soon; and in doing so i might also learn more about this world in case I am stuck here for a long time...
That's my thinking, Conscioussoul. To prevent the onset of insanity there needs to be a task or hard objective. Infinity causes insanity. Stakhanov said earlier about a 3 pronged goal involving Zoology, Archaeology, and Starship Repair. This sounds like a PERFECT way to utilize this game (as developed thus far) as well as give the player a sense of purpose.
All stories must eventually end, all chapters must finish. Just because it is definitive doesn't mean that the story can't continue in other ways either. All I said was that there needs to be a hard finish to the story, but there are games with stories that end that don't end the game itself. Bethesda games for example, I don't usually find them fully satisfying, but they are stories that have a definitive end but not an end to gameplay. Even the Mass Effect games, the second two in particular, put you back on the Normandy after the credits roll.
Again, implementation is the trick.
If I understood you correctly then...
This is sort of what I hope that the devs will do with Subnauticas first release. A good non-linear story with an ending that does not erase the possibility for a sequel/dlc:s and such. I speculate that this game has potential for more than just one release.
It seems to me that Subnautica lends itself well to a 3-branched progression - zoology , archaeology and starship repair. While scavenging and crafting would tie to some of their requirements , the challenges should continue independently if possible.
Ruins with puzzles and intelligent guardians , deep wreckages with sneaky surprises and pack hunters , and shy creatures that would take patience and cunning to record on camera. Completionists would of course try to do all 3 , but with the right design players wouldn't feel required to complete a part they don't like. For instance , creature study would be a welcome change if you felt bored with scavenging. Deep diving would require some hardware , but it would be a means to an end and thus give a sense of purpose to whatever scavenging is required. But you could instead focus on the more freeform base building and terraforming.
Of course , fully fleshing out those 3 branches (especially with creature AI for believable zoological study) would take a lot of work. I don't know how much is already planned , but Subnautica always struck me as a "big" game anyway.
It seems to me that Subnautica lends itself well to a 3-branched progression - zoology , archaeology and starship repair. While scavenging and crafting would tie to some of their requirements , the challenges should continue independently if possible.
Ruins with puzzles and intelligent guardians , deep wreckages with sneaky surprises and pack hunters , and shy creatures that would take patience and cunning to record on camera. Completionists would of course try to do all 3 , but with the right design players wouldn't feel required to complete a part they don't like. For instance , creature study would be a welcome change if you felt bored with scavenging. Deep diving would require some hardware , but it would be a means to an end and thus give a sense of purpose to whatever scavenging is required. But you could instead focus on the more freeform base building and terraforming.
Of course , fully fleshing out those 3 branches (especially with creature AI for believable zoological study) would take a lot of work. I don't know how much is already planned , but Subnautica always struck me as a "big" game anyway.
Awesome! I really like the idea. It's kinda the ultimate choose your own adventure.
I played over 500 hours on terraria. It got old. Niw they are developping a story based terraria.
I played 400 hours on spaceengineers. It got old.
Everything gets old at some point, and thrn you just stop playing... How is that better?
Not everyone is like you, some people don't get tired of things without stories.
Most people do, and that is the point. While there is nothing against being able to be sustained on one's own imagination there is also nothing wrong with wanting more structure.
All stories must eventually end, all chapters must finish. Just because it is definitive doesn't mean that the story can't continue in other ways either. All I said was that there needs to be a hard finish to the story, but there are games with stories that end that don't end the game itself. Bethesda games for example, I don't usually find them fully satisfying, but they are stories that have a definitive end but not an end to gameplay. Even the Mass Effect games, the second two in particular, put you back on the Normandy after the credits roll.
Again, implementation is the trick.
If I understood you correctly then...
This is sort of what I hope that the devs will do with Subnauticas first release. A good non-linear story with an ending that does not erase the possibility for a sequel/dlc:s and such. I speculate that this game has potential for more than just one release.
Yes. I'm not saying that the game needs to in itself end, though I feel that might be the best way to end the story. But whatever the story is it in itself needs to have a good solid endgame and ending even if it ends up with you being able to continue driving around the ocean in your subs. However if further DLC picked up where the original story left off with new locations and/or threats to deal with...then such an ending works in my opinion. However if that DLC isn't coming or the ending doesn't stand on it's own while Unknown Worlds moves on to other projects then we would be forever left with an unsatisfying ending that would forever tarnish the game.
My view on storyline has changed multiple times on the course of this conversation. It's been thrilling; good arguments everywhere. A few more thoughts then...
@Reefseeker I am glad that the arguments have reach such high quality! It was indeed quite an enriching thread. I really hope the devs will read it!
I believe it might also be worthwhile to address this in terms of developer resources. A game is also meant to make money, and that is one of the things that define the process of making a game. A story is central to this game, and how they do it will also have an effect on future possibilities.
Yes, the resources required to build a compelling story - especially a non linear open-world story - is much, much larger. It requires some staff with storytelling skills, like a writer (or you need to hire someone for that), and it's not a skill given to everyone.
Also, once you decide to go on the story-driven open world mode, it is the story that will drive what the game needs to be doing, from a technical point of view. For instance, if the story is about finding a sentient being at the bottom of the deeper depth of the ocean (a la 'the Abyss') you have to think about how to program a creature that would act sentient, which means AI, communication tools, etc.
The more creativity and funky stuff the story writers imagine, and the more complex the programming may become. Story-driven sand-boxes are HARD to make and they are going to need a
lot of efforts. But the benefits are also huge! I'll use some examples
from the BEST games that made the top-10 of all times for video games, below
For the sake of conversation I will assume the following possibilities:
1.) The game is released with an awesome storyline that eventually ends in a way that is final. After the main plot is completed the player does not really have a purpose in the world. He either flies off or will establish a colony with other Alterra operatives or something just as final (this part is just speculation).
Now as I'm not really invested in the economics of making a game, I can't really be sure what this would mean. I'm prone to think that it may have a negative effect on replayability and lifetime of the game
Replayability
On the contrary, option 1 is the best for replayability, providing that the story is not linear.
The best story-driven games are integrating elements of open-world
and non-linear story. That means you can replay the game several times,
and make different choices each time, and enjoy the game in a different
light. You can also purposely chose or ignore certain story path, and
chose your goals, within the frameset prepared for the story. Unlike
storyless games, you aren't left with difficulty as your only
replayability option.
Look for instance at KOTOR (Knight of the
Old Republic): you can chose to play your character as a bad guy heading
toward the dark side, or as a light jedi. And any combination
of both is possible; it's a "karma" indicator that changes based on your
story choices. As you do that, so does the story you experience. More replayability means more hours of play, more references, more people telling other people to buy that game, etc.
Multiple endings
If the game is done right, then several endings
can be reached and depends on the various path you have chosen in your
story. These path might become only apparant at the end, or it may be
influenced by a series of choices made during the whole game. Each
possible ending means you will want to start over the game and try to
reach a different outcome through different choices.
Look
for instance at Deus Ex, which has been game of the year and seriously
one the very best game ever written! In that game, you play a
nano-enhanced agent working for the government. But as you advance
through the story, you start realizing that you were not told many
things and that you may be fighting on the wrong side. The beauty of the
story is that you get to a point where, litterally, you can chose to
betray your current side on purpose, deviate from the "intended" mission
being given to you, and turn your weapon to your employer. I couldn't
BELIEVE IT when I tried that and was rewarded with a story that took it
into account and went from there. I remember (and will remember all my
life) the feeling of "Oh my god what have I done.. wait.. THEY THOUGHT
OF THAT?!?" There are multiple places you can do this in the game
actually, because yes, they thought of that. It flips the entier story
around. It took me several attemps and replay to realize the game
cleverly brings tou to THINK you made that decision all by yourself, but
if you don't, several other story paths will eventually lead you to
join the resistance. A masterpiece.
Dealing with ethical dilemmas
The best game ever are the games
where nothing is black or white. As you discover the story, you realize
bad guys aren't that bad, good guys aren't that good, and each choice
you make as consequences and is not that simple. Are we to colonize this
world or respect its sentient beings? None of these choices are
perfect. But that's rich and powerful.
Forever
engraved in your memory
When was the last time you played a game that
you remembered 20 years down the road, or replayed even when the game is
so outdated it barely plays anymore on your modern computer? This
RARELY happens with 99% of the games out there. But can you still
remember some of the most powerful books or movies ever, even 20 years
later? I know I do. Shogun (james clavel) or Dune (frank herbert) are
masterpieces. It's all in the story! In most cases the most amazing games have a compelling story.
Star
control II is one of these (old, yes it shows my age) game that
redefined the whole genre and actually opened the way for story-driven
sand boxes. It's been 20+ years and I still play the game. The fans
created a sequel; a whole project opened and successfully remade the
whole game for modern computer; a genious artist re-created over 1000
images, free, just to make it alive again on recent computers (it's now
called The Ur-Quan masters if you want to look it up!)
Futur DLC
Ordinary
storyless (or with weak stories) sandbox can only offer DLC based on
new programming material: more equipment... more blocs to build with.
Which costs a lot and needs to be attract enough fans to be worth it.
But
story-driven sandboxes are awesome for this: once all the technical
elements are in place, you have your work cut out for you when you want
to design a sequel, all you need to do is make sure the ending leaves
space for an encore.
2.) The game is released with an awesome storyline that reaches a "half ending". When this is reached the player has accomplished something important, like contacting Alterra corp or so. The player however is not "done" with the planet storywise. Here's a danger that @TerraBlade mentioned. A half-assed ending that does not satisfy the player, even if it would make sense storywise. Theres also another possibility; the half ending is a successful cliffhanger that tickles the curiosity of the player. That might open a possibility for the devs to eventually produce a sequel, that utilizes the same game mechanics and resources that are already there.
I think option 1 and 2 are very similar, if done right, in the sens that nothing prevents player from returning to their world and continue "off story" after the credits line. Narrative can easily be found as part of multiple endings to justify why the player decide to stay behind in his new home...
3.) The game is released with a tickling, but limited storyline. Emphasis is then more on the open world or "sandbox" experience, and the player does not really have a given objective to aspire towards. In the best scenario the player is given the means to truly make his way in the world, which might add to replayability and game time. In the worst case the player has no sense of purpose and when everything has been thoroughly researched and explored, the player may not feel as if he has accomplished anything. In a way that COULD make sense storywise; you're stranded, and no one is coming to get you. Although it might be quite frustrating to realize this after a good 60 hours of gameplay.
I don't think this adds replayability. On the contrary, I strongly believe that pure, story-less sandboxes encourages you to stay in the same game as long as you aren't bored but once you are, there are simply no benefit what so ever in restarting a new game, since you have seen everything and tried everything there is to see and try.
Comments
anyway back to what brought down the aurora. ancient civilization long gone now there world is under water. I can think of two good ideas for what happed to the aurora. one: ancient weapons platform, very old decaying installation. I see like it being in a very deep sea trench, dome like structure with ancient pillars and city towers that circle the dome. strange energy field protects it( another use for diamonds to construct laser to open small portal through energy field. past that something similar to get into the ancient outpost. make it badly damaged with all kinds of dangers inside to extreme radiation( maybe player needs hardcore radiation suit) to extreme temperature fluxes. created by the installations own ancient power source or thermal. you can add lava by dome or something crazy. OR a ancient installation power generator created by the long dead civilization to by there permanent solution to there energy needs. but it does not work.. messing with the planets atmosphere and magnetic fields. Turning the alien planet into a mostly large body of ocean. dooming a once powerful ancient civilization. you can even throw in alien artifacts, technologies, and bones. and even incorporate this into the aurora. like my past posts, you can get the aurora out of the water bring power and the AI back online. but its not enough... the Aurora needs a power source of great magnitude in order to escape the atmosphere of this very alien world. you can even give the installation offensive and defensive capabilities. or creatures that offer that.. say a leviathan nest. you can have a lot of fun with this world
I played 400 hours on spaceengineers. It got old.
Everything gets old at some point, and thrn you just stop playing... How is that better?
I believe it might also be worthwhile to address this in terms of developer resources. A game is also meant to make money, and that is one of the things that define the process of making a game. A story is central to this game, and how they do it will also have an effect on future possibilities. For the sake of conversation I will assume the following possibilities:
1.) The game is released with an awesome storyline that eventually ends in a way that is final. After the main plot is completed the player does not really have a purpose in the world. He either flies off or will establish a colony with other Alterra operatives or something just as final (this part is just speculation).
Now as I'm not really invested in the economics of making a game, I can't really be sure what this would mean. I'm prone to think that it may have a negative effect on replayability and lifetime of the game, but then theres always the possibility that the game is just that awesome that people want to play it again a few times; especially if you can "complete" the game in a large variety of ways. This game certainly has that potential.
2.) The game is released with an awesome storyline that reaches a "half ending". When this is reached the player has accomplished something important, like contacting Alterra corp or so. The player however is not "done" with the planet storywise.
Here's a danger that @TerraBlade mentioned. A half-assed ending that does not satisfy the player, even if it would make sense storywise. Theres also another possibility; the half ending is a successful cliffhanger that tickles the curiosity of the player. That might open a possibility for the devs to eventually produce a sequel, that utilizes the same game mechanics and resources that are already there.
3.) The game is released with a tickling, but limited storyline. Emphasis is then more on the open world or "sandbox" experience, and the player does not really have a given objective to aspire towards.
In the best scenario the player is given the means to truly make his way in the world, which might add to replayability and game time. In the worst case the player has no sense of purpose and when everything has been thoroughly researched and explored, the player may not feel as if he has accomplished anything. In a way that COULD make sense storywise; you're stranded, and no one is coming to get you. Although it might be quite frustrating to realize this after a good 60 hours of gameplay.
So what do you guys think would be the best way? I'm sure we all would love a developer view as well.
So you want to be able to find out what happened...but not end up doing anything about it? That is saying you want conflict, you want intrigue, you just want nothing to resolve it. Personally I would find that maddening. I also have to point out that not resolving anything is in itself a finite possibility, and while some might enjoy sitting around the forums tossing out fan explanations to the story most won't.
'All roads lead to Rome', and eventually all gamers will get tired of the game. But give players the ability to mix it up, where they feel rewarded for being 'clever' to solve the problems laid before them, and you will have a stronger playerbase and community. This is why games like Payday still have strong community even with the limited number of maps, because there were multiple ways each map could play out.
All a story is, at the most basic level, is challenges before a character and how the character overcomes or fails to overcome those challenges. To not ask for a story, or a finite ending, is to basically not ask for a challenging game. In this case I really don't see how you can have your cake and eat it too. Because either there are challenges set up by the devs for us to overcome, including a climax and thus reach an end of the trials; or we don't have any challenges and thus no conflict to overcome. Which, incidentally, is about where the game is now...and people are clamoring for more.
If the challenge is to survive, then what do you do once you have reached everything you need to survive? Once there is no more areas to explore, and you have pretty much build all there is to build?
Have you not listened to what I have been saying? You don't have to have a linear goal system to tell a story, in fact games are unique in how you can flat out avoid this if you wish unlike other mediums. As example Raven210 stated the goals could be to fix the Aurora. This does NOT mean that you must do one thing before doing another, and if the devs implemented such a system they would be smart not to. Say you are working on the comms and during the course of that you stumble upon the wreckage that might lead to getting into the Captain's room, which you might need because you hit a block in accessing restricted tech files from the science lab. You could toss out a buoy and come back later, choose to go back to working on the lab, or maybe go back to base and continue researching or working on some other part of the ship. All of which are organic choices in YOUR story to fix the ship.
Nobody has asked, or stated, that the story itself needs to be linear. The only statement, or rather question, is in what the form of the overall objective will be? Because yes there needs to be a goal, you want things to explore, which means places to go and things to do. In a static map, you WILL eventually run out of things to explore at which point...what then? Just closing the game, uninstalling it, and loading the next escapism world to enter just seems a waste of the game's potential. There probably will be, and should be, some overall objective to reach for which to which you 'win' the survival experience. What form should this take? That was the original question.
For me, the overarching question is, 'why did we crash and why am I the only survivor?' Right there you have mystery, exploration, discovery, and survival all ready for a story to take shape. Does it mean we need the character narrating his/her thoughts to us? No. But the mystery is there and can be taken as you wish, or even potentially not if you feel survival and escape should be the higher priority. Personally I would absolutely love ancient alien structures of a bygone age to discover and explore (maybe even with traps to overcome) that tell the potentially tragic end to an entire civilization. Maybe the origins and purpose of the device that brought down the Aurora, all told in scan-able locations that we might need to recover/build tech in our seabase to decode. Heck I would even be willing to pay for DLC that expanded the concept further with other ancient dangers and locations to explore across the planet.
So you see exploration, discovery, and survival can all be enhanced with a story that has an end. The key is how it is implemented, and you apparently don't want a linear implementation. Neither do I, so we at least agree on that. But without some idea of the overall endgame goal, how can either of us give an informed opinion to the devs?
Ruins with puzzles and intelligent guardians , deep wreckages with sneaky surprises and pack hunters , and shy creatures that would take patience and cunning to record on camera. Completionists would of course try to do all 3 , but with the right design players wouldn't feel required to complete a part they don't like. For instance , creature study would be a welcome change if you felt bored with scavenging. Deep diving would require some hardware , but it would be a means to an end and thus give a sense of purpose to whatever scavenging is required. But you could instead focus on the more freeform base building and terraforming.
Of course , fully fleshing out those 3 branches (especially with creature AI for believable zoological study) would take a lot of work. I don't know how much is already planned , but Subnautica always struck me as a "big" game anyway.
I think ultimately your looking at it wrong. Minecraft exists as a world without purpose, allowing the player to move about, but there is no point to existence. Knowing the difference between sandbox and Open world games, the differences are actually slight, but definitely noticeable. Both revolve on progressions however. Having a story that plays in the back, creative areas hidden in dark caves and hidden places. Finding the story is one method, learning the world. More people play for story then those who don't care, and this game already has a story started. The fact that your just the first ship as well already supersedes that this is just some sandbox. Sandboxes ultimately are forgotten. Making your own story doesn't always work, and gives no incentive to keep on going, to keep you playing, long after. I much rather experience a breathing world where it does not focus on me.
Pressure to learn and explore the disaster of your ship should exist. Hell, I know it would in real life, and for our guy, it would for him too. Sandboxes ultimately are generic. The same thing done here can be done easily elsewhere. No matter what happens, you will leave no footprint, and will always forget it. It's better instead to fill the world with story and events that trigger if you go places. For example, you might trigger the coming of the Emperor when you find and destroy the thing that killed your friends on the Aurora. or maybe after you explore the aurora, you start picking up signals from pods elsewhere. Games like Skyrim and such count as sandboxes in the sense that you do have freedom of choice what you do, even if they are also open world games. One is not mutually exclusive of the other. I rather make a story, but eventually I wish to conclude a great chapter with something other then "New Game". There is no fulfillment. There is no love or care for the character. I want him to get out alive, but how? What must I do? These are questions the majority of players wish to ask. Appeal to both sides, don't exclude a very likely very well made story because of a fear of it being linear. Make it's components randomize through the world. Encourage sandbox, but don't deny the rest of us the satisfaction of knowing either.
Well it did get old or you would have not gotten mods. While I do enjoy mods for games, they are a way to make a game fresh again and are like community driven free DLC. I don't see how you can possibly have story elements and not have an ending. Story IS progression and progression eventually must end.
Oy, I used ya as a point for an argument silly.
However I think the Aurora is a bit big for one person to fly. Then again if we took one of our subs, maybe one of our bigger ones, and it became a job to convert it to an aquatic capable spaceship...that could be fun (and a reason for building a larger ship to begin with).
Imagine this not only capable of carrying more stuff...but it be your spaceship!
But again, if you just have conflict and things to find with no resolution...how is that a story? All stories must eventually end, all chapters must finish. Just because it is definitive doesn't mean that the story can't continue in other ways either. All I said was that there needs to be a hard finish to the story, but there are games with stories that end that don't end the game itself. Bethesda games for example, I don't usually find them fully satisfying, but they are stories that have a definitive end but not an end to gameplay. Even the Mass Effect games, the second two in particular, put you back on the Normandy after the credits roll.
Again, implementation is the trick.
Such tasks could be scientific study on the lifeforms and the initial World itself. It could also be to find out what caused the Aurora to crash and what can be done to prevent it from happening Again (colony ships). Lastly the final goal could also be about escaping the alien world the Aurora crashlanded on. I know i certainly wouldnt want to stay in a world like that if i had the means to escape.
I do believe that having some kind of story goal in the game would benefit subnautica but it should not retrain the player.
I like the idea that you were on the Aurora initially because you are a scientist and it's your job to study this world for a possible colonization.
So in your PDA you already have some tasks listed as part of your scientific job.
Now you are stranded and alone, trying to survive; but would the surviving scientist give up on his job? Of course not. I'd say - just like you - that his job would probably keep him sane. So he might think, what the hell, might as well make the most of it and do my job as if I will be rescued soon; and in doing so i might also learn more about this world in case I am stuck here for a long time...
Not everyone is like you, some people don't get tired of things without stories.
If I understood you correctly then...
This is sort of what I hope that the devs will do with Subnauticas first release. A good non-linear story with an ending that does not erase the possibility for a sequel/dlc:s and such. I speculate that this game has potential for more than just one release.
Yep. You pretty much nailed it.
Awesome! I really like the idea. It's kinda the ultimate choose your own adventure.
Most people do, and that is the point. While there is nothing against being able to be sustained on one's own imagination there is also nothing wrong with wanting more structure.
Yes. I'm not saying that the game needs to in itself end, though I feel that might be the best way to end the story. But whatever the story is it in itself needs to have a good solid endgame and ending even if it ends up with you being able to continue driving around the ocean in your subs. However if further DLC picked up where the original story left off with new locations and/or threats to deal with...then such an ending works in my opinion. However if that DLC isn't coming or the ending doesn't stand on it's own while Unknown Worlds moves on to other projects then we would be forever left with an unsatisfying ending that would forever tarnish the game.
The Adventure Continues
Also, once you decide to go on the story-driven open world mode, it is the story that will drive what the game needs to be doing, from a technical point of view.
For instance, if the story is about finding a sentient being at the bottom of the deeper depth of the ocean (a la 'the Abyss') you have to think about how to program a creature that would act sentient, which means AI, communication tools, etc.
The more creativity and funky stuff the story writers imagine, and the more complex the programming may become.
Story-driven sand-boxes are HARD to make and they are going to need a lot of efforts. But the benefits are also huge! I'll use some examples from the BEST games that made the top-10 of all times for video games, below
Replayability
On the contrary, option 1 is the best for replayability, providing that the story is not linear.The best story-driven games are integrating elements of open-world and non-linear story. That means you can replay the game several times, and make different choices each time, and enjoy the game in a different light. You can also purposely chose or ignore certain story path, and chose your goals, within the frameset prepared for the story. Unlike storyless games, you aren't left with difficulty as your only replayability option.
Look for instance at KOTOR (Knight of the Old Republic): you can chose to play your character as a bad guy heading toward the dark side, or as a light jedi. And any combination of both is possible; it's a "karma" indicator that changes based on your story choices. As you do that, so does the story you experience.
More replayability means more hours of play, more references, more people telling other people to buy that game, etc.
Multiple endings
If the game is done right, then several endings can be reached and depends on the various path you have chosen in your story. These path might become only apparant at the end, or it may be influenced by a series of choices made during the whole game. Each possible ending means you will want to start over the game and try to reach a different outcome through different choices.
Look for instance at Deus Ex, which has been game of the year and seriously one the very best game ever written! In that game, you play a nano-enhanced agent working for the government. But as you advance through the story, you start realizing that you were not told many things and that you may be fighting on the wrong side. The beauty of the story is that you get to a point where, litterally, you can chose to betray your current side on purpose, deviate from the "intended" mission being given to you, and turn your weapon to your employer. I couldn't BELIEVE IT when I tried that and was rewarded with a story that took it into account and went from there. I remember (and will remember all my life) the feeling of "Oh my god what have I done.. wait.. THEY THOUGHT OF THAT?!?" There are multiple places you can do this in the game actually, because yes, they thought of that. It flips the entier story around. It took me several attemps and replay to realize the game cleverly brings tou to THINK you made that decision all by yourself, but if you don't, several other story paths will eventually lead you to join the resistance. A masterpiece.
Dealing with ethical dilemmas
The best game ever are the games where nothing is black or white. As you discover the story, you realize bad guys aren't that bad, good guys aren't that good, and each choice you make as consequences and is not that simple. Are we to colonize this world or respect its sentient beings? None of these choices are perfect. But that's rich and powerful.
Forever engraved in your memory
When was the last time you played a game that you remembered 20 years down the road, or replayed even when the game is so outdated it barely plays anymore on your modern computer? This RARELY happens with 99% of the games out there. But can you still remember some of the most powerful books or movies ever, even 20 years later? I know I do. Shogun (james clavel) or Dune (frank herbert) are masterpieces. It's all in the story!
In most cases the most amazing games have a compelling story.
Futur DLC
I think option 1 and 2 are very similar, if done right, in the sens that nothing prevents player from returning to their world and continue "off story" after the credits line. Narrative can easily be found as part of multiple endings to justify why the player decide to stay behind in his new home... I don't think this adds replayability. On the contrary, I strongly believe that pure, story-less sandboxes encourages you to stay in the same game as long as you aren't bored but once you are, there are simply no benefit what so ever in restarting a new game, since you have seen everything and tried everything there is to see and try.