[Lee in Limbo]

See the problem here is, we keep trying to compare interactive narrative to linear narrative, and keep coming up in favour of linear because we can't imagine interactive working.

I'll admit that there are very few examples of good interactive narrative exceeding the expectations of the audience and putting them in mind of a good book or movie without it actually being like a good book or movie. But that doesn't invalidate the exercise.

The trick behind all of this is to learn from the past and strive to present stories and ideas that do work in this medium. Most folks have broken that down to a few very basic formulae that don't inspire much faith in the non-believer. They either come off too movie-like, or two novel-like, but never succeed at being an interactive narrative in their own right. And the opposite is also true. Creating a truly interactive game often involves so many puzzles and such that really don't enhance the experience for anyone who just wants to get caught up in the narrative. They succeed only in pleasing people who want to be gamers. Not meaning to insult games, but so long as people keep trying to make games into great art, they will only succeed in creating games that feel like they're trying too hard to be art.

What am I trying to say here? This is the problem of trying to convince you that Snuffleumpagus is my best friend, and not an imaginary one. I can go on at length about how clearly I see a day when folks will pop in an interactive story and get caught up in a tale just as gripping and fascinating and rewarding as fine art, great cinema and great literature. It's easy for me, because I'm a dreamer. I live in the Potential Future. What I'm failing to convey is both the Truth and the Necessity of this pursuit. Of course people don't believe in interactive storytelling. It doesn't really exist yet, at least in a useful form that everyone can get into. Movies and books require very little in the way of experience to be enjoyed. The ability to comprehend what you are seeing is all that is required. Passive entertainment left in the hands of masters who don't have to deal with the vagueries of cooperation.

And yet, true masters do want their audience to be engrossed. They want to win you over to their side. And that is what developers need to keep in mind. It's not about how dazzling the graphics are, though that certainly helps. It's not about how mind bending the puzzles, or how spine tingling the action sequence. It's about sharing ideas, and really drawing your audience into them.

And you can start by seeing your audience as just that; an audience. Stop treating them as gamers. Stop making a game out of it when you can't generate enough realism to make them think they are turning a door knob under their own power. We're not that far along yet. But we have to prepare for a future when we will be able to dip into a virtual reality full of possibilities we don't see in our own mundane lives.

Hmmn. I think I'm missing points here. But one thing that needs to be stated is, Interactive Storytelling can't be Shakespeare. It has to be its own thing. But it still has to get its priorities straight if it wants to be treated like art.

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by Lee in Limbo

Creating a truly interactive game often involves so many puzzles and such that really don't enhance the experience for anyone who just wants to get caught up in the narrative. They succeed only in pleasing people who want to be gamers. Not meaning to insult games, but so long as people keep trying to make games into great art, they will only succeed in creating games that feel like they're trying too hard to be art.

I would say almost exactly the opposite. Whatever potential computer games have as an artform in its own right, it's to be found in the artistic possibilities of play. Games are not an artform by virtue of graphics, music, cinematics, or storytelling. They have to be the art of playing.

I realized, in reading Chris Crawford's comments on interactive storytelling, that interactive storytelling is not storytelling at all! What he describes is setting players loose in a world with some built-in limits and tendencies, but free to experience whatever story they can make. The "democratic" author he envisions is no author at all.

It's certainly a valid form of expression, but it's not storytelling. It's... well, game design.

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by Roger Ebert

If next time, I have Romeo and Juliet go through the story naked and standing on their hands, would that be way cool, or what?

If done the right way, such an option could certainly make for a fascinating postmodern statement about the world.

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

However, I have yet to see an example of how letting the players affect the path of the story, to produce equally canonical plots, can benefit a game as a story. Maybe it can be done, but in all honesty I can't really imagine it.

I'm glad you're keeping an open mind here. I think that it can be done, and I've already said why, so I won't repeat myself.

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

I realized, in reading Chris Crawford's comments on interactive storytelling, that interactive storytelling is not storytelling at all! What he describes is setting players loose in a world with some built-in limits and tendencies, but free to experience whatever story they can make. The "democratic" author he envisions is no author at all.

You make a good point, and that's why I'm writing a game with a fixed story but with room to move around therein (and in doing so, presenting ideas and allowing players to have a sort of a dialogue with me), rather than creating an environment that allows for emergent stories. Well, that and the fact that his Storytron system is only in beta form at the moment, so I can't really see the effects of such emergent storytelling mechanisms.

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by Lee in Limbo

...And you can start by seeing your audience as just that; an audience...

In some ways, this sounds a little like something on the opposite site of what I've read on the site of Junction Point Studios recently, for example.

We have a contract with players requiring that we offer them maximum entertainment value. We embrace players as collaborators in the creative process—as much the authors of their own, unique gameplay experience as we are. Our games provide tools to encourage their creativity and active participation in the story. We never lose sight of the fact that our players are as smart and demanding as we are.

Frankly, there's more than enough games already happily (mostly pretty poorly, sadly..) emulating what "traditional" narratives have been doing all along, and the term "cinematic" is one of the buzz-words being thrown around at each and every turn. So the prospect of somebody approaching things in a different way gets me pretty excited at this point in time. And them teaming up with Disney, a company that is known (used to be known?) for its new ideas on all things story and so such.. Still depends on the appeal of the games that will come out of this, but,.. yes.

Also, the common notion that such a perceived "genre" as "adventure games™" is pretty much the only perceived genre being close to perceived "interactive storytelling", well, I'm gonna play the party pooper here.

Namedropping such dramatically different games such as: Mafia, Planescape:Torment, Thief, Law Of The West (for you oldies like me ), Bloodlines, The Sims, Ultima VII and so on and so on, and really, they're as much about "interactive storytelling" than anything Monkey Island, Grim Fandango et all. Not judging them on a quality scale now, that's besides the point which is: These games are all toying around with drastically different ideas. Which is beyond awesome and really the only thing worth preserving.

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

that interactive storytelling is not storytelling at all!

Great! Because any definition of what is perceived to be a story™ has to be thrown away, even more so once such a drastically different medium comes along. Or like that old saying goes: The sole purpose of "definitions" is to challenge them.

[Giligan]

Originally Posted by Lee in Limbo

The trick behind all of this is to learn from the past and strive to present stories and ideas that do work in this medium. Most folks have broken that down to a few very basic formulae that don't inspire much faith in the non-believer. They either come off too movie-like, or two novel-like, but never succeed at being an interactive narrative in their own right. And the opposite is also true. Creating a truly interactive game often involves so many puzzles and such that really don't enhance the experience for anyone who just wants to get caught up in the narrative. They succeed only in pleasing people who want to be gamers. Not meaning to insult games, but so long as people keep trying to make games into great art, they will only succeed in creating games that feel like they're trying too hard to be art.

Most philsophers on the subject of games compare games to movies, then declare games to not be possible of a state of arthood, if you will, even if they think movies can be art. But 99% of all games are movies. Which is why being able to make choices in gameplay can be a welcome change. Save for RPGs, and even those escape the fate narrowly, games will always have a set storyline. A certain character will always be the bad guy. The puzzle in the in antique box will always need to be done, and will always yield an important inventory item when solved. Because of the limited building involved in a game, each facet is utterly limited. Which is why I say 99% of games are movies, albeit movies with poorer visuals, as nothing you can do will change the outcome of the ending. All you can do is click randomly until you figure out how the developer wants you to reach the ending of the game. There will always be X number of German soliders in X building, and you'll always need to blow up the static artillery gun model. One cannot sneak around the building, blow up the house with the artillery gun, or bypass the house altogether. I think a shooter game, if not an adventure game, with scripted ending possiblities to each situation would be such a new, welcome change, that it would forever set a standard for all games. Most people who believe to be a game as art believe this blindly, without even realizing that no games have interactivity at a level which could destroy the narrative.

Arguably, how could it be different in our gaming generation? Hardware doesn't allow for the infinite possiblities that would give the game 100% realism. Perhaps someday, in the age of the Xbox 2880, a fully interactive environment will be available to a player. But in this day and age, and seeing as how no two persons can agree on what art is in that media format, a game as art is not possible, save for a perception as what you have done as being art by a few select players. I do welcome what Squinky is doing with Chivalry Is Not Dead, with moral options that will change the gameplay, even if in minor increments. The ending will be the same, no doubt, but at least, logically, it's more than movie.

As far as art as games go, there will always be someone who percieves the art factor of a game to be destroyed by an interactive narrative. They say art imitates life, and nothing is more uncertain or changeable than life. Unless you delve into artists who would say that what we're going to do is as impossible to change as what we've already done, because all time is as one, and those sorts of arguments can twist your brain into knots. I don't feel like I'm living in a frame of a giant, Universal movie, personally. I suppose if we built 1,000 giant, almost indestructible monuments across the world that had inscribed into their stone: "To future generations - if you read this, and you have developed a time machine, please send something from your time back to July 29, 2007.", you might be able to prove it that time is as one. But I digress.

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by Giligan

There will always be X number of German soliders in X building, and you'll always need to blow up the static artillery gun model. One cannot sneak around the building, blow up the house with the artillery gun, or bypass the house altogether.

I take it you never played Operation Flashpoint, advertised as something "as close to real war as you ever want to get", and for all I know, I can safely say the game promised. We actually had arguments back then about depth of simulation and a war game being a tad too real perhaps. Nope, this ain't Battlefield... and as far from Call Of Entirely Scripted Things Blowing Up And Duty as it gets. Mind you, of course every mission is predetermined as such, but this is a much more open playing experience with entire islands open for you to explore at any time. Man, sneaking around woods finding your way using a compass and a map (the stars even sometimes!) all the while trying to avoid enemy patrols at night was tense.

Since you're a weapon crack, I think there's a spiritual successor available already.

[Giligan]

Well, it's been argued that shooting a simulated human in a super-realistic game would be about as unappealing as shooting a human in real life, but it's doubtful. Humans are famous adapters, and just as we enjoy blowing away foes with shotguns now, even with a lesser degree of realism in games, we would adapt to enjoy blowing away foes on a complete level of realism. Gears of War, for example, is probably (still) the most realistic game released yet on any platform. It was also one of the goriest, but it was the fastest-selling Xbox game of all time. Coincidence?

Also, no, I've never played Operation Flashpoint.

[samIamsad]

Also, no, I've never played Operation Flashpoint.

(Bad res, sadly). Back to the topic at hand, yes you're right about that

Most philsophers on the subject of games compare games to movies,

Yet, why exactly? It's not that there's nothing good to take and learn from movies, but games can also be something different than visual rollercoaster rides trying to emulate cinema at every turn.

[Squinky]

I think of my players as human beings. What does that make me, exactly?

Originally Posted by samIamsad

Also, the common notion that such a perceived "genre" as "adventure games™" is pretty much the only perceived genre being close to perceived "interactive storytelling", well, I'm gonna play the party pooper here.

I've said elsewhere that I prefer developing adventure games over other genres because they involve creating gameplay around a story rather than creating a story around gameplay. I tried to think about designing a 3D platformer once, but the only plots I could come up with felt more shallow and action-movie-esque than I wanted. Not knocking that as a valid story, of course, but I want to do something more akin to quirky indie films. (Apologies for the cinematic metaphors, of course.)

Of course, one could argue that to develop an adventure game using the genre's conventions, you'd be pretty much limited to detective-type plots, and that's another area where it could be argued that I don't really make Adventure Games™.

Originally Posted by samIamsad

Great! Because any definition of what is perceived to be a story™ has to be thrown away, even more so once such a drastically different medium comes along. Or like that old saying goes: The sole purpose of "definitions" is to challenge them.

Woo!

Originally Posted by Giligan

They say art imitates life, and nothing is more uncertain or changeable than life.

And with different playable angles to a story, we might just be able to see life in a different way.

[Ninja Dodo]

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

I realized, in reading Chris Crawford's comments on interactive storytelling, that interactive storytelling is not storytelling at all! What he describes is setting players loose in a world with some built-in limits and tendencies, but free to experience whatever story they can make. The "democratic" author he envisions is no author at all.

It's certainly a valid form of expression, but it's not storytelling. It's... well, game design.

I say this as a great fan of linear storytelling, interactive or otherwise, but story is told through more than plot alone.

Story is told through character, through environment and yes, through interaction... The manner in which you may affect the world and its reaction to you is the considered work of an author telling a story. That story may have many layers and sides, but it is still one story.

[Ninja Dodo]

I don't like forced choices though, or really obvious ones. Especially when it comes to endings, if you can just pick one completely arbitrarily it kind of diminishes the meaning of everything that led up to it... if none of that narrative momentum makes any difference. Deus Ex suffered from this.

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by Ninja Dodo

I don't like forced choices though, or really obvious ones. Especially when it comes to endings, if you can just pick one completely arbitrarily it kind of diminishes the meaning of everything that led up to it... if none of that narrative momentum makes any difference.

You're in luck, because I won't be having any of that in my game.

[Len Green]

Squinky ....... see :-
http://justadventure.com/yabb/YaBB.p...1185897623/0#8

[Squinky]

Ooh, thanks for the honourable mention, Len.

[Lee in Limbo]

Just wanted to remark in relation to Article #4 that I think you handled a very complex technical explanation amazingly well. I don't think there will be too many people who will read the article and not come away with a greater understanding of what you're trying to do.

[ozzie]

I will definately play you game.
I also plan to do some advanced character interactions.
Well, I have a concept for that, I'm not sure if it will ever evolve...

However, the article is great. You explained your thoughts easily comprehensible.

[Squinky]

Wow. Thank you both!

One of the reasons I try my best to make my articles understandable is so that other people might come away inspired by them, and perhaps implement some version thereof in their own games. I suppose I want to prove that you don't need super-complex technology and AI to bring more interactivity into your characters (when it fits the story and theme of your game, of course).

[TheTwelve]

Another fascinating read, Deirdra! Will every NPC in the game have varying affinity levels? That would add a lot of work, indeed, but should go a long way to making the game world feel more real.

I too have been bothered by non-player characters not remembering certain player actions in past games, and aim to fix this through diligent design and programming. In other words, taking into account all possible actions that should affect the characters' relationships during the design phase and programming in variables that keep track of these and the appropriate responses that they lead to. I think attention to details like this, be it something simple, like changing the "look at" description of an item from "It's a book about dogs" to "It's that book about dogs that Ben told me about" when appropriate, or something more complicated, like character relationships, can really help the player feel part of the game world.

I also have a few instances in my WIP where the NPC has a "Sway" bar appear which drops as you anger them and raises as you please them. This leads to dialog puzzles in which the player needs to manipulate other characters by flattering them or performing actions for them to increase their "Sway" and get the character to help them. However, your mentioning that these affinity levels will not be visible to the player in your game has made me consider that maybe the Sway Bar should not be visible to the player, making the dialog puzzle feel more natural and organic rather than a pre-programmed game-play mechanic. Though, since the sway bar is more goal-oriented than your affinity system, seeing the bar on-screen and knowing how close you are to success or failure may make these parts of my game more interesting and playable. It's also easier to communicate the goals to the player via an on-screen display than it is to have the NPC hinting at it. (i.e. "If you make me angry one more time I'm not going to help you!" ... little cheesy...) I'll have to do a little player testing to see which way is more fun.

Your game being more open-ended, I definitely think hiding these stats from the player is the right way to go.

Also, nine levels?? That's going to be a lot of writing! I had an idea for a game in which you control conversations in real time by selecting one of four or five emotions as the conversation was going on, and the player character would respond appropriately. This way, the game would never stop and wait for the player to choose a conversation topic, you would just change emotions on the fly, steering the conversation appropriately. I canned the idea partially because of how much writing it would involve. I may pick up that idea again someday.

Again, another great article. I love your writing style. Looking forward to more!

[JohnGreenArt]

The problem with Ebert's argument is that most games, at least up until recently, DON'T provide the player with a world wherein they can experience every possible emotion or change the direction the story goes in. Most of them do present a singular, linear story for the player to make his or her way through. He says it isn't art if the player changes it. But how many games are there where the player ACTUALLY changes the story of the game? Ebert says "Art seeks to lead you to an inevitable conclusion, not a smorgasbord of choices." I'm trying to think of any game I've played where the conclusion WASN'T inevitable.

Even when referring to versions of Shakespeare's plays with different endings he asks which version is "more artistic", NOT which one IS art and which one ISN'T art. In that sentence he basically states that both ARE art, but we can deduce that he finds the original MORE artistic because, well, that's the version Shakespeare intended. But clearly this means that it's not that there are different versions or different endings that make something NOT art. You can have multiple versions of the same story and even if they aren't the same level of art, they are still both art.

Why can that not apply to a game that has multiple endings? How is it really any different? If a game has two endings scripted by the game creators, how, as a player, did I really change the story, if I'm just playing out the two versions the writers of the game came up with? How is that any different than, say, the theatrical versions of Lord of the Rings versus the extended DVD's? Or the original Star Wars movies vs. the Special Editions? Or the Director's Cut of Bladerunner vs. the soon to be released Ultimate Cut?

Ebert's notion that if you can change every aspect of the story within a game means it's not art seems like he's jumping ahead of things, if there don't seem to be many games (if any?) that have really reached that level of interactivity.

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by TheTwelve

Will every NPC in the game have varying affinity levels?

Not all of them, but definitely the majority. (I won't tell you which ones, though!)

Originally Posted by TheTwelve

Though, since the sway bar is more goal-oriented than your affinity system, seeing the bar on-screen and knowing how close you are to success or failure may make these parts of my game more interesting and playable. It's also easier to communicate the goals to the player via an on-screen display than it is to have the NPC hinting at it. (i.e. "If you make me angry one more time I'm not going to help you!" ... little cheesy...) I'll have to do a little player testing to see which way is more fun.

Yeah, if you're doing a goal-oriented puzzle here, i.e. if being able to properly sway the NPC is essential to the game's progress and angering them too much will actually block you from proceeding, then you'll definitely have to make things crystal clear to the player. Either that, or you'll have to provide an alternate solution to the puzzle, should the player fail to succeed at the swaying. Whatever you end up doing, good luck with it; it sounds very cool.

Originally Posted by TheTwelve

Also, nine levels?? That's going to be a lot of writing!

Heh, I actually don't write separate things for every level; what I do is create, say, three different dialogue lines, one for a level of 1-3, another for 4-6, and another for 7-9. There are also times I only use two lines, as well as times when there's only one possible thing to say -- whichever best fits the situation. The nine levels are there so that when I increment/decrement the affinity, the change won't be as abrupt as it would be if I only had two or three levels.

That said, I have indeed found that I've been doing a lot more writing (and thinking!) than I've ever had to do for any game I've written. It's been fun, though.