06-30-2007, 04:38 PM | #1 |
Elegantly copy+pasted
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,773
|
Adv Architect Series (Squinky, I like you as a friend)
Interesting third entry in the Adventure Architect series, Squink. Obviously it recalls a number of discussions we've had here on the forum. Maybe Trep will finally get the kind of adventure game he's been asking for all of these years.
I remain pretty doubtful that making moral choices can provide sufficient satisfying gameplay. Given that all these events are imaginary, it takes a lot of skill to make players really care about the results of their actions in the first place, and I think the addition of options/branching paths tends to trivialize it even further. If you stab the guard it doesn't really mean anything, because you can just go back and not stab him. The problem is that players are merely acting (role-playing, in the strictest meaning of the word) and feel no responsibility for immoral actions: they're just having a look at the evil path, and next time they'll probably play as good to see the difference. Potentially amusing, but it doesn't really lead to any great moral dilemmas. A lot of adventure games have done similar things in the past, too. The Pandora Directive and Blade Runner may be the most obvious ones. Is what you're attempting different from that?
__________________
Please excuse me. I've got to see a man about a dog. |
06-30-2007, 09:29 PM | #2 | ||
Unreliable Narrator
|
The title of this thread made me lawl. Thank you.
Quote:
Quote:
However, if you've been keeping up with the remainder of my articles, you'll notice that one of the main themes in this game is moral relativism. Obviously, if I, as the designer, were to specifically outline actions as "good" and "evil" in a didactic fashion, "rewarding" the player if they did "good" and "punishing" them if they did "evil", that would cheapen the entire point I was trying to make in the first place. What I'm attempting to do instead is take a more-or-less morally neutral stance toward all actions, with my role being simply to provide meaningful dramatic consequences for such actions while allowing the players themselves to consider their ethical ramifications. With the guard example, you automatically assumed that stabbing would be "evil" and convincing him to leave would be "good". I implied no such thing in my article, nor do I do so in the game; I only described a pair of actions and their consequences. You made the moral judgement (or at the very least, predicted my moral stance on the matter) on your own, and in that regard, I may have already succeeded in my goal. But what if you took into account that the guard starts out being rather rude to you, and happens to be very irritating besides, what with his practically unintelligible Scottish accent and all? Furthermore, you know that killing the guard will piss off the Queen, but why would you even care, particularly considering that your job is to assassinate her? As for the whole being able to go back and do it over again thing, well, I think that's a major strength of our medium. Instead of forcing a person down one predetermined path, I think it's a lot more interesting to allow for the option to look at a few different sides of the same story. I don't really see how doing so fails to provide "sufficient satisfying gameplay". Also, when you say it could potentially be amusing but not earth-shatteringly unsettling, well, that's sort of my point. I'd like to make people think a bit, but I'd also like them to have some fun in the process, perhaps not even knowing that I'm making them think. That's exactly what many of my favourite stories do, after all. Of course, all I'm saying is what I hope to achieve, not necessarily what I will achieve. I'll need to have some tester feedback once I've finished writing the game in order to make sure I'm communicating my goals effectively, but that's for another article. There's also the factor that I cannot be completely neutral in presenting the story I've created, as it's coloured by my own personal biases about the world. I predict that this might result in some people not liking any of the choices or outcomes that I present to them, though I hope that I can find a balance in the end between listening to people whose opinions I respect for suggestions and acquiescing to the notion that you can't please all people all of the time. We shall see...
__________________
Squinky is always right, but only for certain values of "always" and "right". Last edited by Squinky; 06-30-2007 at 09:38 PM. |
||
07-01-2007, 02:53 AM | #3 |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 89
|
Another excellent article Squinky. I'm looking forward to more and, of course, the eventual game's release! Keep 'em coming.
|
07-01-2007, 10:35 AM | #4 | ||
Elegantly copy+pasted
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,773
|
Quote:
I think my assumption that stabbing is "evil" demonstrates a fact that is going to make your effort difficult. Even if you present options neutrally, our culture usually decrees what the "right" and "wrong" choices are. In fact, in fiction the situation is even more schematic than the sometimes messy moral terrain of real life, because we insist on fitting the events into some kind of story (redemption, revenge, coming of age, innocence corrupted, etc.), which in turn determines how the crucial dilemmas are going to shake out. In a story about a servant of "the evil side", and unless it's one of those "create maximum mayhem" games, the default assumption is that it will be about how he decides to become good (cf. Kian in Dreamfall, for example). Therefore, the choice between stabbing and sweet-talking is a loaded one. Dave Gilbert tried to present moral dilemmas without a right or wrong solution in The Shivah. As he recognizes on the commentary track, this is one part of the game that doesn't really come off. This is partly because players instinctively know what the "right" answer is (should the disillusioned rabbi throw the mobster in front of a subway train or let him live?) and partly because in presenting two different outcomes, one will almost inevitably seem preferable to the other, and thereby be perceived as the correct answer. So yeah, I think it's really hard to make players actually feel the moral dilemmas a game presents. In reality, one of the things that can make moral choice hard is the cost of doing "the right thing", whether it's losing your job, alienating a friend, risking your life, or whatever. But in a game the player doesn't have to worry about those things, since they'll be paid by an imaginary character, hardly inconveniencing the player at all. (And even if the player is looking out for the character's best interest, they will often assume that the game rewards self-sacrifice now later on.) The only path left that I can see is to set up conflicts between different moral imperatives. Like "do I torture this suspected terrorist, or let a nuclear device go off in downtown Philadelphia?" Or "do I help the stranger in distress, or keep the promise to my wife?" "Do I get my client off the hook even though I know he's a serial killer, or do I betray my oath as a defense attorney?" This gets pretty heavy, though, and you can't have too many such decisions in one story. If you think you can make it fun to play, good luck to you. Quote:
Crucially, these alternative Macbeth stories actually change the meaning of the original Macbeth. Awareness of them influence how we interpret the first story. Even more importantly, if all the versions are equally ranked, they start to cancel each other out. Is it a tragedy or a comedy, a heroic epic or a cautionary tale? If Macbeth can be a tyrant or a benevolent sovereign, then he isn't really either. If he can do anything, then he has done nothing. At the point of complete freedom, you have no story, just a sandbox. Of course, no adventure game goes that far, but what I'm saying is to consider the meta-story: the story told by all the possible different stories. One of the most tested techniques is to make most of the paths subservient to the main, canonical one. For instance, in an action game all the paths ending in death give substance to the sense of danger overcome in the path that leads to victory. Another is to tell the key message through invariants that stay consistent in all possible universes, like the hero's constantly frustrated desire and ambitions no matter what the alternative reality in films like Bedazzled or The Butterfly Effect. Can it be done? Can a narratively successful multiple-path game be written where all the paths have similar weight? Yes, probably. But evidence from previous attempts indicate that it's far from easy. Mostly, multiple paths have just had the effect of turning each story from "this is what happened" to "this is something that could happen", thereby blunting their impact without really adding anything in compensation. This isn't to discourage you from trying, but just so we can all see clearly the challenge you have set for yourself
__________________
Please excuse me. I've got to see a man about a dog. Last edited by After a brisk nap; 07-01-2007 at 10:42 AM. |
||
07-01-2007, 11:10 AM | #5 |
It's Hard To Be Humble
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,557
|
Adventure Architect #2: Chivalry is Not Dead, Part 3
My friend Deirdra, better known as Squinky in these parts, has been writing a series of game development articles being published right here at AdventureGamers.com. I've been enjoying them a great deal. This is really no surprise to me, as I came to be a friend of Squinky through her insightful writing and her entertaining writer's voice. I always understand what she's getting at, even when she discusses something a little over my head. And that goes doubly so for her game dev articles, which are dear to me for being on a subject I'm extremely keen on.
*snip* (self-editted; although I still suspect that a 'discuss this article' link might be more helpful. I've never been in this part of the forum before.) Now in this installment of AA: CiND, Squinky discusses not so much interactive storytelling as she does the very nature of interactivity in adventure games, and she manages to jump up and down precisely on a point that I often find myself doing as well: puzzles should support the game, and should stimulate thinking, rather than frustrate the audience and send them scurrying for walkthroughs. I love them, myself. I have UHS bookmarked in my web browser. I don't so much blame game devs as I often seem to on this topic, because the resources to put in an in-game hint system are often prohibitive and take away from the dev resources available. So I wait for someone more clever and efficient than me to answer the questions I can't seem to answer for myself. I do alright for the most part without, but I still find walkthroughs essential for most AGs, and I wish it weren't so. And it all comes down to the problem of making interactivity transparent without making the directions invisible. If you build a game from the start to follow the 'classic' AG formula, the more logically minded of us will excel while the rest of us blessed or cursed with fuzzier thinking will be gritting our teeth to get to the next plot point, hoping we don't completely lose immersion and walk away. AGs have become a little freeze dried for this reason. Anyone who played an AG 10 years ago and found it annoying won't be interested in trying new games, and you can bet that is the main reason the numbers of AG players dwindled so badly over the years. Almost in retaliation, AGs themselves have tended to become more calcified, clinging to the basic formula and refusing to even attempt to woo casual game playing audience members who aren't blessed with lightning reflexes and an addiction to action movies. The audience dwindles to a small clique. Perhaps that's what we all aspire to, really. A close knit group of a few thousand of our closest friends all playing a narrowly defined game genre. But to my mind, it ignores the principle function of AGs, which is to get the audience to submerge themselves in an interactive universe where they can explore and experience a story in ways they've never done before. The best AGs have always striven to do this, while balancing the gameplay elements to stimulate the level of difficulty if not the actual process of resolving a plot conflict. We may not (yet) be able to simulate the actual physical movements necessary in game to actually perform the real life actions needed to actually make a disguise or false ID or obtain information from a security-keyed computer, but we can simulate the difficulty through interactive 'puzzles'. Some are more sensible and connected to the plot and theme than others however, and the best puzzle design and integration makes these things seem absolutely seamless. It's when the game devs decide to ramp up the difficulty and challenge the audience that these things can and often do go awry. What Squinky talks about in her article, using interactions as the main puzzle element, is fascinating and intuitive. Naturally, you are going to try to devise a strategy for dealing with the guard based on what your character is capable of, and hopefully, based on what your natural playstyle dictates. Dialogue in AGs is a no-brainer. Action sequences not so much, unless the action is fairly choreographed, which alienates Action game players, but makes the game more accessible for casual players who don't have a level 58 Tauren Druid under their belt. But what else can you do there? What are the natural extensions of the problem of 'assassin needs to get passed guard to see queen'. Disguise? Distraction? Sneak attack? Persuasion? Acrobatics? Evasion? These are all known elements of a character whose main stock in trade is stealth. However, even in an experimental game, you have to limit the number of possibilities based on the resources (art assets, animations, game engine) available. And of course, the theme should dictate which are the most important types of interactions to follow. If you can't afford to have all of those possibilities, you choose the ones that need to be there to frame your puzzle correctly. Naturally, choosing action or thinking comes to mind here, and the two most obvious are Sneak attack and Persuasion. I also find Squinky's comment about making these decisions have direct consequences on later segments of the game to be fascinating. It's also interesting to note that some of these questions can only be answered by the player, since the consequences might be quite different if your choice is never witnessed. Presumably, such actions might only affect the kinds of choices you might be more inclined to make later in the game, regardless of how it colours the interactions with other characters up to that point. That level of interaction may prove to be too subtle for some, but nevertheless presents interesting possibilities for audience immersion. They will really feel like it's up to them to decide the ultimate fate of the protagonist in the game. Greatly looking forward to the next segment in this series. Good stuff, Deirdra. Last edited by Lee in Limbo; 07-01-2007 at 11:34 AM. |
07-01-2007, 11:40 AM | #6 | |||||
Unreliable Narrator
|
Quote:
Quote:
In the end, though, it was obvious that Dave had a specific theme of redemption he wanted to push forward in his story, and I believe he succeeded in this regard. My goal, which is to portray that there is no such thing as absolute good and absolute evil in people, is radically different, and the game, I hope, will meaningfully reflect such a theme. Quote:
Quote:
Yeah, I'll definitely be needing some good testers. Quote:
You think I thought this was easy? Of course it's a challenge, and that's exactly why I'm doing it! And I know I won't get it perfect the first times around, but I'll keep on trying, and maybe, just maybe, be of help in changing the face of interactive entertainment.
__________________
Squinky is always right, but only for certain values of "always" and "right". Last edited by Squinky; 07-01-2007 at 05:21 PM. |
|||||
07-01-2007, 12:26 PM | #7 |
capsized.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,534
|
One of the issues with branching paths and all of that is that it's a lot of scripting work to do, provided the game doesn't wholly rely on algorithms anyway. The opinion of the many developers stating that doing this huge amount of extra work for something the player might not even see is a valid one, yet I always have to *sigh* when I think of sequences like Planescape Torment's true climax. To me anyway, not that the ending sucked, it plays out equally, and it's as far from suckage as they come. It's an event that occurs about half-way through the game. A sequence of a kind I haven't seen in any game since then, which is not surprising, considering time/budget constraints of many projects or how many developers think about subjects like these in the first place.
Basically, it's a twenty+(!) minutes sequence that consists of nothing but branching dialogue, prose and special goodness, provided you like to read A LOT, that is. A sequence in which you finally get some answers to questions that have been bugging you ever since the beginning of the game. A sequence of choices and consequences, in which you decide over the destiny of those who are travelling with you and your own alike. It's like the best of Infocom, Fallout and pure awesomeness all rolled into one, and, er, anyway: Filling out the application for beta testing as we speak.
__________________
Look, Mr. Bubbles...! Last edited by samIamsad; 07-01-2007 at 12:35 PM. |
07-01-2007, 03:10 PM | #8 | |
Red Bicycle Brake Unit
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 177
|
Quote:
To achieve total moral relativism, the consequences of your actions should be independent of their moral standing. In fact, you could argue that realistically immoral acts should be rewarded, since simply picking the acts that are best for you without regard for their morality is typically perceived as highly immoral. Getting back to that example with the guard: I hope you also stress the cost of letting the guard live. Hating you even more after you pulled a fast one on him, he'll cause you as much trouble as he possibly can later on. Or maybe if you try to trick too many guards eventually one of them will pretend to go along only to trick and capture you. (I mean, really, sweet-talking the guard to get past seems like something that only works in games and movies anyway. Having the habit backfire quickly would be nothing more than realistic.) One very likely risk you want to avoid is for people to read a moral viewpoint into your game, assuming that the choices which are rewarded are therefore the "good" ones. Other than not "rewarding" as such, the best way to avoid this would be to often pursue the negative consequences of any choice the player makes (the player will be much more aware of the positive side already, since that is the reason he made the choice in the first place). In a morally relative setting, it would be good to stress that often there either is no good choice or making the good choice doesn't benefit anyone. I'm sorry for going into lecture mode like this, especially since I get the impression you're well aware of all of this already. I'm very interested to see how this works out, that's for sure! I don't look for morality in games (or anywhere, frankly), but any story that has an ethical and/or philosophical component with actual depth to it is a rare gem, even moreso if it doesn't promote any single view as the ultimate truth. |
|
07-01-2007, 06:20 PM | #9 | |
Elegantly copy+pasted
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,773
|
Quote:
__________________
Please excuse me. I've got to see a man about a dog. |
|
07-01-2007, 06:35 PM | #10 | |||||||
Unreliable Narrator
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
"In the meantime, a response to the common 'extra time required to design things that the player won't even see' argument. I find this to be a fundamentally flawed one because it is based on the assumption that everyone who starts a game will finish the game. Since everyone with half a brain knows that this isn't necessarily true, you already have a case in which you, the game designer, have created a lot of content that a lot of players will never see. Does this mean you should leave most of your game on the cutting room floor?" Haha, I'll keep you in mind when I get to that point. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Squinky is always right, but only for certain values of "always" and "right". |
|||||||
07-02-2007, 10:57 AM | #11 |
It's Hard To Be Humble
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,557
|
The gift of The Familiar. Anyone (for certain values of 'anyone') who has played and 'beaten' a few titles in a given genre likes for all future games in that genre to work in like fashion, so they can continue to succeed. At least, that's the impression I've gotten from what many people have said concerning linear vs branching/dynamic plots and about puzzle/exploration vs dialogue/decision problem solving.
|
07-02-2007, 01:23 PM | #12 |
The Greater
|
No game has a right to adventurehood without firefights, fast-paced action, and an utter lack of puzzles.
__________________
Success is going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm. -Cliff Bleszinski |
07-02-2007, 03:09 PM | #13 |
Unreliable Narrator
|
I suppose, then, that I don't really write adventure games so much as I write cheesy, low-budget interactive cartoons.
Also, it's worth pointing out that I don't fit neatly into any of the above definitions of "moral relativist" (surprise, surprise). I suppose my position is more that of challenging moral absolutism, particularly the kind that is found in fantasy stories. (i.e. people can only be either good or evil)
__________________
Squinky is always right, but only for certain values of "always" and "right". |
07-02-2007, 03:49 PM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 454
|
Although I taught Physics for 40 years, I'm extremely poor on Philosophy.
Hence all the above about 'Morals', e.g.'moral philosophy', 'moral relativism', etc. is way,way, above my head. However, I may be wrong, but almost every one of the hundreds of Quest/Adventures I've played encourage (nay, demand) that the player become a combination of burglar & kleptomaniac... "pick up everything that's not nailed down" being the general "moral (???) philosophy" pervading almost every one of these games (even more risible when the hero[ine] walks around for ages with such items as ladders, sledgehammers, pickaxes, etc. in their pockets!!). I do however agree 200% in not enjoying the very many games described so admirably (as as always) by Squinky as :- Quote:
I would love to alpha or beta test Squinky's new game. All of her previous ones I've enjoyed immensely to date (and even wrote a walkthrough for one!) Cheers ....... Len ( [email protected] ) |
|
07-03-2007, 12:48 AM | #15 | |
Red Bicycle Brake Unit
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 177
|
Quote:
The phenomenon draws plenty of in-game jokes, but meanwhile the expectation patterns have gotten so bad that games where you can only pick up items after you know they're useful are considered annoying (though typically because the player realizes that a certain item is needed far sooner than the main character does). Mm, maybe someone should make an adventure game with a LOT of useless items and a scoring system that rewards picking up as few as possible. |
|
07-03-2007, 01:31 AM | #16 |
Doctor Watson
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Catacombs
Posts: 4,736
|
When playing Fable, I'm finding it really hard to beat up people and "be bad". Come to think of it, when one kid asked to protect him from a bully, I wouldn't have wanted to beat up the bully. Yeah, whenever I try to be bad, I feel guilty.
Anyway, just a side note.
__________________
Don't worry, I'm a doctor. |
07-03-2007, 05:47 AM | #17 | |
capsized.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,534
|
I don't think Squinky's looking into something as black and white as that. Aside from the fact that "good" and "evil" are ultimately a matter of perspective: i.e. prescripted paths that scream EVIL!/GOOD! from the get-go or something. Bioware games usually work like this, and admittedly it fitted their "Star Wars" game rather well, as far as the source material and staying true to that are concernded. Surprise, surprise.
I was also reminded of this. Anybody owning this biggest commercial make_your_own_adventure kit released in the last couple of years can give it a shot as it's only about 800 kbs in size and pretty much worth playing. The plot has it that it pits you into various quite delicate situations and forces you to make moral choices that aren't clear cut evil™/good™ along the way. Such as a mother desperately begging you to find a cure for her daughter who was bitten by a vampire. You soon find out that there's ultimately only two options: Killing her, seperating mom and daughter forever by doing so and preventing her from turning into a vampire or letting her "live" and... OMG the dillema! What do you do now? Quote:
__________________
Look, Mr. Bubbles...! Last edited by samIamsad; 07-03-2007 at 05:54 AM. |
|
07-03-2007, 10:46 AM | #18 |
Unreliable Narrator
|
Well, yeah. That too.
__________________
Squinky is always right, but only for certain values of "always" and "right". |
07-20-2007, 01:02 PM | #19 | |
Unreliable Narrator
|
Here's something I read today that's very relevant to what we were discussing earlier in this thread:
Quote:
__________________
Squinky is always right, but only for certain values of "always" and "right". |
|
07-28-2007, 01:24 PM | #20 | |
Elegantly copy+pasted
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,773
|
Somewhat relevant link to a discussion between Clive Barker, Roger Ebert, and Arthouse Games, about whether games can aspire to high art:
Quote:
As an analogy, imagine a short story where the author leaves some words blank, allowing the reader to fill them in, "mad libs"-style. As the author takes out more and more words, the reader has more and more freedom, and is more and more the co-author of the story. And when the page is blank, the "author" may have created some kind of conceptual art, but certainly is no longer telling a story. OK. But the point is that although mad libs may be an effective literary device for a few stories where it is appropriate, it's really a very limited and intrusive technique. An interactive, non-predetermined story is a lot like that. The only meta-story it can really tell is about the possibility of making different choices. Not that I'm against non-linearity, gameplay freedom, and emergent stories. Not at all. For one thing, not all games are story-driven. And even in games that are, there should be story beats that are told within the gameplay (after all, if the story and gameplay don't work together, something is fundamentally wrong with the design). Some flexibility may even benefit the gameplay. 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. * Given that Mr Barker and I (along with Mr Crawford) share the tendency to fall back on Shakespeare as an example, I hasten to clarify that by "drama" I'm not talking about theater, but about the kind of serious storytelling that, along with poetry, is the narrative mode most often accepted as art.
__________________
Please excuse me. I've got to see a man about a dog. |
|