next »

[Evan Balster]

Hey, all.


I'd like to say that I think being able to ignore a game's story completely makes that story more meaningful to me.  If the cutscenes are skippable, I feel better about watching them.  If I don't need to save the princess, I think it's more worthwhile to.  If I don't need to have an extended conversation with the butler, I want to.

Broadly, I think making contextual elements of a game nonessential to the gameplay itself deepens their value to the story-interested player.  Another thread had a sub-discussion about 'spoon-feeding' story and I think that's a good way of explaining the antithesis of this.  My favorite games all have numerous elements that can be ignored without great practical loss but serve as enrichments, be they side-stories, explorable nooks, or optional backstory that must be carefully located.


As a real-world analog, I have a pendant that I wear always which serves as a memento of a close relative who died a few years ago.  When I was given the pendant (which contains cremation ashes) I was told I should wear it always.  I resented this, at some level, though I would have done this anyway.  The reason was that I would rather have chosen the meaningful course of action than have it suggested to me.

From that, I think I can take this idea one step further and say that it makes important choices even more meaningful if we as writers avoid giving directions to the player, instead giving them knowledge of what's around them and letting them make meaningful choices for themselves.  It's a subtle difference.


I think this is an important matter for us, as the inclusion of the player as a narrative element is what separates a game from other media.  Meaningful player choices are the strongest thing games have, from a narrative standpoint, that noninteractive stories do not.

Your thoughts?

[bento_smile]

It's true! :3

Persona 3 and 4 are good examples of this, because all the hanging out with NPCs is optional (mostly) and as it's near impossible to see all the content on the first play through, you have to make a choice which NPCs you want to talk with.

Atelier Iris too, I spent a long time doing sidequests and things for NPCs.

It's interesting how having a choice can make players care more. I wonder if in games where the characters annoy me, whether I'd like the characters more if I felt that I was choosing to do things for them, rather than being forced to by the game. (But then, I am weird and like being nice to NPCs...)

[tsameti]

That's actually a big part of the design thesis I've got for my current project, Son, Stranger (which is nowhere near completion).

I want a player to be able to step into the game, and finish in under a minute if they don't care about the story. But if they want to, they can dig into long conversations, read encyclopedia entries about the game world, dive fairly deeply into the fiction.

But the key is that they have total control of the pace, and the depth they want to go. I totally agree, OP.


PS: I loved Mass Effect for those extensive journal entries. Never forces them on you, but you love 'em anyway.


A practical point to make: You NEVER want to punish a player for wanting to replay a story. If your player maybe stopped halfway through the game last time they played or lost a save or whatever, they have a right to skim a little more liberally through. Giving them that option makes it more likely they'll get to reach content you put towards the end of the game.

[Evan Balster]

bento_smile:  You are not alone.  Not by a longshot.


tsameti:  You reminded me of something.

BOOKS IN GAMES.  FUCKING BOOKS IN FUCKING GAMES.  <3.


They're these little morsels that you can devour or abandon.  And they're a great way to make optional story.

I'd love it if a linear-type game had books carefully hidden around that gave backstory.  I'd obsess over the ones I had trouble finding.

The Strange and Somewhat Sinister Tale of the House at Desert Bridge had hundreds of title-only books all over the house.  Clicking all of them was a joy.

[Captain_404]

I'm in almost complete agreement. If a person is offers choice, it is at least implied that they value the thing they chose more than what they did not choose. Conversely, I believe that a lack of choice breeds resentment.

It's sort of like the high school reading list dilemma. If a person is forced to read a book for school, they are less likely to enjoy it. If they choose to read it on their own, they are more likely open to the experiences it offers.

I believe it's worth noting, however, that optionality does not necessitate meaning. I believe we should not included choices just for the sake of including choices, it cheapens the experience. For example, I am always disappointed when two branches of a dialog tree lead immediately to the same end. Why have those choices at all? I'll value the choice on my first playthrough, but as I delve deeper into the game I discover it was lying to me all along and my actions were meaningless.


SIDE TOPIC!

BOOKS IN GAMES.

Yes! They add so much character to a place, they make it feel alive. I don't like, however, when they are numbered so I know there are some missing. Suddenly, it feels as though I am obligated to collect them all (so I guess this ties in after all) and I don't like that. I'd actually prefer to read bits and pieces of the whole, never knowing what parts of the narrative I'm missing.

[McMutton]

I love this sort of thing. It adds a lot of depth to a game, methinks.

I've also taken this subject into consideration whilst planning Key of Ethios. Throughout the story, you meet a large cast of characters and, at certain points later on, you can return and join them on a large questline.

[Evan Balster]

For example, I am always disappointed when two branches of a dialog tree lead immediately to the same end. Why have those choices at all? I'll value the choice on my first playthrough, but as I delve deeper into the game I discover it was lying to me all along and my actions were meaningless.

Disagree!

The first time you play through, it feels meaningful.  The way I see it, games like that are made for the first playthrough, and break on the second.  But that's okay, because they give the illusion of bigness and openness without having huge amounts of content.

A counterexample for you is the IF game Photopia.  Play it; it's fifteen minutes.  Then play it again, and see how it uses false choices to make a well-paced narrative in a medium that's prone to very meandering plot progression.

Also, to a lesser extent, see bento_smile's "Air Pressure" and "The Life of a Pacifist".  These games compress a large number of choices into a small number of outcomes, though those choices do take you on different paths in the short term.


Hmm.  Perhaps I'm talking about something different than you are, though.  A choice that produces virtually no difference as opposed to a choice that produces a short-term change of course without changing the final outcome significantly.

I still think either is better than nothing, though. 

[tsameti]

This scenario:

Hey, I think we should storm the castle to save the orphans we've never met, aren't certain are still alive, and will likely culminate with a feverish fight with a were-frankenstine. What do YOU think, hero?

> No.

Are you sure? Because I think we should! Come on, let's go!

(Transition to cutscene)


That - is shitty game design.

[Ben_Hurr]

This scenario:

Hey, I think we should storm the castle to save the orphans we've never met, aren't certain are still alive, and will likely culminate with a feverish fight with a were-frankenstine. What do YOU think, hero?

> No.

Are you sure? Because I think we should! Come on, let's go!

(Transition to cutscene)


That - is shitty game design.

BUT THOU MUST!

[Captain_404]

The first time you play through, it feels meaningful.  The way I see it, games like that are made for the first playthrough, and break on the second.  But that's okay, because they give the illusion of bigness and openness without having huge amounts of content.

Perhaps we are talking about different things, or at least differing aspects of the same thing. I felt there was a reason for the choices to exist in Air Pressure and Pacifist, even if they ultimately led to the same place. Traversing its narrative is a bit like pacing around a sculpture. No matter what part you currently view, there is another side of it obscured. When I walk around to look at that other side, I expect it to be different from the part I currently view. When it is markedly different, my exploration has led me to a greater understand of the work as a whole. If it is the same, however, it trivializes my act of exploration. In that sense, I feel that choices leading ultimately to the same place can still have meaning as long as they are not each other's equivalent. (if that makes any sense, on rereading, this explanation seems convoluted to me)

I'd say too that if a work is meant to be played through once only, enforce that via programming. Limit people from playing it twice. The very option to replay a game implies that the game is meant to be replayed, or at least implies that replaying will not be destructive to the work.


Photopia's been on my to-play list for a while now, I've no idea why I haven't picked it up yet. Thanks for the reminder!

[Evan Balster]

I think you explained yourself clearly.


I think one thing that's a bit of a shame is how any kind of "permanence" or "anti-replay" mechanism in a game ends up getting viewed as a gimmick.  --  I just deleted a longer rant on this since it's tangental and I don't want to knock this topic off-track, but it is vaguely related to all this player-choice business.

[Pineapple]

I think you explained yourself clearly.


I think one thing that's a bit of a shame is how any kind of "permanence" or "anti-replay" mechanism in a game ends up getting viewed as a gimmick.  --  I just deleted a longer rant on this since it's tangental and I don't want to knock this topic off-track, but it is vaguely related to all this player-choice business.

I personally think it's a good way to make the player feel like their decisions carry more weight.

For example, I've been playing Deus Ex for the first time recently, and I'm overwhelmed by the amount of control I have over the narrative - I'm aghast that so few modern games have the same level of freedom. When I was ordered to assassinate the one "terrorist" leader, I had the impulsive thought of "But what happens if I kill Navarre instead?" I tried it and was astounded by the unprecedented control I had over the story of the game. But if that choice weren't permanent there'd be no meaningful impact on the player from the decision made.

Also, having the freedom to talk to who I want, overcome obstacles how I want, and every action having concrete and predictable consequences creates a very absorbing game.

So yes, I fully support the idea that optional (player freedom to do nearly whatever they want so they may explore a gigantic (and probably would need to be procedurally generated) narrative tree) creates meaning, because every action the player takes has a direct influence on their unique experience.

I'm slowly working on World's End, a game simple in concept but backed by a complex simulation, not a far shot from the gameplay of Dwarf Fortress. The player will be able to do anything, no matter how outlandish, with every action having irreversible results and no two games being the same. I imagine it will create an atmosphere even more amazing than that of Dwarf Fortress (if I can ever finish it, that is) solely because of of the amount of meaning behind each choice the player makes.

[mirosurabu]

This thread makes me think of Alone of the Dark 2 and its extensive private journals. Have to play that game at some point again.

Generally agree with everyone, I think it is more meaningful because players are self-motivated i.e. it feel like a discovery and in case of journals and books it feels like a possession.

Though, I think this only works so well with games where events are inanimate (i.e. no sense of time) and where you can revisit locations anytime. Especially when we talk about optional dialogs. Not sure if it can work with games that feel alive and where events and characters progress as you play, but I know that there is a weird mix of animated events and inanimate characters in Persona (I haven't played the game, just watched it).

[DecipherOne]

Generally agree with everyone, I think it is more meaningful because players are self-motivated i.e. it feel like a discovery and in case of journals and books it feels like a possession.

Though, I think this only works so well with games where events are inanimate (i.e. no sense of time) and where you can revisit locations anytime. Especially when we talk about optional dialogs. Not sure if it can work with games that feel alive and where events and characters progress as you play, but I know that there is a weird mix of animated events and inanimate characters in Persona (I haven't played the game, just watched it).

The premise of having choices that are bound by time sensitive events is one that I have been looking to explore for a while. I think that it adds a sense of urgency and forces the player to make a decision with lasting consequences. For example say that two catastrophic events coincide. A family member has been abducted by a waring nation, yet the player is on a mission that will decide the fate of the war. If the player continues on their mission their entire country will be saved, but their family member will meet certain death. If they go after their family member however, their nation will fall to the control of the opposing nation.( Just an example)

I think it's this type of conflict and choice that can produce great results. If the back story for such events and character development are solid, then it's these type of scenarios that can really jolt the player into feeling some emotional investment.

[jwk5]

This topic brings to mind the Xenosaga series. I love the Xenosaga games but sometimes being trapped in a 40 minute long enforced dialogue makes my brain hemorrhage. I would have liked it much better if the main dialogue was handed out in smaller doses but you could explore all that extra fictional pseudo-science through side-missions. Especially given 90% of it is nothing you actually really need to know to enjoy the plot.

Gameplay should really follow those lines as well, now that I think about it. I enjoy games where the main missions are brief but there are plenty of side-missions to play at your own discretion. I think that is what I really like about games like GTA, Infamous, Crackdown, etc.

[Antiserum]

This is very similar to playing pen and paper games (which are a great tool for developing storytelling abilities), and watching how a handful of different players approach the gaming experience.
From my P&P experience, players usually don't like railroading and want freedom of choice; which often comes down to the illusion of freedom of choice - but it works well. So you can use optional but meaningful as good hooks to unobtrusively "push" players into doing what you want them to (to blatantly railroad without them feeling pressured into it, post NES Zelda games are often a good example of this - even when it's simply a YES/NO dialogue option where NO holds no value at all... I wouldn't call that shitty game design, but an attempt at creating illusions for the player to improve upon their willing suspension of disbelief.)

Whenever I as a GM tried to brutally force the players into a course of action they would rebel, found the game somewhat boring and start heaps of out of character chit-chat. It only somewhat worked on "kick-in-the-door" style players who were there for amassing exp, power and wealth (but even then - rarely).
When I would present them the illusion of freedom of choice, they would gladly go exactly where I wanted them to go without realizing it.

[TheSpaceMan]

This is very similar to playing pen and paper games (which are a great tool for developing storytelling abilities), and watching how a handful of different players approach the gaming experience.
From my P&P experience, players usually don't like railroading and want freedom of choice; which often comes down to the illusion of freedom of choice - but it works well. So you can use optional but meaningful as good hooks to unobtrusively "push" players into doing what you want them to (to blatantly railroad without them feeling pressured into it, post NES Zelda games are often a good example of this - even when it's simply a YES/NO dialogue option where NO holds no value at all... I wouldn't call that shitty game design, but an attempt at creating illusions for the player to improve upon their willing suspension of disbelief.)

Whenever I as a GM tried to brutally force the players into a course of action they would rebel, found the game somewhat boring and start heaps of out of character chit-chat. It only somewhat worked on "kick-in-the-door" style players who were there for amassing exp, power and wealth (but even then - rarely).
When I would present them the illusion of freedom of choice, they would gladly go exactly where I wanted them to go without realizing it.

I agree that Pen and Paper games can be great at this, my unfortune is that I have been cursed with a train riding crew. If I don't push them the game stops, they sit quietly looking at me waiting for the next thing to happen.

Also there is a danager in what you talk about, if you have choices, specialy if you can't do them all, some people (my girlfriend included) can't play the game or have to restart it over and over again (or gives up and gets a guide), because one choice "might" be better than the other.

Me myself LOVE the freedom of choice and I want it in every game. I want grayscales and moral choices that is not either pet the kittens or make a pie out of them. Then again if the story goes to much out of focus I won't play the game. Oblivion as an example. You can run around the world totaly randomly and do random stuff, then main story don't feel important, sure you must close the portals, but if you don't... well nothing will really happen. So I don't feel moraly bound to help.

[klembot]

I always imagine that there's a group of players out there who are in it strictly for the gameplay and don't really care about the story one way or the other. To be fair, a lot of video games, especially early ones, didn't care about story either. So I think a storyline *has* to be optional for a lot of game genres -- interactive fiction/visual novels being obvious exceptions. By the same token, if someone's going to disregard the storyline entirely, then the ending is allowed to make no sense to them, either.

I like Deadly Premonition's approach, where by the time you finish the required quests, you have solved the main mystery, but a couple side quests explain who the characters are and give you a better sense of why stuff happened the way it did.

I'll be a voice of dissent here and say I actually dislike fictional books getting embedded into games. I think of Deus Ex here but also Myst... I like things that feel like found documents, but when I know I'm about to hit several full pages of text, I start getting antsy.

[Kramlack]

Bad Game Design:
King: Will you help our kingdom?
Player: YES   >NO
King: You'd let all these people die?
King: Will you help our kingdom?
> Repeat infinity

Good Game Design:
King: Will you help our kingdom?
Player: YES   >NO
King: You'd let all these people die?
King: Will you help our kingdom?
> Repeat three times
King: Will you help our kingdom?
Player: YES  >NO
King: Fine, then I have no choice. Guards, seize him.
> Branches off into different storyline.

[BlueSweatshirt]

I'd love that approach, but, most people are trained by video game culture to know that if a question is asked over again, that they need to give the other answer to move on. Sooo~ 

But yeah, I still like it. Changing what the king asks a little every time might show the player that it's actually going somewhere. Dunno