I remember following Spore, but also never bought it (DRM being the same non-starter). General feeling I recall from comment(ator)s was that each of the five game types were poorer versions of games that separately did each thing much better, but it was very interesting and had great promise. So very easy to say, but I often feel that the merging/balance of procedural and fixed content is a key.
skeletonbow: Yeah, both Skyrim and The Witcher 3 wild predators will kill their prey in-game. They pretty much just kill it and leave it there dead like it was for sport though with the exception of game bosses like the griffins for example.
I like to think (hope) that such things are the start of more to come. I think the geese worrying simulator aspect of The Witcher 3 is sorted :o) and I would always like to see such things in other games, but the concept of apex predator has so much potential. I should add, that I use the term apex predator, but I don't really know anything more than the basic principle. I like killed wolves not just respawning based on a timer, but I also like the possibility of killed wolves leading to an increase in deer numbers (for example). As I alluded to before, I think it would have to be compressed in terms of time, since realistically larger animal numbers take years to increase in number and similarly take years for an apex predator to affect prey numbers, but still... I find it very appealing for a game. Could give the player angency, but dynamically. In theory :o)
As you say, the current situation is *very* simple. I'm surprised at how much of a difference it makes though, but then I loved that Doom enemies would fight if they could be goaded to shoot at the player character with a different enemy type in the way :o)
skeletonbow: Some problems with some of our suggestions/ideas and those I'm sure others might have too that need to be considered are:
What? Nononono. Our musings are beyond question and require no pause for reflection or attention to realities, practicalities or other peopl... < sigh > Fine, go on then... :oD
skeletonbow: - Does the particular feature affect gameplay in any notable way or does it just add immersion, and if it does affect gameplay notably such as requiring a user to do things - are they things users will enjoy and find entertaining or is it just boring routine stuff like brushing your teeth or something that doesn't add value to the game and would be annoying if you were forced to have to do it. I think if they can add such ideas to a game in a fun way, or an optional/aesthetic way is probably for the best.
I think... that's actually one of the biggest issues in general. Immersion does need other things to go with it :o) I'm going to make some (more) sweeping statements, but for me, I'm generally not really that enamoured with crafting, for example. I *really* like it, but only in concept, not nearly so much in actual implementation. I often feel a fair amount (even a *lot*) of work goes into such things, but I find that it's often just kind of... there. I dabble with a few things, but organising the ingredients, working out which ingredients are important/actually useful, finding something to actually make from them all and for that item to end up being *useful* (let alone something that I really want), I often find to be frustrating in use and disappointing in result.
As something more specific: cooking. It's often there, but what does it really *do*? I'll spare you loads of ideas on how I think cooking should work :o)
Contentious, maybe, but I find The Witcher 3 system of *all* the ingredients and items, and yet the potions, bombs, oils etc auto refill, to be very bad. The reasons behind this and the validity of such reasons is a conversation in itself, but not the point I would try to make. For me, any such system that you, I or anyone could come up with is kinda the easy part :o) The difficult part is making it work. Making it contribute. Whether it be fun, challenge, world building, immersion etc.
I think the sort of things we've been talking about could very much work, but it would take a fair amount of iteration as well as a lot of resources. As for whether they *would* work and be appreciated by many, I have no idea. One of many reasons why I'm not *actually* making games :o)
Note: I added "etc" above to make it look like I have more examples, when that was pretty much all I thought of :o) It's a physics-exam-whilst-at-school sort of thing, that in retrospect didn't fool anyone back then either :o)
skeletonbow: - Some players try to exploit different aspects of a game, and one would have to implement the features in a way that is immune to people trying to "break" the game or use a feature for cheating or something. As an example, in Witcher 3 you could kill cows and make money selling their meat and get experience, then just keep doing it as they insta-respawn. There were no consequences. In Skyrim if you kill a chicken, that's like the worst cardinal sin in the game and any living person in the game will attack you to the death for it. In The Witcher 3, attacking cows now unleashes the bovine defense squad - a high level monster spawn-in that kills you. What would be better would be a balanced and measured natural response such as being arrested if you're seen and taken to jail. The game could even force this even if you're technically more powerful than those arresting you. Encourages users to not do things they shouldn't but in a way that hopefully doesn't break immersion and might even add fun or depth to the game. :)
I think the cow killing is a good example of some things. For me, I would say that it's a simple, easily recognised issue (although it's easy for me to say that), but also one that is something that has existed for a while. As you say, villagers became very upset at killing their chickens in Skyrim. I would say that it's right for villagers to be upset, but not that much. The Wticher 3 plays it pretty loose, in my opinion, with what can be stolen/killed and what the penalty is/isn't and that's seems predictably problematic. Again, easy for me to say, but such fundamentals seem to be just that: fundamental. Kinda circular that :o) but I do think that such things have been around for long enough to be able to be decide on paper early on. What are the rules we want to implement for ownership? How are items/property going to be determined/work? Are plants fair game? What about plants in a fenced off area? Does that make a difference? To me, a village that has livestock, but no actual *owner*, is just asking for problems.
I didn't know about the bovine defense squad < laugh > Do they have badges? :o) But that seems like a poor solution. As you say, I would much prefer to have such things balanced, but using different means. Either through limited growth/births, ownership with penalties for stealing, or difficulty with obtaining. But maybe with the possibility of sneaking the odd steal.
Always easy for me to suggest such things, but... well... really I feel that RPGs suffer a major issue in something you mentioned, which is balancing. Too many ingredients. Too much money. Too powerful, too soon. But I think balancing is *really* hard.
But going back to earlier, making such things worth while, is also huge and difficult. So often I find that games let themselves down on many things. But then, making games is difficult.
Last sweeping statement would be that I tend to think players exploiting something is often down to players, *providing* that the obvious things are thought of and eliminated during design and implementation. Even with the cow, don't players have to meditate for the cow(s) to respawn? So, I think that if players are going to do that, then there's a element of players breaking their own immersion, but I would still want such things thought of anyway. Again, I think there's a sort of balance there.
