Another 'monthly' game discussion anyone?

[ad7venture]

1. Actually, George Orwell wrote 1984. Good book, but writing something like it now rather than in 1948 would also likely turn out trite, given all the stories about totalitarian governments that have appeared throughout the remainder of the twentieth century. Plus, we may be at war once more, but the landscape of today's current "War on Terror" is quite different from that at the end of WWII. *shrugs*

1984 gets brought up often on places like slashdot, the war on terror inhibits individual rights.  There are cameras in England that take routine pictures of ordinary individuals as a crime prevention technique.  If anything, I think it's more relevant than when it was written.  It wouldn't be in the least trite for me, but doing it as a game would be pretty hard.  The other problem is that it's too well known.  In general, though, I would gladly play or write a game where personal surveillance and government control had gone too far and the player tried to buck the system.  The thing with Orwell is he spent a lot of time and did a good job of conveying the lead character's fear of rats, which was completely necessary to the ending, but I'm not sure how well  something like that could be done in a game.  Still, I wouldn't mind at all trying it.

2. I'd be very interested in what you'd think about Chivalry is Not Dead, once it's done; I plan for it to have some strong (but not preachy) messages even (and especially) with its multiple outcomes. I'd also be interested in what you think of existing games that are less open-ended than "sandbox" games but don't have completely linear storylines. Which ones have you played?

What do you suggest?  I personally don't like them so I tend to avoid them.  I've had miserable experiences with role playing games.  To be honest, I stopped playing your cruise ship game because I wasn't getting involved in the story but I don't think I gave it enough of a chance.   Still, it seemed like an awfully slow starter to me and I think this could have been related to the multiple storyline technique.  I think if you had one story in mind, it would have started sooner.  I had the feeling I was waiting for the 3 planets to align so I could pick my story line, which had to be somewhat generic up to that point so it all worked out.  That's doing a lot of presuming, obviously.  Anyway, what normally works for me is that puzzles open further areas and reveal more of the story.  I should probably give it another try so I'm a little more fair about it, I'm sure.

Still, I'd rather criticize the stories themselves rather than make prejudiced generalizations about the forms they take, and this applies to comic books as well. Which brings me to my next point...

Well, yeah, but that's a lot more work.  I like to make prejudiced generalizations to get a discussion going.  Games have been around a long time now, and role playing games, which mainly use that technique, aren't very heavy duty in the story department.  I can't think of anyone that's argued the point that they are really giving us deep stuff to think about.  So, all of sudden, adventure games, which are superior in the story department as far as I'm concerned, are supposed to copy these games or they aren't what?  Something or other that everyone thinks is the big deal of the day -- more non-linear and we are in control.  I think there's a trade off.

What comic books are you talking about, anyway?

Batman, Superman, Fantastic four. The plots of role playing games are at about that level, or maybe not quite there yet. 

5. Don't worry. I'm sure there will be plenty of adventure games with linear plots still being made to satisfy people such as yourself. My goal, after all, is not for all stories to become non-linear; rather, it is to create diversity.

There are still a few being made.  I look forward to trying your game.  I think everyone should experiment, especially indy developers. 

[Squinky]

What do you suggest?

In terms of adventure games, I'd recommend The Shivah, which starts out linear but has multiple endings. They're not a perfect example, because one ending is clearly better than all the others, but I think that the endings do a reasonably good job of exploring moral questions in a "what if I did things differently?" sort of way, which one couldn't do in a linear story.

If you're willing to try some IF, there's one that Trumgottist showed me called Best of Three, in which you meet up with an old flame and have a conversation with him in a coffee shop. The topics you discuss are pretty open-ended, but the beginning and ending are usually the same, with minor variations. I thought this particular game is an excellent example of maintaining a coherent story and theme while still allowing player freedom from within. The author also wrote Galatea, which I haven't played yet but is even more famous and open-ended.

(Incidentally, the game project I've been working on with Trumgottist over the last year is a spiritual sequel of sorts to Best of Three, but in graphic adventure form. It, too, is about old flames meeting up in a coffee shop, though the characters are very different and the writing probably isn't as good, owing to my not being nearly as talented as Emily Short.)

As for RPGs, I haven't played many of them either because they're just so damned long. However, one that I did like very much was Chrono Trigger, which I thought managed to tell a rather compelling story while still allowing the exploration of multiple endings (most of which were only available after you'd completed the game once). These additional endings ranged from thought-provoking to just plain fun and silly, and they were probably what first inspired me to attempt multiple outcomes in my own games in the first place.

To be honest, I stopped playing your cruise ship game because I wasn't getting involved in the story but I don't think I gave it enough of a chance.   Still, it seemed like an awfully slow starter to me and I think this could have been related to the multiple storyline technique.

You make a very valid criticism. A lot of people felt lost at the beginning, in retrospect, and I think it has less to do with branching and more to do with poor design on my part. TGTTPOACS follows a gameplay structure that starts off very open, then becomes more closed, whereas an ideal structure should start off closed and gradually open up, so as to accustom the player to the gameplay, starting off easy and gradually getting harder. Also, looking back, my inclusion of branching paths was more motivated by novelty than by the desire to tell a good story; the stories, while fun, are not really all that deep, and don't, in fact, really have a unified theme. Still, I don't blame this on the format itself, but on my own inexperience with the medium. Hopefully, I've been learning enough from the mistakes I made in TGTTPOACS to build better examples of interactive stories in the forseeable future. We shall see...

I think everyone should experiment, especially indy developers. 

That is a statement I can agree with wholeheartedly.

[ad7venture]

I've avoided Shiva because I don't really like crisis of faith type stories and it's commercial.   I would die without my faith.   I'm completely hopeless at IF.  Choosing the right verb and object is not my idea of a good time.  I think I'll just wait for your next game to come out.

[Kickaha]

I hesitate to interrupt this dialogue but just some minor points.

Comics have evolved over the years.  So a Batman comic like "The Dark Knight Returns" has a tale with depth to it.

I play RPGs like "Baldur's Gate".  For me the RPGs I've played outclass Adventure games I've played in the story department.  People I respect feel that a shooter like "Deus Ex" has a deeper story than any Adventure game.

The books I like reading are not so much about what happens as about the worlds and characters.  I could conceive of a game without a story.

[ad7venture]

I play RPGs like "Baldur's Gate".  For me the RPGs I've played outclass Adventure games I've played in the story department.  People I respect feel that a shooter like "Deus Ex" has a deeper story than any Adventure game.

I haven't played Bladur's Gate, I played part of Deus Ex.  It's not a story evolution at any pace I'm comfortable with taking, kill 5 thousand guys in order to eventually work my way into this little dialog.  Yeah, they use a story, but it seems a lot more secondary to me.  Adventure games are all over the map and I can't think of one I played that really went beyond a kind of comic book story either.  They're not really doing anything different than Deus Ex, just a lot more dialog, and puzzles are game play rather than shooting.  The thing I don't quite get is why someone would want to make story paths that you have to replay the game in order try the other path.  Apparently I'm just different than most, because I don't want to go back and repeat parts of a game in order to play that different branch.   So to me, it looks like wasted effort.  Other than that, it's no different.  It's a couple combined stories with different endings.  It can't be inferior in any way because it would be the same as playing a series doing a linear story.  There's probably a lot of savings in settings and characters because they're the same for each ending.  I guess I just don't get it because I don't like replaying games other than Free Cell or something like that.  Actually, I don't make it the first time through most games so I guess that has something to do with it too.  I think it's something like letting the player choose the character look and the character name.  It gives them a sense of being more theirs rather than looking at a movie like thing.  When I do those things I click through the defaults and generally feel annoyed because it looks phony to me.   Some of the choices are real though, like taking different skills, but that has more to do with game play.  I think branching stories are an effort to make story into game play, but it doesn't work well for me.  At that point I think I'd rather play the sims and have complete control over the story.

[JohnPaterson]

The thing I don't quite get is why someone would want to make story paths that you have to replay the game in order try the other path. 

1. Replayability
2. Non-linearity
3. More faithful to the reality (virtual reality?)
4. The player has the feeling that he is in control and his choices are important
5. Accomodate different tastes or ways of thinking (not only the designer's view)
6. Challenge for the designer

... Historically, games didn't have branching stories because of constraints on memory, bandwidth, cpu's etc. But now, as these problems belong to the past, we'll see more of those games coming up. It is the way to go.

I don't want to go back and repeat parts of a game in order to play that different branch

How about a save game right before it splits?

It's a couple combined stories with different endings.

No. Not at all. Read above. It's about giving choices, beign more faithful to the reality and accomodate different ways of thinking.

I could argue that if there is no branching stories, a game is just a movie (and a poor one!) with fancy "pause/stop" buttons (they are disguised as items and you have to use them at the right spot). The player is instrumental to the progression of a linear path

Actually, I don't make it the first time through most games so I guess that has something to do with it too.

You just destroyed all of your own points against by saying that how ironic.

[JohnPaterson]

It's a couple combined stories with different endings.

I didn't fully explain my thoughts on this point because it is obvious to me... but it may not be to anyone... so here it goes....

Branching stories open new doors = a ton of possibilities:
It can be a "vertical" development i.e. many paths ultimately reach a unique end/conclusion
It can be a "horizontal" development i.e. different paths will lead to different conclusions
It can be a mix of both... some paths come back to story1 while some others continue on their own...

so it is not necessarily combining different stories. It is about developing a single unique story and taking into account different alternatives in the face of a problem/dilemma/puzzle/choice.

[ad7venture]

Branching stories open new doors = a ton of possibilities:
It can be a "vertical" development i.e. many paths ultimately reach a unique end/conclusion
It can be a "horizontal" development i.e. different paths will lead to different conclusions
It can be a mix of both... some paths come back to story1 while some others continue on their own...

so it is not necessarily combining different stories. It is about developing a single unique story and taking into account different alternatives in the face of a problem/dilemma/puzzle/choice.

I think if that were really true you could circle back and do the other branch, which would make it just a normal branching story that didn't require the branch to be completed. I see it as limiting the player. 

Actually, I don't make it the first time through most games so I guess that has something to do with it too.

You just destroyed all of your own points against by saying that Smiley how ironic.

I don't think so.  I don't finish games any more because they have moved into multiple storyline sand  box things.  The last game I finished was a linear adventure game.  In fact, the only games I've ever finished were fairly linear adventure games, except for Unreal, but that was actually a pretty linear game, too.  I finished some of the Laura Croft things, but that's the same deal, fairly linear.

[JohnPaterson]

.

[ad7venture]

Besides, who said that you can't go back to try the other way? You can always go back...

as long as the path chosen doesn't entangled the other option.
(like drink a potion, pour it on the floor, give it to someone... then, you can't go back....)

Then it's a branch you're not forced off and is perfectly logical to me.  I don't have anything against branching.  I don't like branches that close the door and make me replay the game to try the other branch.