What Does The Future Hold For 3D Myst-ery Games?

projection asks: "The media has started its feeding frenzy over RealMyst. However, a few people have pioneered this type of game and one company (Looking Glass) has shut its doors. Maybe now is the time to remember their lessons before we all get lost in marketing hype. That way, we'll get better games in this new genre instead of the same thing over again. (n.b. I'm vaguely classifying this genre as RT3D, non or minimum violence, where gameplay is primarily puzzles/exploration). What would make a real time 3D mystery game that's a big advance on what's out there (avoiding the classic better graphics is all we need trap)? What would make games like these more fun?" I've always been a fan of such games, but have been disheartedned because most of the current crop of 3D games are either strategy-based or shooters. With Looking Glass gone, who will be the company to come along and fill this void in the gaming industry?

" Thief (Looking Glass)
Pioneered stealth. Hiding. Avoiding enemies. The sound you and others make becomes really important. Unbearable tension. Really brought the first person shooter into the realm of mystery.

Nightfall (Altor)
Pioneered RT3D with the point and click cursor interface that 2D puzzle gamers were used to. Also, allowed construction in the environment (e.g. build a barricade or staircase using the hand). Physically modeled workaraounds to puzzles (if you can't figure out how a puzzle works, find a physical way around it). Pure RT3D puzzle/exploration game, with no combat (it IS possible!).

Trespasser (Dreamworks)
Robot arm like interface. OK, so the interface sucked, but you have to learn from the bad as well as the good, and with innovation comes risk.

What other games were significant?

Why do all this? Imagine taking the best parts of these games and using them to build the next generation. At a roundtable I once attended at GDC, a whole lot of us got round a table and griped about puzzle games (including some neat people, like the Monkey Island guys and the author of Leisure Suit Larry). The issues that came up were DETERMINISM (you replay the game, you get the same results), lack of IMPROVISATION (you solve the puzzle the way the designer said, or no way) and lack of FREEDOM (you can only go where a picture was rendered).

RT3D solves the freedom issue. You can now go anywhere if you can reach it (run, swim, climb..). Having true physics and AI solves the determinism problem - even slight changes in the way you play + rnd numbers affect the AI etc. Having a point and click physically modeled hand (one that can click a button or jam a wedge in a door) solves improvisation, because if a you don't get the designers puzzle strategy, you can work around it using anything you can think of. In addition, having real physics and AI that reacts to your presence (like the importance of being quiet in some places) would really help the immersiveness.

Am I missing anything?"

Comments

Alone in the Dark

[Jon Peterson]

Alone in the Dark was one of the most important, not to say best, games ever made. It was a huge leap forward, and together with calvados and impressionism was one of France's great contributions to the world.

I notice Alone on the Dark 4 is coming, if not by the original developers, at least by more French ones (www.darkworks.com).

Also, what about Daggerfall by Bethesda?

It's certainly true that Wolfenstein clones have had an undesirable grip on the industry for too long, spurred heavily (IMHO) by the fact that such games translate quite well to consoles.

Increasingly, it only makes commercial sense to develop games for both PC and console, and so the PC is brought down to the console's level. The "little people" genre (theme park, populous, dungeon keeper, AofE, Settlers etc) seems to work poorly and consoles and may have its days numbered because of that.

The whole myst thing brought computer games to people who had never touched one with a barge-pole before. These people then declared that myst was the best game ever written, amazing, mould breaking (sic) hype, hype, hype. Actually, I thought myst was a dreadfully frustrating, limited adventure game that managed to wow naive people with glossy pre-rendered graphics. Ug. Give me Sam and Max hit the Road _any_ time. Mind you I loathe adventure games, so I'm biased.

Still, Close Combat V coming soon... :-)

Re:Suspense and tension

[Robin Hood]

The impact of this sort of situation can be increased by raising the stakes. Eg. in Soldier of Fortune, you only get a limitted number of saves per level. You can choose to turn this feature off, but I find it generally more fun to play with it on. It means that you can't afford to get sloppy because you can't just save before every major encounter. And so you're more involved with the moment, because if you screw up, you have something to lose (in this case, time and progress through the level). And if you pull off a clever stunt or a subtle strategy, the payoff feeling of success is huge.

I agree 100%. One of the most replayable games in my collection is Angband, a turn-based game which doesn't even use graphics! Well, admittedly you can play with graphics, but <dons asbestos suit> Angband purists play in text mode. %lt;dons asbestos suit> You see, Angband gives you one life. ONE. You can save, but only in order to quit the game. When you die, that information is IMMEDIATELY recorded in your savefile and you have to start over. Sure, you can make backup copies of your savefile easily, but that's regarded as cheating and not a "real" victory. The result is a game that, though you'd think all the opportunities for suspense and atmosphere were missing, turns out to be absolutely gripping, because you know you can't afford to make stupid mistakes.

For example, one of the most exciting moments in my recent play was when my High-Elf Mage got herself trapped in a corridor by a Xorn. Xorns, for those of you who don't play Angband, cause confusion when they hit you -- and when a mage is confused, he/she can't cast any spells. All they can do is drink potions (some potions cure confusion) or use staffs or wands. But reading scrolls or spellbooks (a mage's primary method of spellcasting) is right out. Well, I had a bunch of cure confusion potions, so I just drank one -- and the Xorn hit me again, causing me to be confused again! Meanwhil I was watching my mage's hitpoints drop from around 200 HP to 150... 100... 50... Then I ran out of potions and knew I was doomed. In desperation, I took out my wand of teleport monster and started shooting it off in random directions (which is all you can do when you're confused). The very last charge on the wand hit the Xorn, teleporting it away from me when I had just 5 HP remaining -- I was saved. The feeling of relief I felt at that moment was one I've almost never experienced in commercial games. Of course, that's because I haven't played too many of them, but this should at least give you an idea of the sort of suspense that can be created by good gameplay (and, done right, 3D immersive gameplay can be even more powerful).

P.S. I hope the blow-by-blow account wasn't boring; if so, my apologies (and don't play Angband, because you wouldn't like it! :-)). And I'm perfectly aware that I sometimes used the first person in referring to my Angband character. I'm perfectly aware of the difference between fantasy and reality, don't worry; just consider it illustration of how even a text-only, turn-based game can be extremely immersive.
-----
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:

Adventure and Action games ARE different!

[Drakino]

One thing here, Adventure and Action games are 2 different and very distinct generas. Theif 1 and 2 were action games. So was System Shock 1 and 2. But Myst, Riven, Journeyman Project 1, 2, 3, Zork 1-9, and the Monkey Island series were all adventure games. There is a big difference, and have different followers.

Looking Glass went under due to reasons that could happen to anyone. It wasn't because of the type of game they made, it was due to their business troubles.

don't forget Zork, dungeon, etc.

[jetson123]

With all the hoopla over the glitzy commercial games, most people forget that many of those games are functionally derivatives of much older games: Rogue, Zork, dungeon, xconquest, etc. I can't think of a single commercial genre that didn't start that way. Furthermore, having played both, I think the gameplay on the older, less glitzy games is still better than on most of the current graphics-rich commercial stuff.

And I think that may be a clue as to where to start developing more interesting games. If you are going to spend a lot of time on fancy graphics, you aren't going to be able to experiment with good gameplay; at best, you can tinker around the edges. Those older games also got tuned because lots of people were using them and lots of people had access to the source.

So, keep the graphics minimal, experiment, and share. You can still dumb it down and make it look pretty for the mass market later.

Multi-Player Myst Games!!

[Crutcher]

Remeber WAAAAY back (like, before the net even *smirk*) when you HAD to have friends to stand a chance at many of the (text) myster games?

Now imagine a game, like myst, but bigger, with more complete physics. And imagine that this game, has varying degrees of dificulty, not as a setting, but as a function of how many people are in the game playing with you.

"I can open this door, but there is only one potion, guess we'll have to find another way to get you onto the pirate ship"

and

"If only Bob were playing, he could turn that lever while I pull the switch, guess I'll have to find some other way to do it. Hmm, wonder if I could bully that troll in the dungeon to help me ..."

I want to play this kind of game. I would $PAY$ to play this kind of game. And I'd prefer regular releases of small games in a series to long seperated releases of HUGE games. (You and your buddies spend a weekend playing the New one every 2 months, maybe its an Add-on to the enginee.)

-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>

Games need a good story

[blazer1024]

This is one of the reasons I've always wanted to be a game writer, and why I'm starting my own game company(although who knows if I'll succeed). I want to tell a story. I want to tell many stories.

Whether it be one of my own stories, a friend's, or just some random writer's story, I want to be able to tell it, not only in a way that is visually appealing, but in a way that enriches the player's life. (I'm not talking Chicken Soup for the Computer here, but just something that lets you escape from everyday life for awhile, and do something other than blow other's people's heads off in some FPS)

Too many games try to impress via their engines. Sure, it's nice if you can arc arrows over walls and hit people on the other side, (I'm not dissing Thief here, that's a good game)and if you had some grappeling hook you could fire, and it would realistically hook onto something, and you could climb up, and it could even fall off, or any number of "amazing 3d graphics and physics" things, it's still nothing without its story.

I used to play games with CGA graphics, or even some of the classic text adventures, and I loved them, because they had excellent stories. It's time to truly bring that back. If it takes 240 hours to play because of a really long, deep storyline, GOOD. I'll always have something to do in my spare time.

I know I'm probably saying the obvious, and maybe even straying off topic a little. But, this has really irked me about popular games these days. (Especially first-person shooters, which have a major lack of storyline) Anyway, I'll stop my ranting now, and go back to my dark cave.

-John H.
(P.S. if anyone wants to invest in a small game company, write me e-mail.:)

The market

[Ciannait]

The game that comes to mind immediately is Deus Ex. Now, I haven't played this game extensively yet (I'm still playing Diablo 2), but what I have played of it, skills other than point and shoot are emphasized, despite the fact that it is built on the UT engine. (The game is absolutely beautiful, too, I was amazed at the reflection of the walls in the marble floors.) If you move too loudly, you're toast. In the training, you had to figure out a way to get across a sewer (or something similar) with no ladder on the either side to get out. In my opinion, using your brain comes first, using the gun comes second in this game.

I guess I think that if there's a reason for fewer "smart" games and more shooters and the like, it's due solely to market influences. A lot of people are buying Q3A, and non-shooters seem to have fallen out of favor with many geeks, including a lot of people who read /.


"During your times of trial and suffering, when you see only one set of footprints, it was then that I was riding the pogostick."

Forgetting a company?

[emufreak]

Sierra used to make a lot of adventure games, as I recall.

Well, what is lacking in other games?

[Amokscience]

LookingGlass proved that *story* is key to a spellbinding game. Most of the highly acclaimed games on the gaming web sites (HL, Thief, etc) are all extremely story oriented save for things like Tribes/UT.

Games like Thief and System Shock proved something that movie makers have forgotten, that the ultimate suspence can be resounding silence. Instead we get predictable sound tracks that give away the next move... beh. Sound effects, especially ambient sound effects can drag you into the game and keep you on your toes for hours.

Being enthralled by the atmosphere in the game is what keeps people like me fascinated by the game. Trying to kill the humungous boss with an arsenal of weapons at the end of a level is rather boring in comparison to having to inch across a narrow beam 50 feet up in the wair above a pair of guards.

With the proper AI and randomnization (this is extremely difficult from what I gather), you can make sure that the game has replayability. This is one of the key elements that make RTS games and some FPSs fun.

Anyways, back to my original point... Story. Thief, SS2, and Thief2 were obviously second rate technological pieces in comparison to things like Q3. Yet most of my friends loved those games. It shows how the wherewithal to create an *experience* can be rewarding. Sadly this courage has gone to waste with LG's shutdown.

Hopefully these more carefully crafted games will increase in number and begin to be as numerous as other 'engine' games.

A bit excessive...

[laborit]

Having a point and click physically modeled hand (one that can click a button or jam a wedge in a door) solves improvisation, because if a you don't get the designers puzzle strategy, you can work around it using anything you can think of.

Sounds to me like real-time 3-D is the least of your problems there. Even producing an accurate physics model is only a small step towards the goal of complete freedom of action. What this describes is nothing less than a world where the consequences of any action can be reasonably predicted, where NPCs have not just preprogrammed responses but full personalities and convincing AIs, and where the game knows the properties and uses of each and every item in the environment. RT3D games could give a better illusion of allowing free improvisation, if the creators are clever and the players are willing to stay within certain boundaries. But thinking these games cab offer the same kind of freedom as real life (where I could, this moment, stop reading /., take the case off my computer and wear it like a hat, and get on a plane for Chicago) is not reasonable.

Ironically, such goals migh cause games to look substantially worse... designers would have to do away with background scenery, costumes, complex weapons, and anything else they couldn't describe completely down to a nuts-and-bolts level (what does the wiring inside a BFG look like? Is the fuel for the flamethrower poisonous?). They'd have to limit characters' abilities severely, in order to stave off unforseen consequences.

- Michael Cohn

News at 11: Game Designer cracks...

[sprayNwipe]

It seems you are only focusing on two genres, and then saying "hey! I like myst! all the other games I know are genre a's and genre b's"

While the adventure genre is a lot quieter than it used to be, there have still been some good games out, and still some coming (Grim Fandango and Monkey Island 4, respectively).

On a side tangent, saying "There are too many FPS's and RTS's, lets make more Adventure games" *isn't* the way to go! That'll just lead us to a point where we'll say "There are too many adventure games, we need more (neglected genre no 17)".

What game designers (and to a greater extent, publishers) should do is make games that *don't* fit into genres, that are unique and aren't following a game model already paved out by id/blizzard/lucasarts. As someone working in the gaming industry, the most frustrating thing for me is seeing publishers sticking to genre games and not taking risks making *new* games. Will Wright with "The Sims" is a great example - he had to literally fight all the way for *seven years* just to get the game made!

Before the mid-90's, a first-person gun game would be called "a doom clone", and would be marked down for that in a review. Now, thanks to the lack of innovation being allowed by publishers (and to a degree developers), the same game is called a game in the "FPS genre", and usually boosted thanks to the not-so-subtle pushing of games on reviewers by publishers.

The main publisher/developer that doesn't do this is surprisingly Sega, and they are reaping the rewards because of it! Innovative non-genre games like Crazy Taxi, Seaman, and Jet Set Radio have made gamers wake up to the life outside FPS's and RTS's

Hopefully, genre domination will change - Things like the LithTech/Real networks deal ( http://www.lithtech.com ) and Auran Jet ( http://www.auranjet.com (disclaimer - I'm a designer at Auran Games) ) should allow the unjaded garage developer with the cool game concept to come out with genre-breaking ideas, and get them out to a large audience. Hopefully then, publishers will let developers make risky games.

And that's the end of my rant. ;p

sprayNwipe
-=-=-=-=-=-

And just to get this off my chest - *never* use Trespasser as an example of a good game. Even Daikatana is better than that abysmal slide-show, interface-deficient, crate-stacking-with-real-physics game. See http://www.oldmanmurray.com/longreviews/trespasser .shtml

3D Graphics no substitute for 3D Characters

[jacks0n]

It ought to go w/o saying that 3D Graphics is no substitute for 3D Characters. I'd be happy to play 2D games for the rest of my life if all characters are well developed. Give me Sam and Max any day over Duke Nukem. With this 'build it bigger and better' attitute, a game of (2D) Monopoly (which is still sold in an analog form) would weigh more than a tank and occupy a floor of your house.

Better RT3D

[meckardt]

The biggest problem I see with even the best of such games is the lack of alternatives. Yes, Myst and Riven and others are great alternatives to the Quake style shoot-em-ups, but invariably the player has to solve ALL of the puzzles more or less sequentially to complete the game.

What I would like to see is a game where there were multiple, mutually exclusive paths that might be taken to successfully to a conclusion. And if there was a certain randomness in the game that would make one path or another easier to find each time the game is played, so much the better.

Gonzo

Ultima Underworld

[magnetx11]

Holy cow, that game had it all! Had the puzzles of regular Ultima's and the awesome (well back then awesome) 3d graphics with up and down views. And an eery ambiance that has yet to be copied.

Why do we WANT these kinds of games?

[vertical-limit]

Face it -- Myst sucked! Who wants to run around a island and click on random stuff to try to solve its so-called "puzzles"? There wasn't a plot or any guns or anything! And where was the multiplayer mode?

This growing trend of "puzzle" and "adventure" games is really starting to disturb me. What's happened to all the first-person shooters -- classic games like DOOM, Quake, or Unreal? First-person shooters are real games; they're the only ones that are actually training our kids to become valiant soldiers. I don't see anyone practicing their aim by playing Monkey Island.

What happens when Janet Reno decides to take all our guns away? Are we going to let her get away with, because our kids were too busy playing garbage like Riven? No! We need to fight back. We need to give our children the training they need to fight in the real world. If kids can't learn to solve their problems with violence, how will be able to defend our rights?

Enough with this "mystery game" crap. Bring back the first-person shooter!

Overly simplistic view of necessary traits

[skoda]

The suggestion for necessary traits to make games "good" (DETERMINISM, IMPROVISATION, FREEDOM) is too simplistic.

Two analogies:
1) During the era of B&W silent films, I can image such a round table discussion concluding that to make good films to capture large audiences they needed three things: COLOR, SOUND, EFFECTS. Well, we've got all three now, and for every _American History X_ or _Babe_, you've got countless _Starship Trooper_ and _Armageddon_'s.

2) A standard book has zero DETERMINISM, IMPROVISATION, FREEDOM. A choose-your-own-adventure book (remember those?) has all three. By the reasoning given, cyoa should be best sellers, with regular novels at the bottom of the heap. This is clearly not the case.

Why?
1) Better technology does not create better end products, it only allows the creator's concepts to be expressed in ways not previously possible. A lousy idea is still lousy even if it's IMAX 3D surround sound. A great concept can be accomplished in a 5 min B&W segment with no effects.

2) What people want, generally, is a compelling experience that speaks to their basic needs, desires, dreams, problems, etc. A finely crafted novel immerses the reader in a new world, giving a rich exposition of the author's ideas. A cyoa is too loose, and so it is even more difficult to communicate a well-defined concept. It could be done, I'm sure, but I don't think it has.

These principles apply to gaming. First and foremost, gamers want to have fun. This is why Diablo II, despite is dated graphics, and simplistic gameplay (find monster, kill it, get treasure, repeat for 15 hours, game over) is doing so well - it is *fun*. Blizzard is always behind the tech curve, but they know how to code *fun*. (They must being using the language F++ :)

Half-Life was also great in part because of: a good story (for a game), the illusion of freedom (the path was almost completely linear, but you could explore that path as you wanted), and it gave the player the experience of being *there*. (I could only play for 30 min in a setting, cause it made me so tense. But those were gloriously stressful half hours :)

What about Myst? I never played it, but I've watched friends play through parts of it. It was ACCESSIBLE (which is why so many non-hardcore gamers bought it), IMMERSIVE (a realistically rendered, self-consistent world), and ENGAGING (people seemed to genuinely like to the slowly disclosed story coupled with the task of solving problems.) It had little DETERMINISM, IMPROVISATION, FREEDOM. Trespasser had all three, and by all accounts it was loathsome. What do games *really* need? You be the judge.

Finally, something I think all games lack, that great art possesses, is the ability to speak to our core; that is, to say significant things about the human condition, to challenge us with new ideas, to enlighten us about ourselves and others. Granted, games in general don't really do that (I thinking of sports and board games). But clearly computer game creators aspire to something closer to literature and film at times. To get there, the content must *significantly* improve.

Zelda 64

[wmoyes]

Zelda 64 did a excellent job of combining 3D graphics and the adventure game/role playing styles of games.

The game allowed complete freedom of movement within the environment, and the physics of the game play directly into the puzzles. In one puzzles you are expected to hit a target with a flaming arrow to thaw it. Unfortunately you must hit the target while standing on a moving platform. After trying for I don't know how long, I realized that I had a flame shield like spell. I cast it and the heat from that spell activated the switch just as the arrow would have.

The important part is the game engine works the way life does. There is more than one way to do it. I wish I could meet the developers of that game and find out how they put the engine together. The surround sound is amazing also.

This game ties for the best game ever written next to Hero's Quest (humph... ok Quest for Glory I).

The ultimate RT3D experience

[b1t r0t]

Coming soon to a mega-store near you: Real Life!

DRIVE! to work every day!
WORK! at a boring job five days a week!
SHOP! for food and other useful items!
COMBAT! a house full of roaches!
HAVE SEX! with your .PNG collection!

"The frame rate on this game kicks total ass! But I can't find the railgun anywhere!" - Geta Halflifer
"Wow, look at those shading effects! If only Lara Croft's butt could be rendered with this kind of technology!" - D. Ruling Fanboy
"Unlike Daikatana, the AI kicks ass in this game! If you get pulled over for speeding too many times, the cops really take you to jail! - S. Racer
"Ook! Ook, ook, oooooook!" - The Librarian

Real Life The Ultimate Real Time 3D Experience! And it's cheat-proof, too!