04 Mar, 2010, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
In an effort to come up with a newer approach to rooms and descriptions, I thought it might
be neat to make a more interactive experience for the players. Much like most 3D games where
there are interactive objects, but there are extra things going on. In most newer first person
shooters you can shoot almost anything that is otherwise not something you can interact with.

At first I thought of making any in room object, such as a table, or a tree, have multiple child
objects. Like, if you wanted a tree branch you could cut off a limb, or take a cushion from the
couch. So, overall any 1 interactive object, could be a series of other objects. But for obvious
reasons, this could complicate things to the point of being annoying.

So, then I thought about making non interactive objects as extra content. So if you had a
"tree" in the room, since it is a type "tree" object, perhaps it could drop a leaf once in awhile.
Notifying the room that "> a leaf falls from an oak tree". Or another example might be a pond
in a clearing: "> suddenly you see a fish jump out of the water of the pond".

I haven't yet decided how to go about doing it though, and that's why I would like some input.
04 Mar, 2010, Runter wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
So, then I thought about making non interactive objects as extra content. So if you had a
"tree" in the room, since it is a type "tree" object, perhaps it could drop a leaf once in awhile.
Notifying the room that "> a leaf falls from an oak tree". Or another example might be a pond
in a clearing: "> suddenly you see a fish jump out of the water of the pond".


Would this actually result in an actual leaf object loading or just a message to players in the room?
04 Mar, 2010, Skol wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
My question exactly on that one Runter.
I've done things like the 'message' in my fishing code, based on the type of fpool in the room. So like you might see a splash from the hole in the ice, or a trout jump in the river.

Would be cool to see actual objects for sure. That's an approach I'm interested in as well.
04 Mar, 2010, donky wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
JohnnyStarr said:
At first I thought of making any in room object, such as a table, or a tree, have multiple child
objects. Like, if you wanted a tree branch you could cut off a limb, or take a cushion from the
couch. So, overall any 1 interactive object, could be a series of other objects. But for obvious
reasons, this could complicate things to the point of being annoying.

We did this (had composite objects that could be broken down). You have a library of general objects, and a defined way in which objects can be broken down to their various components. And whomever is building, just adds an object from a defined library, customising it if necessary.

Why would it be complicated? People who do not interact with the objects in ways which break them down, would not be put out by them in any way. People who do interact in those ways, will be able to gain emergent gameplay opportunities. The only complication is the effort in writing the initial library of objects, but any game system requires work to be done implementing it.

JohnnyStarr said:
So, then I thought about making non interactive objects as extra content. So if you had a
"tree" in the room, since it is a type "tree" object, perhaps it could drop a leaf once in awhile.
Notifying the room that "> a leaf falls from an oak tree". Or another example might be a pond
in a clearing: "> suddenly you see a fish jump out of the water of the pond".

I haven't yet decided how to go about doing it though, and that's why I would like some input.

If I were doing this, I would simply add tree and pond to the given room. The behaviours which come with these objects, would automatically appear in the room they were added to. Whether that was shedding leaves, or exhibiting signs of the animals that inhabited them.
04 Mar, 2010, Idealiad wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
There was a thread (at TMC I think, can't find it atm) where someone proposed rooms that were onlymade up of objects. The room would generate its description from the objects (alternatively, the objects could fill out hand-written templates I suppose).
04 Mar, 2010, Skol wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
Just gave me an idea donkey, thanks man ;).

Obj ai, kind of like specs in rom, but based on object types (trees, chairs etc). Could be fun. There goes my todo list ;p.
04 Mar, 2010, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
Would this actually result in an actual leaf object loading or just a message to players in the room?


Yes it would. But only if the object had a purpose. The idea isn't just to make things more interesting, but
to make playing the game more fun. A better example would be to "shake the tree" and an apple would fall out
or something like that. I want to make more of an RPG feel, where to get past certain levels, or complete quests you
have to be creative. I remember a game by Squaresoft back in 1998 called Xenogears. For the most part a straight forward
RPG, but truly challenging. To get past certain levels you had to think outside the box, like pressing a random switch on a wall
full of switches to open the door.
04 Mar, 2010, Runter wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
We did this (had composite objects that could be broken down). You have a library of general objects, and a defined way in which objects can be broken down to their various components. And whomever is building, just adds an object from a defined library, customising it if necessary.

Why would it be complicated? People who do not interact with the objects in ways which break them down, would not be put out by them in any way. People who do interact in those ways, will be able to gain emergent gameplay opportunities. The only complication is the effort in writing the initial library of objects, but any game system requires work to be done implementing it.


I think this is particularly a good idea for muds wanting intricate systems for crafting.
04 Mar, 2010, Lyanic wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
JohnnyStarr said:
I remember a game by Squaresoft back in 1998 called Xenogears. For the most part a straight forward
RPG, but truly challenging. To get past certain levels you had to think outside the box, like pressing a random switch on a wall
full of switches to open the door.

Really? Xenogears, you say? And a switch on the wall to open a door? In an RPG!? I don't believe it…pics or it didn't happen!
04 Mar, 2010, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
Lyanic said:
JohnnyStarr said:
I remember a game by Squaresoft back in 1998 called Xenogears. For the most part a straight forward
RPG, but truly challenging. To get past certain levels you had to think outside the box, like pressing a random switch on a wall
full of switches to open the door.

Really? Xenogears, you say? And a switch on the wall to open a door? In an RPG!? I don't believe it…pics or it didn't happen!



See! I told you!

How's Christmas Island this time of year? Or is it Perth?
05 Mar, 2010, flumpy wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
Basically, I don't see why you can't have your cake and eat it in this situation.

Are you looking at some overall design standard here? (Thou shalt always make up objects from smaller ones?)

Or are you looking for ways to be efficient in your design but still appear to give complex interaction?

The answer is, mostly, it depends.

Building blocks of interactive objects can give emergent behaviour with simple interactions being easier grok. At least for me anyway. However you could just as easily (athough maybe not quite so visibly) write it procedurally.

You have cake, go eat.
0.0/11