RE: [GD-Design] Off-line vs. on-line play and cheating

[Brian H. <bri...@py...>]

> I think I'd start by trying to divide the game into online 
> and offline functions - and seperate those into "multiplayer 
> activities" versus "single player activities".  Standard 
> approach has been sort of "Different world/characters, same 
> gamesystem", but you could do "Same world/characters, 
> different gamesystem".
 
Interesting idea.  Skies of Arcadia had a kind of gimmick like this in
that you had the regular game, then mini-games that could be played
independently on the VMU (for DreamCast) which weren't vital to the main
game but were minorly helpful at times.

> Socializing with other players is multiplayer only, by 
> definition.  So that's easy.  You don't include it in the 
> list of single-player activities at all (exception being 
> maybe to compose email or the like, which will be delivered 
> the next time you connect), and don't worry about its 
> "impact" on the single-player game, since it doesn't have one.

But there IS an impact -- you can't ask for help or advice or just see
if a friend is around.  For example, go to www.gamehouse.com and play
Text Twist as a registered user.  There's no way anyone else can play
your game with you, but people sit in the chat rooms and post their
puzzles and others chip in and try to help them find the 6 and 7 letter
words.

The social aspect can't be chalked up as just a "game element", because
it's really an aspect of the milieu and overall flavor of the game, even
if it's not fundamentally core to the game mechanics.  Using EQ as an
example, many people log in even if they don't plan on adventuring.
Similarly speaking, it's like going to a coffee shop to read a book vs.
reading it at home.  Sometimes you just prefer a certain ambience for an
ostensibly solitary activity.

Using the MUD paradigm, some aspects can obviously be considered
solitary, e.g. crafting.  You could do that all off-line, but if given
the choice, wouldn't you prefer to do it on-line so that you can see
what's going on outside of your solitary activity.

In my mind, off-line playing is only there if you don't have a choice in
the matter, e.g. tying up a phone line or you're on a plane.  It
provides a non-optimal playing experience, but one that is still better
than being denied play time at all.  Using the MUD example again, if you
couldn't log-in but all you wanted to do was craft, there's no reason
(other than hacking/cheating concerns) that you shouldn't be able to do
that on a limited local server.

Separating the game play styles based on off-line/on-line is a valid
direction, but it has the side effect of, well, separating the play
styles =)  I'd rather not make a distinction to the player other than
what is available to them and personal choice.

> Yah, or there again, can be different types of resources 
> depending on whether you're online or off'.  In the case of 
> single-player type resources (which help you to craft 
> single-player type tools which help you to complete 
> single-player type adventures), say, fictionally justify them 
> as resources the player doesn't so much discover as 'invent'. 

The other problem with the above is that you effectively write two
games.  We went through this on Quake 2, where there was a huge amount
of time devoted to writing the single-player portion, and then a huge
amount of time writing the multiplayer portion, so it ended up being two
games.  In fact, you'd often meet players who only played one or the
other part.

> Yep, that's it.  Separate characters playing the same game.

Blech.  I've always disliked this, especially with advancement oriented
games.  PSO did this as well.  You lose net access for a week, and you
now have a Level 28 Super Warrior, and then you login and find that
you're stuck with your Level 4 Wimpy Dude.  It feels like completely
wasted effort.

> So, a different approach is to have a single character 
> playing two different games, in the same world-space.

Right, which goes back to the whole, "Ugh, we're writing two different
games" thing =)

> So with that, you'd play and explore online for a bit, 'til 
> there was no where else to go.  Then hop online and kills 
> some things to unlock "Sector 7".  Then go back offline and 
> explore sector 7.

That makes sense, and is a different approach than just separating it
into two games.  Having them interleaved, but with the option of always
playing on-line, makes sense.  It makes more sense if you have a linear
story like Diablo's.

Brian