Editorial Warren Spector against tyranny of choices

[Vault Dweller]

As for the story, Exitium put it best. The stoiry doesn't reallt exist/. What little striory there is nothing more than to give youe xuses to explore the enxt dungeon ala IWD yet IWD and heck even TOEE did a much better job of it.

Did you actually play it? You didn't answer that question before. As for the DF story, what you have to realize that you can't judge it on its own. Ok, you can, but it's sorta pointless. The ES series represent games with large freely explorable worlds, just like D2 represent fast action RPGs. It's pointless to look at D2, compare it to Fallout or whatever, and say that it sucks. It doesn't. Same with DF, while the story wasn't as great as that of PST or Fallout, it was done much better then in MW or any other huge world game.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Fallout had a very strong story in comparison to the 'free form' games like Morrowind. It wasn't even a lot less subtler than Baldur's Gate. Both games gave you a clear purpose from the very start.

Fallout: Find Water Chip and Save Vault 13
Baldur's Gate: Find Out Who Killed Your Dad

The latter portion of the game came down to the following for each game:

Fallout: Kill The Master And Stop Mutant Threat
Baldur's Gate: Kill Sarevok And Stop The War From Erupting

Granted, Fallout gave you a lot more freedom in terms of accomplishing your missions, but every location you visited had a connection of some sort to the Mutant Threat with little signs of the game's underlying plot every now and then, like the Deathclaw in the Cave at the Hub, or the research data at The Glow.

Compared to Fallout, Baldur's Gate's locations were a lot more varied, but the majority of them were a lot less significant in terms of the game's overall plot. Places like the Gnoll Fort had absolutely nothing to do with Sarevok's plans, for instance.

Fallout 2 suffered from a significant amount of INSIGNIFICANT locations. Modoc, Redding, and the town with Marcus had absolutely nothing to do with the storyline at all. It's like they were just there for the sake of content and nothing more, hence the seemingly 'non-linear' gameplay.

I think that for a game to be more engaging, it'd have to feature the kind of 'emergent gameplay' of Fallout and Deus Ex, wherein each visited location would have some purpose to serve to the storyline and not simply exist as filler content. It would only serve to promote a much more visceral and engaging story-based experience as opposed to some pointless, open-ended nonsense like Morrowind.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Diablo was relatively good at the whole storytelling aspect. I would say that playing Diablo was certainly one of the more engaging games I've laid my hands on in all of my gaming years. It's a pity they didn't continue that aspect of the legacy with Diablo 2.

 

[Volourn]

I still want to murder that "Coo" guy.

VD: Yes, I played it. Well.. Played it long enough to realzie the game was worthless. And, from what I played the story was completely unimportant to the game. And, niothing I've ehard to those who played ALL 826 hours 53 minutes 24 seconds of the game stress otherwise.

Seriously, you can't tell me that pepple continued to play DF strictly because of the story? No, they didn't. They proclaim it fun (the folls who do, anyways) ebcause of its "openess".

When people discuss their favorite stories, chaarcetrs, plots, quests, or anything liek that the Es series is NEVER mentioned. But talka bout freedom the ES series is always at the top or near the top of the list.

Conclsuon: DF has a pathetic almost non existent story; but it was never its main goal anyways.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I still want to murder that "Coo" guy.

Who, the guy from BG2 that suffered from Owl Impersonation Syndrome?

 

[psorcerer]

Fallout didn't have a story? That's...interesting. Tell us more, please, tell us how you arrived to that conclusion. Surely you wouldn't have any problems presenting and defending your point of view?

Arrived? Very simple: played Fallout. No story detected. At least something better tahn Morrowind not detected, at all. Simple logic between NPCs, no relationship, no chemistry. Boring.

I see. So how about if you can speak, sneak, etc; and you have a problem (a quest to solve), you'd try speaking or sneaking or whatever you're good at and see if that works. Is it that hard to figure out?

Yep, you can miss very good turns if you don't do save/load magic. And if you do it often: I don't like such gameplay.

Well, maybe I'm stupid and can't share his vision and see the infamous big picture, but his games and design ideas suck a lot lately. That's gotta tell you something. Then again maybe you like his games, and have a good reason why, that's fine, but you have to understand and see the flaws in games like DX1 and 2 to accept them for what they are.

DX1 and 2 are not good games in any sense, and I don't like them.
But the things Spector says are obvious to me and I wonder why it's so hard to see.
Good story can not be non-linear. A lot of gameplay possibilities can be confusing. It's a simple mathematics, nothing else.

Why? You don't need to think of a logic, you have skills and abilities, you apply them, see the results, and learn what's possible and what's not.

Ok, you tried to speak, and now you have a hostile NPC running after you, what would you do? Load?[/quote]

 

[Volourn]

RP: Yup; that's "who". :shock:

 

[Sol Invictus]

Trial and error ruins the solid experience? Ok. So how do you propose to handle situations such as determining enemy weaknesses without trial and error? How do you propose to solve situations, such as puzzles, without trial and error? Surely you're not suggesting that there must be an indication to their completion conveniently placed next to every puzzle? Speaking of which, how do you determine what is the best course of action in combat? Do you not use trial and error? We haven't yet reached the point where we can determine tactics and maneuvers without any margin for error.

The problem with games is that they don't provide the necessary information one would use to determine the threat level, strengths and weaknesses of his enemies. It just puts the enemies there and expects you to deal with them - which, if you fail, you reload. Game developers expect games to be played out like movies. Any mistakes results in a penalty because the player didn't happen to think like the designer did when he was making the puzzle/challenge/quest. I think that it's really unfair to treat gamers that way and it certainly doesn't help them to develop into more perceptive thinkers. I would go so far as to say that games hinder the mental development of gamers by forcing gamers to proceed through trial and error instead of assessing the situation beforehand in the way one would in real life. It's the reason why I prefer strategy games like Jagged Alliance 2 and X-Com over relatively 'stupid' titles that force you to proceed through the singular, linear path laid out by the developer. Emergent gameplay helps to resolve the issue of 'fucking up and failing' by allowing the gamer to do whatever he wants to do to proceed and not penalize him (by forcing him to reload) for making any mistakes.

Any game that forces you to reload because it doesn't offer you the information you REQUIRE to solve the quest the first time you encounter is simply proof of bad design. Games like Medal of Honor, Anachronox and Final Fantasy's 'combat sequences' are guilty of this.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Arrived? Very simple: played Fallout. No story detected. At least something better tahn Morrowind not detected, at all. Simple logic between NPCs, no relationship, no chemistry. Boring.

The NPCs that could join you were certainly some of the most boring I've ever encountered. The only memorable NPC from Fallout was Dogmeat, and that's only because being a dog, he wasn't expected to do a whole lot other than barking and biting people. Fallout 2 was a definite improvement over the NPCs, especially with that annoying kid Myron and the tribal Sulik. On the other hand, the characters which you met in the game (but could not recruit), like Harold, The Master, Killian, Gizmo, Tandi, Lockley and Lieutenant were pretty damn memorable characters so I don't know what the hell you're talking about..

Other than that, I would say that Fallout had a definite storyline. It just wasn't presented to you in the way a movie would (which is to say in your face), most of the story was contained within the holodiscs, and the things that various characters in the game would relay to you. Just because there wasn't a narrator to tell you what the hell was going on didn't mean you couldn't read the holodiscs that people left behind as details of the secret research that went on in West Tec or the migration of the Brotherhood of Steel.

 

[HanoverF]

Pay attention kiddies, you may learn something, Morrowind sucked because there was so little for you to do.

You could kill stuff, you could move around, you could collect items, you could talk to people. Each one of these activities was dreadful. fighting was clicking snoozefest, it was a huge world so moving about on foot sucked ass. The items were unimaginative and boring, conversations were crap (potion making and item/soul enchanting is a combination item gathering and killing)

There were tons of quests, but they all boiled down to very boring repitition of these four things to do. Even though everything was allegedly hand designed after 3-4 dungeons they all kept repeating (the smaller ones anyway the bigger "special" dungeons sucked on a whole different level [jumping puzzles, wheee]) making exploration tedious rather then rewarding. That is why Morrowind sucked, Not too much freedom, not too many choices. Use your brain, less you end up a Spector.

It's too late for you Mr, "No romance with Ian meens Fallout1 = teh suk!" but others still have a chance.

 

[psorcerer]

Sorry if this seems elitist in any way, but honestly, that is the player's fault, not the developers' fault. A game is there to challenge me. If i don't care to understand what is going to happen next and just want to be done with it, then this would be the wrong kind of activity for me. Or the game is badly done in that aspect.

Ah! You've got the point. Either you're not playing it right or the game is badly designed. How can we deside what is the case? If the game desinger thinks like you -> you get good "logic" choices, doesn't think like you -> badly desinged game. I don't see any "true" way to see who is right.

Also note that, i might be mistaken, but you seem to believe that every choice or interaction will have have some implication which mazes the player in a game of guessing probabilities. Why should this happen?

Because I'm used to thinking before doing something, so I think: this guy is arrogant f@ck so I'll make him hit me and then kill him, and it turns out that game designer thought of this guy as of harmless joker and when I kill him the wrath of whole town descends on me. Load? But the choice was "right" in my opinion: I made him hit me, and then killed him. But it's not right for the designer. Could it be? Certainly!

Is the problem the number of choices, or the player that is essentially a powergamer who doesn't care for choices nor is he used to them, but whines that he wants to get the best results for his game, in spite of bad choices he made? I'm inclined to think its the second.

I think that if player doesn't go postal or does something totally prohibited by the game rules (which should be explained in one way or another, best of all - by the story), he should have the possibility to continue the game, maybe it'll become harder, but not impossible to go further.

Unfortunately, playing "my way" is something i can't really do, because player advancement is mostly dictated by the developers, and the options they include.

I have no problem with that while they still covering everything by the global scale rules.

In fact, playing my way usually involves deciding which of the premade ways the developers included i like the most, and taking it from there.

And could it happen throughout the course of the game that initial avatar choice is not behaving the way you expected it to behave? In most cases it does.

Trial and error ruins the solid experience? Ok. So how do you propose to handle situations such as determining enemy weaknesses without trial and error? How do you propose to solve situations, such as puzzles, without trial and error?

Enemies - no problem, if you fight - prepare to be killed.
But other choices? Why? Besides "deadly traps" I don't see why I should "revive" myself by using save/load magic.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

I just read this fucking thing. Someone should shoot this fucker or something to put him out of his misery. Give him an injection full of murder maybe. Dear God, just think for us too.

 

[psorcerer]

The problem with games is that they don't provide the necessary information one would use to determine the threat level, strengths and weaknesses of his enemies. It just puts the enemies there and expects you to deal with them - which, if you fail, you reload.

Exactly.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Arrived? Very simple: played Fallout. No story detected. At least something better tahn Morrowind not detected, at all. Simple logic between NPCs, no relationship, no chemistry. Boring.

Since when story=NPCs with relationship and chemistry?

I see. So how about if you can speak, sneak, etc; and you have a problem (a quest to solve), you'd try speaking or sneaking or whatever you're good at and see if that works. Is it that hard to figure out?

Yep, you can miss very good turns if you don't do save/load magic. And if you do it often: I don't like such gameplay.

Your arguments are full of assumptions. Why save/reload all the time? That's the advantage of gameplay with choices, there is more then one way, an attempt to try one doesn't need to end with your character's death or a hostile situation.

But the things Spector says are obvious to me and I wonder why it's so hard to see.
Good story can not be non-linear. A lot of gameplay possibilities can be confusing. It's a simple mathematics, nothing else.

Good story can be non-linear. Give me an example. Is KOTOR a good story? As for a lot of gameplay possibilities being confusing, considering that most good games feature 3-4 choices at a time, I can't imagine how stupid a person should be to be confused by that. KOTOR's extreme linearity and lack of any real choices was appalling to me.

Ok, you tried to speak, and now you have a hostile NPC running after you, what would you do? Load?

Why should a failed attempt to convince somebody should trigger a hostile situation unless you provoked it of course? I don't know what games you've played, but your examples show lack of any understanding of RPGs' mechanics.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Because I'm used to thinking before doing something, so I think: this guy is arrogant f@ck so I'll make him hit me and then kill him, and it turns out that game designer thought of this guy as of harmless joker and when I kill him the wrath of whole town descends on me. Load? But the choice was "right" in my opinion: I made him hit me, and then killed him. But it's not right for the designer. Could it be? Certainly!

Don't you get it? What you described is the gameplay without choices. Your choice to kill the guy is not really a choice since it's not supported and forces you to reload. Duh!

 

[Sol Invictus]

Speaking of jumping puzzles in RPGs, you know what online MMORPG had those? Asheron's Call. Man, that fucking sucked! If you fell to your doom, there was absolutely no way to recover your corpse.

 

[Sol Invictus]

The problem with the majority of RPGs is that there are only two possible outcomes to each conversation no matter how many options are presented in the dialogue.

Option a) you agree to help the NPC, thus proceeding forwards
Option b) the NPC goes hostile and kills you, ending the game.

Why can't there be an Option C where killing the NPC doesn't end the game? In the most basic of solutions, you should be able to find a note on his corpse which allows you to proceed on the quest without having to deal with him. A more advanced method would be to pursue other options, like threatening the NPC's friend who knows the same information as he did, but perhaps a little less so. (e.g. he might not tell you about the traps along the way to the location) Killing NPC A would make NPC B a whole lot more talkative lest he suffer the same fate, or something like that.

It really sucks to be in a game where you can't kill certain NPCs due to their importance to the storyline, or whatever.

 

[Sol Invictus]

I don't like how in most, if not all RPGs, every fight ends in death. It's really difficult to conceive the bloodthirst of these characters. What's even odder is that while losing against them always results in your death, winning against them simply results in them being knocked 'unconscious'.

Just for once I'd like to play a game where provoked combat sequences don't have to end in killing the next guy.

One of the things I liked about TOEE was the fact that you could knock that one guy who stole Mona's orb unconscious and simply loot his unconscious body for it, or get him to quit harrassing the prostitutes by beating him up.

 

[Volourn]

Problem is everyt ime I kncoked him out he'd be hostile twoards me forveer si I'd always be in combat mode on thats reen. otehrwsie, the non lethal damage was a nice pnp rule rule addition to the game..

 

[psorcerer]

Since when story=NPCs with relationship and chemistry?

Since when story = history?
I call "story" to anything in the world not affected by PC actions. Any event either happening in front of the PC eyes or which happened long before that and not because of PC actions is indeed a part of the "story".

Your arguments are full of assumptions. Why save/reload all the time? That's the advantage of gameplay with choices, there is more then one way, an attempt to try one doesn't need to end with your character's death or a hostile situation.

It eventually leads to that in most games.
It's just matter of how much dialogue you see before you kill or be killed.
Or have you seen other RPGs lately? Like "social" ones? Where you need to choose who to be "friends" with to get to your goal?

Good story can be non-linear. Give me an example. Is KOTOR a good story?

Do't be shoked but Final Fantasy series - these are a good stories indeed. Yeah, they're too linear, but they have very good stories.

As for a lot of gameplay possibilities being confusing, considering that most good games feature 3-4 choices at a time, I can't imagine how stupid a person should be to be confused by that. KOTOR's extreme linearity and lack of any real choices was appalling to me.

Future games, RPG building tendencies - I'm speaking of these. KOTOR had one good puzzle: Mannan.

Why should a failed attempt to convince somebody should trigger a hostile situation unless you provoked it of course?

Ok, the metaphor was too hyperbolic.

Just for once I'd like to play a game where provoked combat sequences don't have to end in killing the next guy.

Have you ever heard of Gothic? :D

 

[Sol Invictus]

yeah, I have it, but they kill you.

 

[psorcerer]

yeah, I have it, but they kill you.

Nope, in most cases they just knock you out and rob you.
I was hiding money in a secret stash just to not to be robbed, because they take all the money you have on you, bastards!

 

[Vault Dweller]

Since when story=NPCs with relationship and chemistry?

Since when story = history?

Let's not do that. My question was simple enough and based on your exact words. There is no need to look for misleading and incorrect synonyms.

I call "story" to anything in the world not affected by PC actions. Any event either happening in front of the PC eyes or which happened long before that and not because of PC actions is indeed a part of the "story".

But according to your earlier post, Fallout doesn't have a story because NPCs lack chemistry. Where does that fit into your definition? Also, what's wrong with the PC taking parts in a story?

It eventually leads to that in most games. It's just matter of how much dialogue you see before you kill or be killed.

Yet there are games like Fallout that don't follow that pattern, so why not look at the best for examples of a good design instead of agreeing with Spector. In Fallout you can play the entire game without killing anybody. Did you know that?

Or have you seen other RPGs lately? Like "social" ones? Where you need to choose who to be "friends" with to get to your goal?

Social ones? What social ones? I hope you're not one of them simming folks.

Do't be shoked but Final Fantasy series - these are a good stories indeed. Yeah, they're too linear, but they have very good stories.

A Final Fantasy fan, aren't we? Can't say that I'm shocked.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

There were no memorable characters in either Morrowind or Daggerfall. More linear games like Knights of the Old Republic, Fallout, Torment, Baldur's Gate, Final Fantasy and even TOEE had much more memorable characters because the game areas were relatively 'small' in comparison to the free-basedness of Morrowind.

Morrowind has a story and it's completely linear. There's a few choices involving the story at the very end, but that's it. Morrowind didn't have meaningful characters mainly because of that awful dialogue system which felt less like talking to someone and more like navigating a bland, lifeless web page. You're never going to have an interesting NPC like that, ever, because clicking on topic hardly lends itself to any sort of personality development.

Future games, RPG building tendencies - I'm speaking of these. KOTOR had one good puzzle: Mannan.

Eh? Hell, that puzzle's so damned old, I'm surprised people who played the game didn't recognize it. It's pretty stupid as well just becausae of the way it was set up. If you have a chemical that explodes if there's four units in a five unit tank, you're never going to have a five unit tank. The only way to empty from five units down to three units requires that at some point, there will be four units in that tank. It's called the Mean Value Thereom.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Jeebus, i can't go to sleep and leave you all posting while i'm gone. So much to do, so little time to answer...

The problem with games is that they don't provide the necessary information one would use to determine the threat level, strengths and weaknesses of his enemies. It just puts the enemies there and expects you to deal with them - which, if you fail, you reload. Game developers expect games to be played out like movies. Any mistakes results in a penalty because the player didn't happen to think like the designer did when he was making the puzzle/challenge/quest.

There's only one problem there, you can't really think beyond what the designers wanted you to think - if they created the obstacle, then they created the answers to it as well, and you have to find the answer(s) they devised, for the obstacle(s) they devised. If you're going to solve a situation, you're given a set of rules that the designer gave you, and its up to you to use them as best as you can. One way might work, another might fail, and even some other might be the optimal way - but in the end, it all comes down to understanding what was done, how it operates, and how to achieve success with it, by understanding what they did.

I think that it's really unfair to treat gamers that way and it certainly doesn't help them to develop into more perceptive thinkers.

I'm not an interplanateray mastermind, but i grew fond of understanding how to solve puzzles and situations the designers laid out for me. I'd be wrong to say it was the only thing that made me more perceptive, but it damn well contributed to it. If we are talking of logical solutions to situations, then they're definetely worth it. I'm not exactly supporting illogical puzzles like mixing a picture of your loved one, a piece of corn, a tear, a tooth, a hair, a harp, wax, 3 scorpion tails and some lizard tongues to overcome a jumping puzzle, here.

Also, i'd have to question what really does make them more pereceptive. Is it the puzzle which has to make players think, using trial and error or hints across the game (the altar quest in Arcanum), or is the puzzle with the solution conveniently placed nearby, like several instances of KoTOR or Watcher's Keep (Throne of Bhaal)? I'd wager the first. I'm not going to become more perceptive by just following instructions, but rather, because i used knowledge and wit, and managed to apply it.

Emergent gameplay helps to resolve the issue of 'fucking up and failing' by allowing the gamer to do whatever he wants to do to proceed and not penalize him (by forcing him to reload) for making any mistakes.

I think this is a myth. I think that this depends on designer ingenuity, not a different take on player freedom. Penalizing a player for what he did is just as likely to happen in a "standard" game as well as a game using "emergent gameplay". In the end, it still depends on wheter the player screws himself, and if the developer is willing to allow the player to be screwed. Emergent gameplay doesn't help solve this; you can easily create a game where a player isnt put into a tight spot because of his choices without even approaching the concept of emergent gameplay.

Any game that forces you to reload because it doesn't offer you the information you REQUIRE to solve the quest the first time you encounter is simply proof of bad design. Games like Medal of Honor, Anachronox and Final Fantasy's 'combat sequences' are guilty of this.

They should always present some degree of information to solve something, if it is needed. If you're going with a situation where a devilish puzzle is layed out in front of you, then yes, there should be some way of ascerting the proper working of it (though i heavilly frown on being told everything about it; subtle hints, and again, trial and error, work fine). If we're talking of situations where its all up to the player's intellect, then no help should exist. Like in combat situations. You know your abilities, and what they do. Just execute them as you think is best. If that doesn't work, don't blame the game; blame yourself for not devising a proper attack plan. What, the creature is immune to something? Remove the immunity, or attack with it something which the creature is not immune to. Simple.

Although, i'm not quite sure of what you mean by Final Fantasy's 'combat sequences'. I'm not forced to reload because i wasn't given enough information; rather, because i used it badly (which is what tends to happen most of the time in other games, with other gamers).