Games set within a living world.

[Surf Solar]

I always wondered why people crave so much for open, sandboxy worlds and those NPC routines mentionend in here. It seems to be some fundamental "need" to many people and I think a reason why Skyrim and such sell so many copies. I personally don't really give a shit as long as all NPC don't just stand on one spot all day long, but I don't need AI routines going there and there, doing this or that, does this really add anything to gameplay? Ofcourse the NPC mustn't look like muppets, but programming such stuff around seems very dull and superficious to me. I am playing a game to have fun, to make my character better, maybe hear a story or two, to be challenged in combat, not to follow NPC around to see if they drop a turd a day or not..

 

[Phelot]

I always wondered why people crave so much for open, sandboxy worlds and those NPC routines mentionend in here.

I suppose because people want to feel invested in the game world they're playing in. That's what a storyfag would say, of course.

To me, I just think it's cool seeing a game do something unexpected. From a logical standpoint, why would I care what some NPC is doing in their home while I'm out killing crap, but it's still cool barging in and seeing the NPC cooking or reading or whatever, doing their own thing.

I think one of the first times I stopped and said "COOL!" at a "living" world was in Syndicate. At the time, I marveled at how the little people would stay off the roads, use crosswalks, cars would stop for them (sometimes lol)

Of course they're just little bots, randomly wandering around, where are they going? Nowhere. It's just fun to see.

I think part of why this appears to be lost in today's games is because everything is already more "real" that you notice even more all the little idiosyncrasies that characters do. Not to mention that games more and more attempt a cinematic feel. We all notice bad acting in movies and it's becoming painfully obvious in video games. Or maybe it's just nostalgia.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

Nah, that's actually true, mostly because of the Uncanny Valley effect. I can play shit like Kotor or Gothic with their barely animated faces and be fine, but people in Mass Effect freak me the fuck out with their blank expressions. Especially during conversations, where they have an emotional outburst, and immediately go back to their default expression. I simply couldn't suspend disbelief for that, felt like I was playing Stepford Wives in Space.

 

[Infinitron]

The whole X series.

And if you want to talk about games that will go on without your intervention, Star Control II is the best example. It will finish itself without you.

WTF? The only thing that will happen by itself in SC2 is the Kohr-Ah exterminating all life in the quadrant and eventually you.

 

[Zarniwoop]

WTF? The only thing that will happen by itself in SC2 is the Kohr-Ah exterminating all life in the quadrant and eventually you.

Bullshit. All the other races will carry out their little sub-wars as well, a good example being the Ilwrath going after the Pkunk unless you divert them. And the game goes on either way.

 

[Infinitron]

WTF? The only thing that will happen by itself in SC2 is the Kohr-Ah exterminating all life in the quadrant and eventually you.

Bullshit. All the other races will carry out their little sub-wars as well, a good example being the Ilwrath going after the Pkunk unless you divert them. And the game goes on either way.

Those are scripted events. Events on a large scale (interstellar war!), but scripted nonetheless.
In this thread we're talking about games that try to simulate realistic interactions dynamically.

 

[Trash]

I always wondered why people crave so much for open, sandboxy worlds and those NPC routines mentionend in here. It seems to be some fundamental "need" to many people and I think a reason why Skyrim and such sell so many copies. I personally don't really give a shit as long as all NPC don't just stand on one spot all day long, but I don't need AI routines going there and there, doing this or that, does this really add anything to gameplay? Ofcourse the NPC mustn't look like muppets, but programming such stuff around seems very dull and superficious to me. I am playing a game to have fun, to make my character better, maybe hear a story or two, to be challenged in combat, not to follow NPC around to see if they drop a turd a day or not..

Well, I can only speak for myself but for I enjoy exploring believable worlds and places. When a game actually does depict a world I do enjoy it if it's more than a static stage.

I think part of why this appears to be lost in today's games is because everything is already more "real" that you notice even more all the little idiosyncrasies that characters do. Not to mention that games more and more attempt a cinematic feel. We all notice bad acting in movies and it's becoming painfully obvious in video games. Or maybe it's just nostalgia.

Older games relied more on letting your imagination fill in the blanks. Your imagination being more powerfull than any computer makes that a pretty superior method as far as I'm concerned. But to be completely frank, nostalgia can definitely colour ones memories.

Especially during conversations, where they have an emotional outburst, and immediately go back to their default expression. I simply couldn't suspend disbelief for that, felt like I was playing Stepford Wives in Space.

Or when characters have deeply emotional conversations but remain rooted in place like manequins. Always slightly freaked me out.

Those are scripted events. Events on a large scale (interstellar war!), but scripted nonetheless.

Actually I'm glad with any way a game tries to seem more living. Scripted, programmed, dynamic, static. Again, if it succeeds in seemingly being a living place I am game. I just did not remember anything of the sort happening in SCII.

 

[shihonage]

As Surf Solar and Skyway pointed out, just "standing in the middle of an ant colony" feeling is short-lived. It dies off the moment you realize that everyone around you is completely non-interactive. Stock actor, meant to be in background.

IMO, the real "living world" effect lies in giving each actor "deep properties", and several methods by which those properties affect their interactions with the world. It wouldn't hurt to tie them to certain aspects of the world as well - stuff they own, fate of other actors, factions.

Pepper it with polished superficialities. Make the actor say something contextually appropriate, but only in rare situations when context can be programmatically assessed without room for error, and never make them repeat it (unlike Skyrim companions constantly repeating the same quip about a cave you keep exiting and entering).

Together, a settlement of such actors will be a much more immersive "controlled sandbox" than the shallow, claustrophobic confines of games like GTA, where the only real choice you have is whether you're hijacking a car or shooting a hooker right now - all mostly superficial, isolated actions which leave no sense of real interaction with the gameworld.

 

[Trash]

Are you pimping your own pet project again? Seriously though, I am holding out for something like that. In the meantime I'll do with games that find other ways to fool me into believing they're set in a living world. The examples I've given so far may be a good indication of the kind of stuff I find acceptable.

However I'm still very interested in stuff I've been missing out on. I'm sure there must be more. Gaming has been around since the 70's, there should be quite some interesting examples out there that haven't been mentioned yet...

 

[Fens]

As Surf Solar and Skyway pointed out, just "standing in the middle of an ant colony" feeling is short-lived.

made me think of SimAnt... actually SimEarth and SimLife and SimIsle, too (and to a lesser extent Spore). watching those games develop and grow was always rather neat. same with Settlers (and various clones). while those games don't simulate individual personalities, they do create expanding worlds, that the player can interact with and change (see: Populous). that's more than most RPGs offer unfortunately (i don't mind ending slides, but seeing the world actually change while i play, is still preferable). what i'd really like to see is a big sandbox with factions, daily routines, non-suicidal wildlife and as many interactive objects as possible. gothic had some of that... but not enough by far. unfortunately i don't see the gaming industry go in that direction.

 

[Majestic47]

Dumb bots moving along preset waypoints = living world.

I always wondered why people crave so much for open, sandboxy worlds and those NPC routines mentionend in here. It seems to be some fundamental "need" to many people and I think a reason why Skyrim and such sell so many copies. I personally don't really give a shit as long as all NPC don't just stand on one spot all day long, but I don't need AI routines going there and there, doing this or that, does this really add anything to gameplay? Ofcourse the NPC mustn't look like muppets, but programming such stuff around seems very dull and superficious to me. I am playing a game to have fun, to make my character better, maybe hear a story or two, to be challenged in combat, not to follow NPC around to see if they drop a turd a day or not..

I'm sure Space Rangers 2 is a shitty game because of that.

 

[MetalCraze]

Space Rangers series actually do it right because NPCs in it actually exist all the time and do their jobs be it a trader or a pirate and you can always track them in a game world. It's impressive.

Not the stupid shit like Ass Creed where retarded respawning railbots don't even react to you killing their buddy literally 5 meters away in the broad daylight which is a living world according to Trash.

 

[Wyrmlord]

which is a living world according to Trash.

It's probably best to focus less on the poster and more on the game being discussed.

It's not like Trash was the developer of Assassin's Creed.

 

[MetalCraze]

It's not like Trash didn't bring stuff like AssCreed and GTA4 as examples instead of Space Rangers

 

[Majestic47]

Space Rangers series actually do it right because NPCs in it actually exist all the time and do their jobs be it a trader or a pirate and you can always track them in a game world. It's impressive.

Not the stupid shit like Ass Creed where retarded respawning railbots don't even react to you killing their buddy literally 5 meters away in the broad daylight which is a living world according to Trash.

See, you can love things too, if you try.

Actually there's a major difference between 'making it look alive' and having 'meaning and function behind a living world.'
I'm sure there's no difference between having every shopkeeper dead in Britain and having them alive except for lack of vendors. Everyone still happily munch on bread from god knows where, and the tavern is always crowded at evening, served by the ghost of tavern wench, drinking ale from tables spattered with blood. Blowing up military ships and civilians in SR2 will impact the the system's economy and defenses. Prices for certain commodity will rise while the defenders would be ill-equipped to face Dominators, that's the kind of living world I want.

I think Space Rangers 2 had the right idea, but executing this sort of premise would be difficult, even Mount & Blade: Warband is still rough on the edges.
Sadly, I don't think mainstream developers see the point, since the crowds are easily pleased with minor illusion of living world like owning properties, dressing up, faction quests and God Mode NPCs to preserve the 'narrative.'

Seeing as how there wouldn't be SR-3, I think we're pretty much screwed.

 

[Trash]

It's not like Trash didn't bring stuff like AssCreed and GTA4 as examples instead of Space Rangers

And I explained why already several times. Not that he cares, he just wants to make this another dick measuring contest as he specifically edited my name in. Back to ignore it is.

Actually there's a major difference between 'making it look alive' and having 'meaning and function behind a living world.'

Absolutely. Unfortunately since the latter is so exceedingly rare I'll settle for the former. I'm however very interested if anyone can name a few examples of actual games that try and have 'meaning and function behind a living world.'

 

[MetalCraze]

Trash if it will make you happy - if it was any other poster making those examples I'd still call him a retard.

I'm sure there's no difference between having every shopkeeper dead in Britain and having them alive except for lack of vendors. Everyone still happily munch on bread from god knows where, and the tavern is always crowded at evening, served by the ghost of tavern wench, drinking ale from tables spattered with blood.

Yeah but you see in some of those examples NPCs just walk around and do little else and often don't even react to an obvious stuff making it look scripted and not alive. It isn't believable.

When you see a new set of spawned NPCs just walk over dead bodies in GTA4 like it's a yet another day it doesn't really give a believable impression of a living city - which is important if you are trying to make a living city. And then they disappear into nowhere only 50m away together with cars.

Space Rangers is not just an under-the-hood stuff. You can see cops chasing pirates robbing rich transporters delivering goods to planets selling stuff to you.

 

[Majestic47]

Metalcraze, despite having desire for more 'purposeful living world', the examples you give are 'completely fine' by my standards.

Think about it: GTA isn't really a full blown 'city simulator' (think Sim City / Sims). It was merely a playground where certain scripted missions take place (and push the narration forward) while not doing mission, players can drive around, steal different cars, do taxi missions, buy clothes, whatever. It was obvious these city dwellers aren't meant to be much more than that. It was a design decision to limit the scope of this 'living world.' If Rockstar wanted to deliver a story about Russian immigrant tying to make a living by shooting up the Underworld why should they make these pedestrians go beyond those 'walk around and do little else?'
I'd give credit to Rockstar for putting in a random robber snatching a purse, with a cop chasing him, gunning him down, with the wail of the ambulance not too far away. I witnessed those chain of events and went, 'Nice touch.'

Isn't this enough? What more do you want when you take into account of the narrative focus of GTA4 that drove it forward?
Even Assassin Creed tried that with the snatch purse, or rival house agent etc. It was not the main point of the game - just filler content.

 

[Great0ldOne]

The Last Express, of course. Never liked adventure games where you had to be at a specific place at a specific time, of which there aren't many (this, the first Laura Bow and perhaps a couple of others), but the train sure felt full of life.

 

[Trash]

It was not the main point of the game - just filler content.

Yet it succeeded in making the cities seem like real places with stuff going on besides you. Which is exactly what I'm talking about. They may not have thousands of individual npc's who have a 'life' and routines going on around you but they try and give that illusion, no matter how flawed. Yes, I do prefer the real deal but as I said before, if the illusion is there I'm game.

The Last Express, of course.

Good one. It really felt like normal life in the train did went on around you. Should play this one again.

 

[Runciter]

Space Rangers series actually do it right because NPCs in it actually exist all the time and do their jobs be it a trader or a pirate and you can always track them in a game world. It's impressive.

It sounds just like Hardwar.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

WTF? The only thing that will happen by itself in SC2 is the Kohr-Ah exterminating all life in the quadrant and eventually you.

Bullshit. All the other races will carry out their little sub-wars as well, a good example being the Ilwrath going after the Pkunk unless you divert them. And the game goes on either way.

Like has been said, scripted events. Let's get technical.

When you start the game, only one event is scheduled to happen: The Kohr-Ah victory dance. If you sit around and do absolutely nothing for about 5 in-game years, the game will end automatically because of this. NOTHING else in-game happens unless YOU do something first. The Ilwrath will never destroy the Pkunk, the Pkunk will never go to Yehat space, the Ilwrath and the Thraddash will not attack each other, it's all based on your actions.

So much for a living, breathing quadrant of the galaxy.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

Then there's Stalker.

Never really got into the game as the first one I tried reeked of potential but was also filled with bugs, glitches and an overall lack of polish. Am however planning to do a playthrough of Call of Pripyat in the near future as I've heard many good things about it. Looking forward to it. Incidently, the Reloaded mod is rumored to give the best experience for it. Any codex feedback on it?

I'm playing through SoC currently with the Stalker Complete mod, and it's perfectly fine. The translation is a bit wonky at times, but I haven't encountered any real bugs or glitches, aside from the occasional crazy ragdoll that every game with a physics engine has. And it really sounds like exactly the game you're looking for.

One gripe I have with Stalker Complete is the way it allows NPCs to use grenades. This sounds perfectly reasonable on paper, but the game itself doesn't have any special indicators for them, and their explosion timing forces you to start running away while they're in flight, which is very hard if you're starting down a scope with a limited field of vision. This is fine in the end, albeit unforgiving. The real problem is these NPCs being able to throw the damn things like 100 meters ahead with pinpoint precision. I don't get why anyone uses sniper rifles in the setting, when they can just throw grenades all day.

 

[DwarvenFood]

Nice thread, I love it when games have a world that plays itself out. Enjoy standing around or just walking and seeing shit happen in the GTA games. As for the first games that started doing this, next to GTA and SimCity I might mention Populous and perhaps Elite.

 

[Zarniwoop]

WTF? The only thing that will happen by itself in SC2 is the Kohr-Ah exterminating all life in the quadrant and eventually you.

Bullshit. All the other races will carry out their little sub-wars as well, a good example being the Ilwrath going after the Pkunk unless you divert them. And the game goes on either way.

Like has been said, scripted events. Let's get technical.

When you start the game, only one event is scheduled to happen: The Kohr-Ah victory dance. If you sit around and do absolutely nothing for about 5 in-game years, the game will end automatically because of this. NOTHING else in-game happens unless YOU do something first. The Ilwrath will never destroy the Pkunk, the Pkunk will never go to Yehat space, the Ilwrath and the Thraddash will not attack each other, it's all based on your actions.

So much for a living, breathing quadrant of the galaxy.

Sure they're scripted. Maybe you missed Trash's posts, where he specifically said:

Nope. If however through clever design the illusion is given of a living world then I'm game.

And yes the game will end one way if you do nothing, that was kind of my whole point. The world will go on in a certain way, unless you influence it. It's a pre-set story with you being able to change the course. As in you're just a participant in the whole thing. That's the idea I got from the OP, something that goes on without waiting for your input. In other games, you are pretty much the center of the universe. Nothing will happen until you trigger it, the world won't progress on its own, whether to roughly the same conclusion or otherwise. Individual characters might mess around a bit, scream at you for running into them or yammer on about mudcrabs they saw or arrows they took in the knee, but the game world itself is pretty static.

Basically, there's no such thing as a perfectly living world-game where characters have their own ambitions etc. determined in the way real people do, and who then change the world based on their actions. It's all just an illusion. If there are some that do a better job than the games already mentioned, I'd also like to hear about them...