[AndreaDraco83]

I don't think that pure randomization can be useful for a game, neither that it can be effectively possible. Author's intention cannot be perceived from random events by the player(reader/viewer), and a story without an author's intention is a hollow entity, even more hollow if the player can't signify it - and, literally, a random event can't be signified at all. So, in my opinion, a similar degree of randomization diminish not only the Author's role but also the Player's role, thus diminishing the story itself.

[MoriartyL]

[sigh]

Originally Posted by AndreaDraco83

Author's intention cannot be perceived from random events by the player(reader/viewer)

Is that so. It seems to me the author's intent is quite clear- he's giving you a story with unpredictable elements in it. You know, like life. He wants you to be worried, and second-guess yourself later. Which part of this is in any way unclear?

a story without an author's intention is a hollow entity, even more hollow if the player can't signify it - and, literally, a random event can't be signified at all.

If I make a decision, and it has a result, that has significance. I can feel like I made the right or wrong decision, even if the other option had the exact same odds. Now, it takes a good storyteller to use the luck gameplay to form a good story, just as without a good storyteller we get the current crop of bad inventory-puzzle stories. But in principle luck -and strategy as well- is no less appropriate for adventures than puzzles.

So, in my opinion, a similar degree of randomization diminish not only the Author's role but also the Player's role, thus diminishing the story itself.

And I say that's a nonsensical argument built solely to prop up the current status quo. A story is not diminished by including various levels of unpredictability, it is only made more real and more varied in emotions.

[Ascovel]

Do you consciously employ this luck element when designing your own games, MoriartyL? Your "smilie" seemed to be unpredictible to the player in the way you say.

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

[sigh]Is that so. It seems to me the author's intent is quite clear- he's giving you a story with unpredictable elements in it. You know, like life.

Who had written these unpredictable elements? Who had designed them? Who had interwoven them in the main arc of the story? The author. So, if we speak about unpredictable elements, I can agree with you. If we speak of total randomization, which can't be written/designed, thus excluding the creative vision of the author, I disagree: without a conscious creative act (which I see as opposite of "random act") there isn't any story to speak about.

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

If I make a decision, and it has a result, that has significance. I can feel like I made the right or wrong decision, even if the other option had the exact same odds. Now, it takes a good storyteller to use the luck gameplay to form a good story, just as without a good storyteller we get the current crop of bad inventory-puzzle stories.

Has it significance per se? Or has it significance in the main story arc? As I said before, the player can often made choices that thicken the plot, and choices that weaken it. If the player makes a decision and the consequence is one of a bunch of possibility, I agree with you. Otherwise, no.

Example: In King's Quest III, if you choose to neglect some wise advices that the game hint at you, you can die. It's a choice and has a significance in terms of story. Being killed by a random monster - say in King's Quest II - it's matter of luck: the monster can be there, and also may be elsewhere. It's bad luck if you stumble upon it - but it has no significance in terms of story, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

And I say that's a nonsensical argument built solely to prop up the current status quo. A story is not diminished by including various levels of unpredictability, it is only made more real and more varied in emotions.

Again, if we speak about unpredictability - or, better, about different paths of choices presented by the author to the player that the player can freely choose, thus signifying the story - I agree with you. If we speak about total random elements - like the above mentioned random monster - I strongly disagree: these luck/random events give nothing more to the story.

[MoriartyL]

Hold on, hold on. There's obviously some serious miscommunication going on here. I'm not talking about making an RPG, I'm not talking about basing an entire plot on unscripted die rolls, I'm just talking about using luck in small instances. The branching paths would obviously be scripted. For instance, you have two options, one with a high probability of limited success and one with a smaller probability of success. All possible outcomes are scripted, and the game will continue no matter what. I'm talking about situations like that.

Anyway, it was just an example. Strategy could be just as useful, I think, but it would be pretty hard to design given that any tactics need to be countered with pre-scripted reactions. (Using AI is not a good idea.)

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by Ascovel

Do you consciously employ this luck element when designing your own games, MoriartyL? Your "smilie" seemed to be unpredictible to the player in the way you say.

Smilie is perfectly predictable once you get to know him. I would have no objection to using luck if it were ever called for by a story, but this is not applicable to any of the games I've planned for the foreseeable future.

(I apologize for double posting. I would have added this to my previous post, but the Wii's web browser doesn't have copy-and-paste functionality.)

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

Hold on, hold on. There's obviously some serious miscommunication going on here. I'm not talking about making an RPG, I'm not talking about basing an entire plot on unscripted die rolls, I'm just talking about using luck in small instances. The branching paths would obviously be scripted. For instance, you have two options, one with a high probability of limited success and one with a smaller probability of success. All possible outcomes are scripted, and the game will continue no matter what. I'm talking about situations like that.

Yes, there was a problem of miscommunication! I intended luck/randomization in a RPG fashion. If we talk about scripted branching paths, I'm with you, even if I think that would be very difficult to design such paths.

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

Smilie is perfectly predictable once you get to know him.

The process of learning smilie's reactions is quite a bit luck dependent I think. Also, his behaviour seems so wild sometimes that from the player's perspective he may remain always somewhat emotionally unbalanced and unpredictible - an entity better not to be underestimated in its ability to surprise you.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by Ascovel

The process of learning smilie's reactions is quite a bit luck dependent I think. Also, his behaviour seems so wild sometimes that from the player's perspective he may remain always somewhat emotionally unbalanced and unpredictible - an entity better not to be underestimated in its ability to surprise you.

Well, I can't help that. Smilie is my creation, and I tend to think in a way other people don't relate to. But I assure you, Smilie thinks everything he's doing is the obvious reaction. Nothing (except for some minor timing and movement) is random. So it's not relevant to any of this thread's discussions.

[rtrooney]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

You seem to be having trouble with the concept of luck. Pure luck means randomization

I have no trouble with the concept. I simply don't believe it can be achieved without chaos being the result.

If any random choice results in the game being unplayable or non-completeable, then it is a poorly designed game that will wallow unsold in the discount bin at the local WalMart.

[Puzzler]

Manipulation usually involves some arcane device that has a code, sequence or pattern that must be deciphered to activate or calibrate it. These particular puzzles are what I often refer to as abstract logic puzzles*, even though some of them are perfectly reasonable given plot elements that call for such an instrument. Puzzle Gamers almost universally love these (the only complaints I've ever heard from Puzzle Gamers are if the puzzle doesn't work properly, or you have to interrogate lots of NPCs or travel around too much to learn how to decipher the codes or patterns properly. Oh, and slider puzzles. Am I the only guy who likes these?). Word people prefer them only if they stress language over symbols or numbers (e.g. riddles and anagrams). Story people generally find them almost universally intrusive and unnecessary.

Yep, I love these. I'll always complain if an adventure game does not have enough of these, or if the ones they do have are not original. This is what I mean whenever I refer to "puzzles" in adventure games.

Don't get me wrong, I love story too, probably as much as the story-oriented people (why I play adventure games and just not straight puzzle games.) But if an adventure game doesn't have a fair amount of good "Manipulation" puzzles, can't say I'll be too happy about it. Gotta keep those, but throw in whatever else you want.

[MoriartyL]

You're not making any sort of sense. Why is luck or strategy any less likely to get through than a puzzle, where you're going to be stuck at that one minor plot point forever unless you figure it out? With strategy or luck, there's usually more of a deadline, where the game will continue even if you've lost.


Getting back to the original question, I think story is made up of gameplay in all types of games. In an action game, shooting someone is a plot point. In a sports game, passing the ball is a plot point. Not that they're good stories. When a game is "gameplay-driven", and your actions are satisfying in themselves, the designer is under no obligation to make a good story out of its gameplay. He almost always can, though.

When there's no one piece of gameplay that you can hold up and say "This is what the game exists for.", then gameplay-driven design is not valid. Take RPGs, for instance. You've got the adventure-y wandering around, the battles, and the long-term levelling-up and customization. The three parts co-exist without one being "the point". If you tried to make it gameplay-driven, you'd have an unfocused mess. So the story becomes critically important for holding the game together, and the gameplay is good if it gives you a good "Hero's Journey".

Adventures are (in their present form) the same way. Are puzzles the point of the game? Is exploration? Interaction? Collecting random junk? These elements co-exist, and as such storytelling is vital. (I should point out, just to be thorough, that it is theoretically possible to make a good gameplay-driven game resembling an adventure. You just need to simplify/remove all gameplay elements but one, and then do that one well.)

So Squinky is quite right. Puzzles, as much as any other elements of adventures, are plot points. If a good story is not created with them, then the game's creator did something wrong.

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

I should point out, just to be thorough, that it is theoretically possible to make a good gameplay-driven game resembling an adventure. You just need to simplify/remove all gameplay elements but one, and then do that one well.

Fahrenheit is something like that, although I think the repetitive game mechanics in it are very weak.

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by Ascovel

Fahrenheit is something like that, although I think the repetitive game mechanics in it are very weak.

I thought of the exact same example: I remember a particular sequence

Spoiler:

When Lucas has to play guitar for his former girlfriend

where the QTE were not only repetitive but also annoying: it could have been a touching, romantic moment and it was transformed in piano-like excercise. So, maybe, to make a good adventure, not theoretically , you can't simply take one elements and ignore the others.

[MoriartyL]

Fahrenheit wasn't trying to be gameplay-driven. Didn't Cage call it an "interactive drama"? You might not like how it was done, but all the gameplay exists to serve the story.

[AndreaDraco83]

My complaint was in fact that, in this case, and in my extremely personal opinion (when it comes to David Cage, better use some providence ), the gameplay existed to kill the story.

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

Fahrenheit wasn't trying to be gameplay-driven. Didn't Cage call it an "interactive drama"? You might not like how it was done, but all the gameplay exists to serve the story.

When I was playing Fahrenheit I felt that the gameplay existed in a parallel to the story. The only connection between them was that if you were succesful in the game part, the story didn't turn badly for the hero.

I don't think that a storyline is really needed for a game to be an adventure game, but the adventury gameplay has to affect some consistent reality (Like in the case of operating the various devices on Myst island ) and you must have some kind of possibility to explore this reality. RPGs have even lesser need for a story, or at least there are many popular ones which are about stats and fighting with a story only tacked on.

[rtrooney]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

You're not making any sort of sense.

I assume that response is to me.

OK, let's assume there is a start point where the protagonist enters the game of play and need to decide what it it is he/she needs to do next.

Then let's assume there is an endgame that results in the player, i.e. the purchaser of the game feeling satisfied that the purchase was worthwhile and the game was fun and reached a logical conclusion.

That's a start at point A and end at point Z.

I don't know how many "random" choices you can throw into the mix but eventually B-Y must connect A-Z.

Assuming you want the player to get to Z, B-Y can never be totally random.

There's another thread on a similar topic, linear or non-linear. I am of the opinion, as are many others, that there is no such thing as a non-linear game as long as there is a fixed endgame.

[MoriartyL]

There can be a Z1, Z2, and Z3. And even if there is not, there can be little changes all along the way. Just because you end up in roughly the same place doesn't mean the path there is the same. Also, I am not talking about making an entire game out of nothing but randomness. You will note that I said earlier luck should be used "in moderation". Just like puzzles, I think it's something to be sprinkled in when it serves the story, not something to throw in arbitrarily and see how the story comes out later.

[stepurhan]

I'd be interested in an illustrative example of what you mean, Moriarty. I can see the use of some element of randomisation to create different paths to the same end. (something like the Indy multiple paths but with a random rather than player choice) but I can't help feeling that this is going to result in good/bad luck.

To take the Indy example as an option, I'd be really annoyed if random choice stuck me with the Fists path because I suck at fighting games (I chose wits and will probably try team some time).

As a more general example say you are trying to get into a club. Being lucky means the doorman likes you and waves you straight in. Being unlucky means he dislikes you and turns you away, so you have to find another way into the club. Surely the unlucky player is being penalised in this scenario through no fault of their own. You could have the same scenario without luck by having the doorman's reaction based on an earlier meeting. Polite players are now let in but rude players are turned away. Same two results but the player doesn't feel control has been taken away.