Thoughts on the future of computer games

Good day, Habr!

Recently, I have been thinking a lot about the development of computer games and their place in our future, and decided it was time to share some thoughts on this matter.

Immediately make a reservation that I am not a gamer, nor a professional game developer. If this does not stop you - welcome under cat.


This is how I imagine the generalized structure of new computer games. And somehow it reminds me of the structure of entities in ancient Greek mythology ...
')

I will tell about the idea and scheme a bit later, but for now the prehistory.

Once, playing one well-known MMORPG, I thought that it would be interesting not only to complete the tasks created by the developers, but to give the users the opportunity to create new quests themselves, assign rewards, etc.

In fact, the main (in my opinion) problem, in modern MMORPGs is their extreme predictability and monotony. And this is not surprising. After all, no matter how big and effective the development team is - they cannot complement the game as quickly as the players pass it. As a result, the gameplay is delayed, it becomes boring and monotonous. And millions of users complete the same questline in the same way ...

With the "visibility" of a single world with many players creating a common story - we have, in fact, a separate "world" for each user. Everyone runs along it, and although he sees other players - they are nothing more than shadows, and the possibilities of interaction with them are severely limited (with the exception of group attacks).

Suppose that we added this functionality: any player can stand anywhere on the map and leave his “clone” (a translucent copy of the character) equipped with a quest (the user writes the text, defines the task and the reward), and also the number of times the quest can be to execute. Later, any other player can complete the quest and collect the reward until the quest is completed a certain number of times.

For example, I, for a new potion, need mushrooms growing in a dark forest. Next to the forest, I leave a "clone", with a quest in which I ask you to collect 10 mushrooms, for 100 coins and clothes. If desired, I write the text (to the best of imagination), and also set the number of quests to be completed 5 times. I leave 500 coins and 5 of any items from the inventory, and go on business.
A day later I come, pick up mushrooms (if the conditions were adequate) and I am glad.

It would seem - nothing new, you can do the same at a regular auction. But not really.

Such a change immediately diversifies the life inside the game. It will not be possible to predict exactly where, exactly how best to play, and what chain of quests to take.
And if you ensure the need to create quests such as racial advantages (an alchemist can cook potions from mushrooms, but only an elf can collect them) - the diversity will increase.
At the same time, well-thought-out quests from the developers will be able to take into account the multi-pass chains of user quests for their execution, which again diversifies the game.

Another example. The user has found that mushrooms from a dark forest that beginner players are happy to collect - you can sell alchemists' guilds on a neighboring continent three times (swim across where only high-level heroes can). Having created a clone, he collects mushrooms and, visiting him once a day, takes the cargo and carries it to the continent. However, to dangle back and forth he gets bored. He buys a "warehouse" on the ocean, creates another clone, and announces a quest for transporting mushrooms from the first clone, to a warehouse on the beach. Navigating to the warehouse once a week - he translates 5,000 mushrooms at once, on a ship. But he can get rid of it by creating the third clone ...
Having thought up the transport system (up to 100 units - it fits into the inventory, 100-1000 - you need a chest, 1000-5000 - a ship, etc.) you can further diversify the game.

Over time, the game may appear trading routes, corporations (guilds with a trading bias), large markets ...
This will inevitably lead to pirate attacks on caravans, and they in turn to the emergence of escort services. In which the traitors will surely "combed" ... etc. :)

All this, with little or no additional effort from the developers. Rather, their efforts will shift from thinking through each step of the player - in the creation of some initial conditions in which the game and gameplay grows.
I think a lot of things described are already used in some form in various games, but the essence of the idea is to put such a principle "in the center" of game mechanics.

Structure

A lot of ideas are left behind the scenes (for example, the designer creating a quest by the user), but I would like to tell you more about the games in general.

Imagine a classic single player game. Its “device” can be characterized by such a scheme.



That is, the developers have created game mechanics (the laws of the world), and game objects (environment). During the game, the environment somehow affects the player. The longer the player lasted - the more points received.
When playing a game, it may seem that the player acts on the objects of the game (shoots, opens doors, etc.) - but these are “imaginary changes”. In fact, shots are just another way to dodge enemies. The player (with rare exceptions) can not somehow reconfigure the level.

Consider other types of games.

For example, the classic MMORPG looks almost the same.



The essence is the same, but there appears a limited opportunity to interact with each other (unite against enemies).

And, for example, how would the scheme of a classic Tetris look like in this approach?



The scheme is immediately clear the fundamental difference between this kind of games. Here objects (environment) - created by the user. And developers only formulate game mechanics (the laws of the world and the properties of the gaming space).
For classical Tetris, the laws will determine the form of the elementary elements, the control, the size of the field, the disappearance property of certain combinations of objects, and the dependence of the fall rate on the number of missing blocks.

Today, Minecraft received a huge spread, as a game with a non-standard structure. We'll see.



A thin line from objects to players means that players depend in some way on objects (for example, you can die in a game). However, this connection is very weak. Therefore, Minecraft is, in essence, a constructor. Very interesting, addictive, unusual, but the designer.
It would be interesting to see the development of this connection - for example, if you add various types of weapons to the game and divide the players into two camps to arrange an “eternal confrontation” ... Maybe, of course, something similar already exists, but I have not seen it.

It is curious, by the way, that a game like Sims fits quite accurately into the Minecraft scheme. There the player also forms his own environment and plays in it. In this game, the feedback (from objects to the player) is much stronger than in Minecraft, but other gameplay features prevent the potential of the underlying principle from being revealed.

Development

Developing ideas, these ideas we need to strengthen the connection from objects to players, but the question arises: if we assume that the players themselves form the game space, then we need to make this process somehow manageable. So that each player does not "pull the blanket over himself." Some rank system is needed, similar to the principle of authors in wikipedia, which will allow to observe the general vector of development.

Considering that some users in addition to the usual game (game objects -> players) will be engaged in the development of the game world (players -> game objects), we need to create player rating tools that will affect his ability to change the world.
This rating is likely to be determined by the players themselves, as a result of some voting mechanism. Moreover, both ordinary players and "creators" and "observers" can participate in the voting (a group of players who can watch the game without actively participating in it).


In general, “observers” are not a separate group. As well as creators, who can be both ordinary players at the same time, the observers can also be players. I select them only to show the function of this role - to evaluate the players and thus bring additional balance into the game.

In this case, the "creators" may have different specialization. Someone will be improved in the construction of schemes from elementary objects, someone on the impact on the laws of interaction of these elements, someone to influence the storylines and events, someone to deal with the interaction of creators between themselves and between the players ...

This whole scheme reminds me of the ancient world with its mythology. The pantheon of the Greek gods - as an analogue of the collection of "creators" of different directions with the maximum rating. Various mythical creatures with power over the structure of the world - as creators. Warriors / merchants / kings / ... are simple players. Heroes - combining the "fighting principle" with the "creative", etc ...

Of course, it’s interesting to imagine a big game, like Second Life, according to such principles (the principles of Second Life itself are very similar, but there are differences), but I think that if the approach is correct, you can probably think of a simple game, .

And it seems that my brother and I managed to come up with an original game model for such a scheme. If this is interesting to the community - I will present it in the next article.