next »

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

This is moved from the TIGSource front page entry on the Jon Blow interview. I hate discussing things on the front page but liked the discussion topic.

http://tigsource.com/articles/2009/05/11/tiginterview-jonathan-blow

My posts so far in that thread, which contain most of my thoughts on the subject:

I think Jon somewhat speaks against himself with these two claims:

“I wouldn’t ever claim that all games should be a certain way. There are a lot of possibilities for where games can go, and it’s probably a good idea to explore them all.”

and

“I gave a whole lecture recently about why I think story-based games have a lot of problems. Here’s the link: http://braid-game.com/news/?p=385 . If a designer is thinking about making something emotional through narrative, I would encourage some kind of narrative structure that is not trying to be a conventional linear story.”

A lot of people enjoy games with linear stories, and a lot more can be done with that than has been done (I’d love to see more games like Planescape: Torment for instance), so why shouldn’t that direction be further explored, just like all the other directions?

Jon, thanks for your reply to my comment. Sorry for this late response, but I still have a question: although falsion is an idiot who uses personal attacks (irony intended), he did bring up one good point early on: that you basically said that games with linear narrative can’t evoke emotion very well. But in my experience and in the experience of many people who play games, it’s exactly games with a strong linear narrative that evoke the greatest emotional response. I’ve never played a game with a procedurally generated story (branching stories or stories that are slightly interactive don’t count) that can compare emotionally to games with linear stories. So I don’t think “If a designer is thinking about making something emotional through narrative, I would encourage some kind of narrative structure that is not trying to be a conventional linear story” is a good encouragement, considering empiricism.

“I’ve never heard him say outright that story-based games are bad or that you just shouldn’t do them.”

And nobody is saying he has (except maybe falsion). But he did say that if you want to make something emotional with narrative, traditional storytelling isn’t the way to do it.

Which is just kind of false on the face of it to me. I’ve played tens of thousands of games, so I’ve a pretty broad knowledge of which games have evoked emotion in me and which haven’t. And it’s usually games with linear stories that did it. I don’t think making Ico procedurally hold Yorda’s hand (for instance) is as emotional to most players as good old pre-written dialogue in, say, Vanguard Bandits (which did have a branching story with five interesting branches, but all were pre-written and used traditional storytelling).

I think it’s fair if he personally hasn’t felt very emotionally attached to games with linear stories. Maybe he just doesn’t play the games I play, who knows. There could be a lot of explanations. But I think it’s bad advice to basically say to game developers: if you want to make something emotional through narrative, don’t use traditional storytelling techniques in games. Because it’s not true, they have a far better chance of making something emotional for the player if they use traditional storytelling techniques.

Does that mean that there isn’t some inherent contradiction between linear stories and interactivity? Does that mean that he isn’t write in his points or criticism? Of course not. But it’s nonetheless wrong to suggest that traditional storytelling in games has a worse chance of evoking emotion than experimental non-linear procedurally generated stories. Maybe one day we’ll be at the point where things like Storytron can be emotionally compelling. But until we are, it’s bad advice to tell game developers to just disregard the thousands of years of collected wisdom on narrative and storytelling.

@”Go make a game with a linear story and prove that they can still hold as much as another type of game. View it as a challenge rather than a dumb opinion.”

Done and done. You don’t actually remember which games I’ve developed, do you?

I don’t view it as a dumb opinion. I’m not saying Blow’s dumb or arrogant the way falsion is. I’m just saying he may be missing something: that empirically, the most emotional responses people get from games tend to be from games with linear stories.

@Alex Vostrov:

I can’t say it feels very weird, no. And no, I don’t think it’d be better if it were a book. Is that old “if you want to make a story in a game, write a book” argument the really the best you can come up with? Don’t you see how silly that type of argument is? Stories exist in dozens, maybe hundreds of media. It’s not just books. It’s books, movies, songs (through their lyrics), poetry, plays, games, and on and on. All of those media have successfully told captivating stories.

I think the basic thing I find wrong with this attitude of “I’ve never played a game with as good a story as a book or movie” is that I have, and that just the fact that someone else hasn’t can’t really convince someone who has of the idea that games can’t do stories as well as other media can – because they can. It’s also dismissing (and dismissive of) a huge section of people who play games who enjoy the stories they contain, and telling all those people basically: no, you’re doing it wrong, you shouldn’t tell stories linearly in games, it’s not good even though you enjoy it.

I don’t disagree with any of that, Lyx – I agree that interactive stories have potential. I’m one of Crawford’s biggest fans, I’d be thrilled if procedural storytelling actually worked, and I fully expect it to work one day. But it hasn’t yet, and until it does, it’s bad advice to tell developers not to tell stories in the traditional fashion. Plus, I think that potential we desire will best be realized not by abandoning thousands of years of wisdom on storytelling, but by embracing it, altering it, and adapting it for interactive media. Instead of seeking reasons why traditional storytelling won’t work in interactive media, it’d be more productive to look into how interactivity can be adapted so that it can make traditional storytelling better, not just entirely replace it.

[Alex Vostrov]

I suppose that I should sum up my thoughts as well.

I feel that linear narrative is a red herring as far as interactive works go. Other media can do it much better than computers, so aping them is a dead end. The problem is that computers can do so many things that it’s easy to go down side passages. Movies are familiar and relatively easy, so that’s what the industry leeched onto.

I think that once we’re comfortable with the medium, we’ll be able to have equal or greater impact compared to static media. Then again, maybe I’ve been listening to Crawford too much.

I can’t really justify my optimism for the procedural approach other than saying that it’s more true to the medium. That said, it’s possible that we’ll need hundreds of years to reach parity. If you thought that it was a fool’s errand, I wouldn’t quibble. The proof will be in the pudding, either way.

Doesn’t it feel weird though? It’s like having stills with text in a movie. You can do that, and maybe you can make an awesome story that way, but wouldn’t it be better if it was a book?

Firstly, I’m not disparaging people who enjoy game stories. A story is a story regardless of the medium. It it’s interesting, that means that the artist did a good job. The question is though, could it be better? I can shoot Citizen Kane in Quake 2 machinima, but it’s much better as a movie.

Secondly, I don’t see what’s silly about my argument. Perhaps you can tell me what’s beneficial about doing a linear story on a computer. Why is it superior to a book or a movie?

As I’ve said, you COULD have a movie that consists entirely of stills with text. Let’s say it’s the text of Paradise Lost. If that’s how Milton wrote his epic, it would still be a great work. Now, why would you want to do that if you have a choice?

I'm going to go sleep now, but I'll check the thread in the morning.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

My reply to Alex Vostrov's most recent post:

Firstly, I’m not disparaging people who enjoy game stories. A story is a story regardless of the medium. It it’s interesting, that means that the artist did a good job. The question is though, could it be better? I can shoot Citizen Kane in Quake 2 machinima, but it’s much better as a movie.

Secondly, I don’t see what’s silly about my argument. Perhaps you can tell me what’s beneficial about doing a linear story on a computer. Why is it superior to a book or a movie?

As I’ve said, you COULD have a movie that consists entirely of stills with text. Let’s say it’s the text of Paradise Lost. If that’s how Milton wrote his epic, it would still be a great work. Now, why would you want to do that if you have a choice?

I think that it's a bad idea to say that just because something could be better, that it shouldn't be made. There's a difference between saying 'game stories aren't that great, they seldom are as great as the best novels, but I enjoy them' and 'game stories never are as good as books so I don't see why people should like games with stories, make games with stories, or play games with stories'. I think too often criticism of linear stories in games falls into the second category rather than the first.

And the reason I think it's silly to say "if you want to make a game with a story, write a book instead! stories in games can't be as good as books!" is obvious if you think about it. Compare with these: "if you want to make graphics, paint a painting instead! graphics in games can't be as good as paintings!" or "if you want to make music for a game, just put it on a CD instead and release it as an album! music in games can't be as good as music released as an album! Or better yet, perform it live in front of an audience!"

Do you now see what I mean? Just because there is some other media that *specializes* in a particular element of a game doesn't mean that you should not put those things in a game. You should no more avoid stories in games because books exist than you should avoid graphics in games because paintings exist or avoid music in games because live performances in concert exist. Novels specialize in stories, but they can't do everything with stories that games can. Some of the stories found in games could not have been done in book format and would not be as good if they were books. Some of the stories of the games I've worked on could not, (the stories of Fedora Spade and Immortal Defense in particular would make no sense in a novel or movie).

EDIT: Aw, you went to sleep just before I posted this! But okay, good night.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

@Paul, I wasn’t singling you out. And no, I didn’t know who you were by name, the same as you don’t know who I am. Sorry for that, but I don’t have time to read everything in the indie scene. It’s things that grab my attention that do get read, however, and most things by Jonathan happen to be on my radar lately. By definition you haven’t been whining, since your arguments contain logic that can be followed by those of us who can actually read .

Regarding it being bad advice to tell someone to try procedural storytelling: I don’t necessarily agree. Who is going to finally make this happen if not game programmers? Why not tell them to try it, or how else do you think it might happen? I do agree that unless you think you’ve got the right sauce, that going with what works is never a bad decision.

That being said, I respect Jonathan for having the balls to say stories in games are crap. Some people are bugged by his “arrogance,” but really, who else is going to tell people that their boring stories suck? Most of today’s consumers aren’t doing it. I don’t necessarily agree with what he says all the time or how he says it, but I do understand what it is that he is trying to say. He is encouraging people to (pardon the cliche) “think outside the box.” He doesn’t say “this is how you make innovative games,” but rather says that thinking outside the box will lead you in the right direction. Why not do a little exploration rather than taking the well-worn trail. Everyone has their own path. Some people will make great games following the time=tested paths, while others (yet undiscovered talents) will walk on these less-traveled paths. It is these who will be bringing new things to light.

I don't feel it's particularly courageous to tell people that the stories they like suck. Anyone can do that, and it doesn't accomplish much. Not that I'm saying that's what Blow is doing (although you kinda were). If he actually were the type of person to do that, falsion would have a point about him being egoistic.

I'm also not saying exploration is a bad thing. What is it with the TIGSource frontpage and strawmen lately? "Personal attacks against developers are annoying" becomes "Developers are whining that their games shouldn't be criticized because they want to pretend they're perfect". Does saying "you shouldn't discourage people from trying traditional methods of storytelling if they want to make an emotional impact" *really* mean "you shouldn't try to experiment with other ways of telling stories"? I mean, come on, that's just as much a jump.

My first comment (the first comment) in that blog post even says that I agree with Blow in that *all* ways of developing games should be explored, and that the Blow quote I quoted was discouraging experimentation in new ways of applying traditional storytelling methods, which I thought was an oversight because it actually discourages experimentation to encourage only a specific type of favored experimentation.

[Alex Vostrov]

Ack! Must. Answer. Post.

Some of the stories of the games I've worked on could not, (the stories of Fedora Spade and Immortal Defense in particular would make no sense in a novel or movie).

I'll have to try your games and see what I think.

I think that it's a bad idea to say that just because something could be better, that it shouldn't be made. There's a difference between saying 'game stories aren't that great, they seldom are as great as the best novels, but I enjoy them' and 'game stories never are as good as books so I don't see why people should like games with stories, make games with stories, or play games with stories'. I think too often criticism of linear stories in games falls into the second category rather than the first.

I'm not principally opposed to people making linear stories in games.  If that's what your vision is, then so be it.  People should be true to that.

The reason why I'm critical of this approach, however is because it affects the future of the medium.  Imagine if when movies were first invented, all the directors wanted movies to be "literary".  Because they so esteemed this approach, everyone put lots and lots of text into their movies.  Some of the movies they made were great and touching and others were so-so.  But because they wanted movies to be more like books, nobody bothered to determine what movies can do better than books.

That's the situation that I feel the industry to be in right now.  If people were actively exploring the procedural approach, I would have no problem.  The issue is that linear presentations have virtually monopolized people's time.  That's a worrying sign, since we'll never get anywhere if people are content to stay with what's comfortable.  On a grand strategic level, we need to develop a unique voice for interactive works.

If you don't feel the desire to venture that way, then don't.  It's a bit like wandering in the desert to find God.  It's kind of crazy and you might just die of thirst before you find anything.  If you feel the call to do that though, you don't really have a choice.  Me, I won't be satisfied until I know how the procedural saga plays out.  I feel that all my current work is building up to that effort.

Do you now see what I mean? Just because there is some other media that *specializes* in a particular element of a game doesn't mean that you should not put those things in a game.

I don't know how much emphasis I want to place on my points.  The ideas are largely thoretical and mostly untried.  Worse yet, they exist mostly in my head.  I'm still sharpening my design skills and my work doesn't really reflect these grand ideas.

Here's what I think it works out to.  If I'm right, then all we need is a viable procedural approach.  Eventually it will grow and eclipse the alternatives.  Much like you don't see text in movies often now, the other approaches will become obsolete.  If I'm wrong, then nothing happens or maybe we get another tool in the box.  Either way, the key lies in doing the work.

I'll feel much better arguing these points if I had half a dozen games to back me up.  So, if this sounds loony to you, I don't blame you.  Make games that are worth making and you can't go too wrong.

EDIT: Ok, going to sleep for real now.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Let me know what you think of them if you try them! Always looking for feedback.

I'd actually say that telling stories in games has been undervalued to the point where it's hardly done any more at all. If you go to the Feedback forum here for instance, the number of games which try to tell a story are tiny, perhaps only a few percent of the games posted there. I'd say the *majority* of game developers tend to look down on stories nowadays, in my experience the number of game developers (indie or not) who value story as even *as* important as gameplay are small. It's hard to even find them outside of the adventure game and RPG genres (which I don't think are the best mediums for telling stories through games but those genres do have more room to tell stories than, say, platformers and shmups).

So I'd say that I do not see game developers as trying to use methods which don't work, I'd say them as neglecting old methods which may work and have worked in favor of copying arcade games and cloning previous games. Very few mainstream games or indie games primarily focus on telling a story, even the ones that people often accuse of doing so (like Metal Gear Solid) actually don't. They are far more game than they are story.

And of course I think it's a bad idea to just rigidly try to apply old methods to new media: you can't just directly apply movie techniques to games. But you can adapt and apply old methods of storytelling to the new medium, and those old methods have a lot to offer almost nobody takes advantage of.

In other words, said more plainly, I believe the people who are saying that there's some incompatibility between storytelling and interactivity

a) often don't actually know much about storytelling -- all they know about are movies and novels, but don't actually have a high-level conception of what storytelling is or what it has in common across all media, and

b) are actually *discouraging* experimentation and encouraging the status quo, a status quo which is to avoid adapting storytelling methods to games.

So it's really not more "experimental" to reject storytelling and seek after a God in the desert, it's experimental to try new methods of applying storytelling to games, trying to use interactivity to improve storytelling, rather than trying to replace storytelling with interactivity.

[esc]

The funny thing is that movies started out with text in them (think of early Charlie Chaplin films), but mostly due to a lack of sound. Games of the last decade still have the text pop-ups, but also sound effects, voice clips and music.
The fact of the matter is that with traditional narrative, through text pop-ups, npc conversation trees, and even worse, cinematics, time and freedom is taken away from the player, since he/she has no choice but to wait it out or figure out how to get the proper response to continue.

On the opposite hand, the proverbial player is probably going to want to follow his own path, explore the environment, try stuff out, maybe get some info when he can, but ultimately he is there to play.
I'm saying this with an obvious bias, and I wouldn't say don't go down the beaten path, but my point is that eventually, players want to have their own adventures, not follow a set out path the designer planned out for them, acting out all the arbitrary, monotonous tasks, to be rewarded with cutscenes in which you take no part.

I have not played any of your games though, Paul, and I will, maybe there are some interesting ideas I hadn't thought of when I was thinking of storytelling.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

"On the opposite hand, the proverbial player is probably going to want to follow his own path, explore the environment, try stuff out, maybe get some info when he can, but ultimately he is there to play."

I actually don't think that's true. I know it sounds weird, but I think only a minority of players think that way, and also that there's no proverbial player and that even if the majority played games that way there should still be room for people who play games in other ways.

When I play games, of course I want to explore, and want to add some of my own personality into what I do, and customize things a bit. But I'm still playing something created by someone else. I'm going through an experience they wanted me to have. If the game developer gives up so much control to the player that they're basically making up the game as they go along (like in Second Life), that kind of defeats the point. The point is usually for the developer to create some interesting experience for the player, not for the player to have a box of toys that he could do whatever he wants with and make up anything he pleases. That isn't freedom, that's just offering the player tools and telling him to do all the work himself.

In other words, you can go too far into freedom, and eventually reach the point where the developer's creative vision is utterly lost, and all that remains are what the player wants to do. So you have to have a balance between the developer creating an experience for the player and the player being able to interact with that experience in some way. Too much interaction and player control isn't freedom, it's emptiness. Too much restriction also isn't fun because they feel like they're just going through hoops.

[Jerky]

I don't feel it's particularly courageous to tell people that the stories they like suck. Anyone can do that, and it doesn't accomplish much. Not that I'm saying that's what Blow is doing (although you kinda were). If he actually were the type of person to do that, falsion would have a point about him being egoistic.

I'm also not saying exploration is a bad thing. What is it with the TIGSource frontpage and strawmen lately? "Personal attacks against developers are annoying" becomes "Developers are whining that their games shouldn't be criticized because they want to pretend they're perfect". Does saying "you shouldn't discourage people from trying traditional methods of storytelling if they want to make an emotional impact" *really* mean "you shouldn't try to experiment with other ways of telling stories"? I mean, come on, that's just as much a jump.

My first comment (the first comment) in that blog post even says that I agree with Blow in that *all* ways of developing games should be explored, and that the Blow quote I quoted was discouraging experimentation in new ways of applying traditional storytelling methods, which I thought was an oversight because it actually discourages experimentation to encourage only a specific type of favored experimentation.

If I remember correctly, he does make a specific example out of Half Life 2, which some believe has a very strong story.  I think he also dings Bioshock as well, but I could be giving him credit for someone else.  He doesn't hide his opinions, which is why I respect them, but that doesn't mean I believe or even agree with them all.  He just strikes me as someone worth listening to, regardless of whether or not I agree.

You do make a good point about the encouragement of experimentation, but I'm just not so sure that the comment venue was really the place to make any points.  Its hard to make sense of what is being said because of all the trolls.  I was reading your blog where it linked back to Mike Smith's game (Caster) and read those comments as well.  It seems TIGSource's readership is full of children who have no idea how to communicate with other human beings properly.  It makes me scared.  Now what does this have to do with stories?  Well, its only the fact that these people here are also partakers of story-games.  If they can't even read and reason some comments properly, I have serious doubts about them consuming a story in a game that does anything other than what they expect it to.  It's a sad state when writers can't even be creative because people complain about their work with no merit.  Gamers today expect things to be hand-fed to them.  This is the same with stories because they expect them to be simple and straight-forward.  I don't necessarily agree that procedural stories don't work because it just hasn't been done well yet.  I think its rather more a problem of the audience not being ready for it, than it just not being done well yet.

Regarding the strawmen, I know what you mean.  But using the comments section to bash an interviewee's position on things is a bit much.  I mean, everyone says things that can be contradictory, and in the online arena, its easy to make yourself seem like the victor because of the anonymity.  If I attack the credibility of someone and they don't come to defend themselves, I feel victorious.  In reality, its a waste of everyone's time.  The point of my comments were to say that Jonathan is entitled to say whatever the heck he wants to, and nobody has to believe anything.  We were all blessed with the ability to think critically (well, some of us were anyways, judging by the comments), so think for yourself.  I don't really see the point in one person making 20 comments on a post.  I guess they feel if they outlast all the other arguers, they win (similar to the strawman, which can't defend itself).  On that note, I'm glad you took it to the forums, but some others really just don't seem to have the same desire to get something out of the discussion(s). 

Take judgespear's response to mine, for example.  He asserts that I think Jonathan is "infallible."  At this point I only have to wonder that a story would be wasted on someone who cannot even comprehend english.  Nowhere did I say or even hint at that, but yet there it is.  I think if Blow ever said "why even bother with a story," I would be right there with him.  Today's audiences are dumber than rocks.  I would also realize, however, that he might *gasp* have more meaning behind those words (in the hypothetical situation that he were to say them).  It might be a satyrical statement based on the fact that he is actually disappointed in the potential audience of his game(s), and could be hyperbolizing.  OMG, not hyperbole.  Some people are just looking for stuff to complain about.  I stand by my original post.  Go read what he writes and listen to his talks.  Just because that's what he wrote doesn't mean thats what he meant.  English words have many meanings, so heaven forbid someone actually expect that their written words would be understood.

@Paul: This is more of a general rant toward the tone of the comments, and it is not directed toward you individually.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Your post is a bit long (I know, so are mine) so I won't address all points, but here are a few:

- I'm not exactly anonymous as a commenter, I'm one of the editors on that blog, I use my real name and have my real picture as my avatar, Blow and I have spoken before via email a few times, so I don't think it's fair to characterize my comment as an anonymous internet attack on Blow. But I know you didn't mean to single me out, and I agree that the other ones were stupid, but their stupidity and random attacks on Blow's character and game are kinda irrelevant to this topic.

- The idea that people aren't yet ready for procedural stories and that the procedural stories which exist right now work and it's just that people haven't adapted to them yet is an interesting idea and may be true. But I think that even if it's true, it doesn't change that developers are more likely to affect people emotionally through linear stories than through procedural stories right now. Also, I haven't actually seen any truly procedural stories yet. Facade doesn't count since it was largely pre-written and has a ton of recorded voices and such -- it's not generated from the player's actions but largely will proceed the same way no matter what the player does, with a few variations here and there. Same thing with many other games that supposedly generate the story based on the player's actions. So I can't actually think of any game that has even tried a procedural story yet, what has been tried is breaking up stories into pieces and allowing the player's actions to determine which of those pre-written pieces they see. That doesn't to me equate with interactive storytelling in the way, say, Chris Crawford uses it.

[esc]

"On the opposite hand, the proverbial player is probably going to want to follow his own path, explore the environment, try stuff out, maybe get some info when he can, but ultimately he is there to play."

I actually don't think that's true. I know it sounds weird, but I think only a minority of players think that way, and also that there's no proverbial player and that even if the majority played games that way there should still be room for people who play games in other ways.

I just want to put out there that the Sims and World of Warcraft are immensely popular, where players do get many of those freedoms.

In other words, you can go too far into freedom, and eventually reach the point where the developer's creative vision is utterly lost, and all that remains are what the player wants to do. So you have to have a balance between the developer creating an experience for the player and the player being able to interact with that experience in some way. Too much interaction and player control isn't freedom, it's emptiness. Too much restriction also isn't fun because they feel like they're just going through hoops.

I don't think Jason Rohrer's creative vision was lost when I played Passage the way I wanted to. I don't think a vision of how the player should experience a game is a good one. I would compare it to a painting, with a tape recording of the artist describing what he exactly wanted to say with the piece.

I'd just like to mention that my favorite game is Super Mario 64, maybe that tells you something about me. I don't really have an awareness of your favorites, besides story-heavy ones in general.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I don't think The Sims and WoW allow much freedom actually -- the experience is still created for the player. I'd say the player even has *less* freedom in WoW than in, say, Fallout.

I don't think there was much (if any) freedom in Passage either. You will die at the end. You can choose a few minor choices, like whether to walk with the girl or not, or which treasure chests to pick up, but you have almost zero freedom in that game.

As for my favorite games, check out this post: http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=2140.msg54297#msg54297

[esc]

Could you maybe enlighten me as to how procedural storytelling is keeping in line with the creator's vision, as you say this is not the case when giving players too much freedom, as I put it?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Elaborating on that would be easier if I knew how much you know about interactive storytelling -- have you read any of Crawford's work for instance? If not I may have to summarize some things.

[esc]

please do, I have read a few articles on gamasutra by him, know that he has been working on some kind of storytelling engine for almost a decade, and that he made Deus Ex(which I did not play), I have recently played "The Day I Die" by Daniel Benmergui(hope that qualifies) and have tried some text only games, but I just couldn't see the appeal.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

No, he didn't make deus ex, he made balance of power, balance of the planet, legacy of siboot, and a bunch of other early games. He also founded the GDC and wrote the first book on game design back in 82. But you're right about the rest. I'm a bit tired now so will attempt to summarize it tomorrow, but if you want to get a head start I recommend this as a good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_storytelling

The reason I think it's important to refer to previous work on the subject is that otherwise we don't know how we're using words, we could mean completely different things by procedural story for instance, and we'd never know unless we had some sort of frame of reference like Crawford etc.

[esc]

Maybe, when you said you thought too much liberty on the player's side wasn't freedom, but emptiness, you meant meaninglessness?
What I actually mean by freedom(which is a rather broad term at times) is player control and influence on the course of the game.

Because, the 2 hours that I played Fallout 3 on the Xbox 360, I felt it was quite an empty place, with all the open space you could traverse without encountering much interesting to do besides getting shot or bitten. So I guess it's fair to say that we do stand on different terms at the moment, and I agree completely that we need to be informed of eachothers understanding to have an actual dialogue.

[esc]

We do have quite different play histories then, of all the games you listed, the only games I also played were Oddworld, Majora's Mask, Out of this World/Another World, Pikmin and Ico.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Oh, I meant Fallout 1 rather than Fallout 3 -- Fallout 3 had less freedom than Fallout 1 by a significant margin.

Anyway, here's a little more on freedom then I sleep for today:

- I don't see choosing which level to go to next or which area to go to next as particularly more free than going through a series of linear levels. Mere choice isn't the same as freedom if the choice is arbitrary and if the results are also arbitrary (like choosing which mega man stage to go to). I feel that type of freedom (maximization of choice, maximization of what the player can do) leads to emptiness. And most games which are called free actually don't allow many significant choices, if any. Why do you believe The Sims is free for instance? Because you can choose your hair color? What kind of choice is that, really?

- Rather I prefer when the choices are interesting and significant. Just having a large number of empty choices is inferior to a smaller number (or even only a couple) of very important choices. So I think the true freedom we should be striking for in games is not to maximize the number of choices a player can make and minimize restrictions, but rather to offer the player meaningful choices where their decisions actually matter and are difficult. Not things like hair color or what stage to walk to next.

[esc]

Have you played either I wish I were the Moon or I fell in Love with the Majesty of Colors?

Maybe that is the style of freedom you would like, maybe you find those choices significant? I'm sure you're imagining upped to a bigger scale than that, but assuming that is indeed the type of freedom you would want from a game:

Does that really matter? Finding all the endings ending up being the utimate goal in those games, I was definitely dissapointed, I felt like I was hunting for eggs on easter.

But you are right for calling me out on the Sims(I have not actually played it for more than 15 mins). The "choice" which outfit you are going to wear being totally cosmetical is really a fallacy, yeah. But I do believe strongly in physical/mechanical freedom, as choosing what target you would want to chase next, as seen in Mario 64 (I did not play any Megaman game).
It's at least something I favor instead of following the path, performing all the dumb chores, just to be rewarded with cutscenes. There are of course good(I hear people loving Final Fantasy, not me though) and bad examples to this structure(collecting triforce shards per boat in Zelda: the Wind Waker). But ultimately, I'd rather watch a movie where I don't have to work or even get frustrated to watch the story continue to develop, as it was intended

Maybe you have seen it, there is this choice you make in Fallout 3, where you can nuke a small town, after which, the damage is permanent. If I would have that choice, I would just watch the "cool" version on youtube, and play the more interestin
Second Life is not something I'm looking for, having absolutely no guidelines, nothing to do but fuck around.