Game changing Cutscenes

[Eurgh]

I stole this idea from Farcry 4 admittedly.

But, in my game, you are invited into a room in which they offer you to join them. However some problems arise and you are left alone in the room, given the command "Wait here a moment." You then hear screams, loud crashes and crying from outside the door. You have the option to leave because you don't want to risk being killed too, or you can wait. However waiting will take around 5-6 minutes real time of waiting in the room. Once they come back, you can join the organization and play a completely different storyline to if you ran away.

However, I'm afraid that 5-6 minutes would be too long to wait and the player would assume they have to leave.

Thoughts?

 

[Kyuukon]

Not a bad idea. I like it and it's very unique but...

However, I'm afraid that 5-6 minutes would be too long to wait and the player would assume they have to leave.

Yeee, that's what would occur in almost all cases :/ And that's a BIG choice not some easter egg or secret room.

 

[bgillisp]

I would go 30 seconds - 1 minute. Anything more than that, the player might miss it.

 

[sabao]

It can still work if you were to provide audio/visual cues that indicate the game is actually still progressing. In commercial games, that's usually background chatter like conversations you can just barely make out coming from the other room. Since voice acting probably isn't an option here, sound effects may still be viable. Spread it apart a little and make sure they're still audibly different so the player doesn't assume you're just looping it. Visual cues in the environment may also work: a window where you see silhouettes of what's going on outside, or blood suddenly splattering all over, or flowing under the cracks of doors and things. You can also build an event that activates every few seconds where the hero monologues as well, reacting to the noise outside.

5-6 minutes is a little lengthy. Unless this branching point in the story is meant to be well-hidden (ie, Suikoden 2 or Persona 4's perfect endings), I'd shorten it.

 

[Seriel]

I would make it about 30 Secs - 1 Min.

 

[Schlangan]

If nothing indicates the progress, 30 seconds / 1 minute would be maximum. However, if you have some information that makes clear that something is going on, the player may stay inside to see the end of it. However 5 minutes is still too long. With some action progress display (or sound as it was said), you would extend it to two minutes, or maybe 3, but that's a grand maximum.


I'll give an example that might be relevant. There is a game where at some point there is a guy in a barrel, with an achievement to hear everything he says. Usually, you wouldn't wait, but since the dialog changes every time, you'll stay here until the end to get the achievement.


In your case, it's thus important to make something change with time, to make the player wait for something. Or else, the player will just leave the room.

 

[Makio-Kuta]

I like the idea a lot, but agree with everyone else. The wait time is too long and you need to put somethings going on around to give the player a reason to be interested in staying. If it's just standing around waiting with nothing to do - they aren't going to stay. Either background noise, or things to search around the room. If you have windows you could show the passing of time outside the windows. Just something so that the player knows that time is actually passing - because in a lot of games, time isn't really passing when you are outside of a cutscene.

 

[Eurgh]

Thanks for all your feedback.

I was worrying about the time, which is why I asked. With this, I'll be able to balance it further into becoming an engaging and interactive story.

 

[Wavelength]

I think that the idea is interesting and cool, for sure, but I'd strongly advise you to think twice about any branching path that will effectively double the amount of content you need to create for the same-length game.  This could mean hundreds of extra hours of work for you, and you don't know whether players will ever see it all.

 

[Eurgh]

I think that the idea is interesting and cool, for sure, but I'd strongly advise you to think twice about any branching path that will effectively double the amount of content you need to create for the same-length game.  This could mean hundreds of extra hours of work for you, and you don't know whether players will ever see it all.

It's one of those prices you have to pay to be creative and do what you want though, isn't it?

In the end, if you're not doing it because you enjoy being creative, what is there left to drive you?

 

[Wavelength]

It's one of those prices you have to pay to be creative and do what you want though, isn't it?

In the end, if you're not doing it because you enjoy being creative, what is there left to drive you?

Hey, if this is the only thing that will give you the drive you need to make your game, then go for it, for sure!

Speaking from experience, though, the amount of drive I've gained by implementing a cool idea is usually not enough for the burnout that would come from developing twice as much content.

 

[Kyuukon]

I agree with Wavelength. Creativity is nice but reality and time-lines are harsh, you know? You want to release the game to the world or work and work indefinitely? You need to set limits (scope) because ideas won't stop coming, believe me. I came to realize that when I started projecting my ideas into my dream game.

I too like multiple endings stories. So what I did to solve this problem in my project was to give the players lots of choices through the entire game but, just about the end,  you will start experience the impact of those decisions (they do have impact early on but not very noticeable, just dialogue and some events). The result so far was nice for both, players and dev: players feel like they are part of the story/world and I can provide them with a full finished game in a year or two.

Like I said, your idea is very cool but... are you willing to work on two different games in one? Even if you do, is that the only choice the players will have for the entire game? I don't think so...

I know understand why big game companies like Telltale Games do what they do with their design. But in the end you decide

 

[Eurgh]

Hey, if this is the only thing that will give you the drive you need to make your game, then go for it, for sure!

Speaking from experience, though, the amount of drive I've gained by implementing a cool idea is usually not enough for the burnout that would come from developing twice as much content.

I have an unbelievable amount of drive. Regardless of time. I get things done. Burning out is always a temporary thing.

I agree with Wavelength. Creativity is nice but reality and time-lines are harsh, you know? You want to release the game to the world or work and work indefinitely? You need to set limits (scope) because ideas won't stop coming, believe me. I came to realize that when I started projecting my ideas into my dream game.

I too like multiple endings stories. So what I did to solve this problem in my project was to give the players lots of choices through the entire game but, just about the end,  you will start experience the impact of those decisions (they do have impact early on but not very noticeable, just dialogue and some events). The result so far was nice for both, players and dev: players feel like they are part of the story/world and I can provide them with a full finished game in a year or two.

Like I said, your idea is very cool but... are you willing to work on two different games in one? Even if you do, is that the only choice the players will have for the entire game? I don't think so...

I know understand why big game companies like Telltale Games do what they do with their design. But in the end you decide

The only thing that impedes my game making is literally clashes in scripts, then I have to go through a list of 5000 scripts trying to figure out what made it not work, and whether I can do without one. x.x