Making you feel like you're there

[Nick_i_am]

Wait, didn't NPCs in Deus Ex get a little bit ticked off if a cyborg goverment agent started waving guns at them?

 

That was probably part of it for me, I can't remember if they did or not, but I played as if they would. If I were to play the game (for the first time) these days it would be WAY less immersive, (if at all) because I would be delibrately trying to break the game at any chance I could just to see if it was possible.

 

Another annoying thing in DX which is more of an immersion breaker (I feel) then 'you can't kill this important NPC' was a cabnet in the UNATCO HQ that could be opened by force. Throw a nade at it? fine, get the loot. Shoot a rocket at it and the whole building desends on your orifices.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

There probably are, but this kind of immersion tends to come at a cost of developer options in gameplay.  Once you set the rules for what choices the player can make you've limited yourself.

 

Of course, it's never easy to balance these things. Sometimes they can suck out the fun, as it were. But we're arguing immersion and for the most part it's bound to happen in many games no matter how balanced they are in this regard.

 

System Shock 2 probably did this 'best', in the sense that there are never really any moments of broken immersion because you can't shoot some NPC.  The price this came at was never actually seeing any NPCs face-to-face (or at least, never seeing any that weren't about to die anyway.)  You only saw monsters and ghosts and voices, but never anything you weren't 'supposed' to kill that you could shoot at anyway.

 

Was System Shock 2 an immersive game?  Sure - but at the same time, one can't really say it had any kind of player choices, and not being able to actually meet directly with NPCs was probably a part of that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Very true, although there's always the possibility of making something like not depending on critical NPCs to move the game and the story forward. Take the example of the character Jock in Deus Ex. Why is there even a need to tag him as critical and let no harm come to him? How many times did we interacted with the character face to face? I can only remember one (if I'm mistaken, someone please correct me), and its the first time players meet him. Despite interacting with Jock further down the road, as he is the pilot who will fly you from mission to mission for the larger part of the game, you don't physically interact with him, as he will always be already inside the helicopter. For this task alone, any secondary character could take his place. One pilot dead, another can take his place. Storywise, it's not like UNATCO couldn't get any other helicopter pilot. Gamewise, it makes no difference to players as they'd still be lead into the next missions. Any and all plot points which required Jock could be played by some other character, and could lead to different situations altogether. They didn't even need to branch out and present something like different paths; they could just play out differently.

 

As I also said above, there's other ways to circumvent the possibility of players coming up with the immersion-breaking events. I already mentioned what could've been done at UNATCO to prevent the use of firearms. Something similar could apply to the Underworld bar. Or just use bouncers who pack more heat than the bar owner. Or have the bar owner (who was a former UNATCO agent) talk to UNATCO and strike a deal with them: they want to investigate the place, she lets them in with the condition that UNATCO agents won't carry any guns into her establishment so as not to scare away the clientelle.

 

The developers themselves included other ways, such as leaving computer terminals with required info in case of players not being able to talk to NPCs. Some critical NPCs appear trough holographic projection and talk to JC Denton, even - another example of allowing interaction without the possibility of players screwing the pooch.

[Slowtrain]

The only thing that bugged me about Deus Ex was hacking computer terminals while the person was standing 2 feet away. That just felt so wrong somehow. I didn't understand why the devs couldn't have come up with something a bit more belieavble..

[Haitoku]

The only thing that bugged me about Deus Ex was hacking computer terminals while the person was standing 2 feet away.  That just felt so wrong somehow.  I didn't understand why the devs couldn't have come up with something a bit more belieavble..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Vampire Bloodlines had that too.

 

You could be hacking the persons PC right in front of them and they wouldn't say a thing.

[Slowtrain]

Actually, another thing bugged me, too. Which was having to steal supplies from your own headquarters. HELLO! I work for you. Gimme some stuff, please. Once I started replaying the game I stopped breaking into the Unatco air vent for a couple multitools. Totally absurd.

 

Actually, Deus Ex had a kind of weird design that floated somewhere between hardcore spy sim and goofy loot hunt.

[Judge Hades]

I hacked a computer while a guard was shooting at me.

[Calax]

I'm just going to point out that in HL2 you could kill essencial NPCs but because you couldn't shoot them in the head you had to do it with a barrel or explosive device. Even then you'd get killed by the gman and his compatriots for loss of mission critical personell.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I hacked a computer while a guard was shooting at me. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You can hack a computer terminal and listen in the background to NPCs noticing you are doing it - by reading their lines - but they'll only shoot you when you log out.

[Llyranor]

True gentlemen.

[Gabrielle]

I hacked a computer while a guard was shooting at me. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've had that happen. You feel like the terminator, taking the hits but still go about your business unfazed.

[BattleCookiee]

Yeah, that was funny in Area 51 of DX

 

I hacked a console and a heavy droid saw me and locked in. But it just stood there waiting untill I logged off, while a reprogrammed machinegun was shooting the bot.

 

Do I have to say I disconnected after the thing blew?

 

Also funny is when you break a window in the Quickshop of Hongkong then select the security camera and log in...

 

The 3 cops are going all over to try to stand next to your head when you disconnect again...

Edited January 8, 2006 by Battlewookiee

[Hell Kitty]

To pick up on your own logic, at no time does the character of JC Denton ever have a reason for not killing the character

 

This is completely ridiculous. It's like asking someone to prove the existence of a Christian god and having them respond "No, you prove a Christian god doesn't exist.". I don't have to prove a negative, the onus is on you to show that there is an in-game reason that the player, acting as the character of JC Denton would kill the character Jock.

 

"I'm thinking outside the box", "I'm roleplaying" and "The developers gave me the mechanics to do so" are not reasons for the player acting as the character of JC Denton would kill the character Jock.

Edited January 8, 2006 by Hell Kitty

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Because you say so.

[Hell Kitty]

If there was a reason to kill Jock you would have offered it up by now. Your inability to do so answers my initial question in this thread.

[Slowtrain]

I agree with much of your take on crpgs, RP, but in the case of DX, I think you are a bit off base in your criticisms. DX is it its heart still a linear game that requires the prescence of certain characters to tell its story and the presence of certain allegiances to tell the story. JC can't join the MJ12 because that's not the story; JC can't kill Manderley because that's not the story, etc and so forth. Whether the devs choose to keep manderley behind a plate glass window the whole game or simply make him invulnerable until X point in the story is immaterial. The fact is that some artificial device will have to be used to keep him alive until then.

 

 

 

IIRC earlier in the thread you commended the DX2 devs for creating the "lockewd-weapon" environments in DX2 as a better way of preventing the player from attemptin to kill invulernable characters. But that same "locked-weapon" device caused howls of outrage on the DX forums when it was first discovered becausew it was so much more intrusive to the gameplay than making Manderley or Gunther invulernable.

 

 

6 on way; half a dozen the other.

 

 

ANyway, bottom line is I think you are criticizing DX for not being something that it never tries to be.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

If there was a reason to kill Jock you would have offered it up by now.

 

Even if a UNATCO agent's first objective is to safeguard human life, no civilian with a clearance below Angel/0A should be trusted and may be a potential spy. Anyone can be a spy and should be dealt with accordingly. Nevermind that Jock wasn't willing to cooperate that much, but when a gunfire emerged in the Underworld bar, I was attacked by him. UNATCO agents are meant to preserve human life, but this does not involve standing there getting shot at. Obviously, I returned fire which I'm sure you know is pointless.

 

Now, I very much doubt this is 'in-game' reason enough for you; however wheter you like it or not the game, wheter spontaneously or as a reaction, gave me reasons to shoot at him.

 

Your inability to do so answers my initial question in this thread.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh, but I have answered. On the other hand, your inability to never reach out beyond the surface of what's being discussed here also answers mine.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Whether the devs choose to keep manderley behind a plate glass window the whole game or simply make him invulnerable until X point in the story is immaterial.  The fact is that some artificial device will have to be used to keep him alive until then.

 

I'm not arguing against artificial devices, nor am I trying to argue for them. I'm talking about which of these artificial devices is more immersive (as per the thread's purpose) in the sense they don't glaringly tell players that they're playing a game.

 

I think this is a problem that no doubt comes from developers who simultaneously want to tell a story but also want players to make decisions in them, which more than often leads to situations like these. They should either tell a story, or give me a game where my decisions are accounted for; if they combine both they can't expect it to work out perfectly fine. Personally, I'd do away with such linearity and critical NPCs and prefer to have games with a more organic, branching design behind them.

 

IIRC earlier in the thread you commended the DX2 devs for creating the "lockewd-weapon" environments in DX2 as a better way of preventing the player from attemptin to kill invulernable characters.  But that same "locked-weapon" device caused howls of outrage on the DX forums when it was first discovered becausew it was so much more intrusive to the gameplay than making Manderley or Gunther invulernable.

 

It's intrusive insofar as players' freedom is concerned, no doubt; but once again we're talking about immersion. A weapon lockdown system used in bars for fear of terrorist actions is much more credible, and therefore immersive, than someone never dying no matter how many shots of how many weapons you fire at him.

 

ANyway, bottom line is I think you are criticizing DX for not being something that it never tries to be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't think I ever criticized Deus Ex because it wasn't something that it never tried to be. At best I have criticized Deus Ex because it's something that it tries to be but never quite manages to.

[Nick_i_am]

It's intrusive insofar as players' freedom is concerned, no doubt; but once again we're talking about immersion. A weapon lockdown system used in bars for fear of terrorist actions is much more credible, and therefore immersive, than someone never dying no matter how many shots of how many weapons you fire at him.

 

Yeah, this is a point worth going over again, people complaining about somthing that MAKES SENSE in the game world because 'boohoo I can't go on random killing sprees' is pretty lame. But people seem to be confusing immersion with ability to roleplay.

 

As a roleplaying game, Deus Ex was AWFUL, it's a completely linear story with little scope for character development, 'forcefed PC personality' (as far as convos/major quests went) and little freedom within the gameworld outside of the immediate level.

 

However, the combination of a belivable (and interesting) gameworld, the illusion of freedom, a decent amount of diologue and NPCs, different ways to approch individual situations on a small scale and an interface that encoraged interation with the world (pick up chairs and throw them at people for fun!) as well as basic character editing (invantory + skills, but still simple) made for a game that, if enjoyed by the player, could be highly IMMERSIVE. But NOT a good roleplaying game, just a 'pretend one'.

 

The point is that talking about this I wish that Deus Ex WAS a good roleplaiyng game, in the same way that the aforementioned Fallout and Arcanium are, but as it stands the story is way waaay too 'on rails' for such a thing to be possible.

 

As for 'artificial devices' even HL2's 'weapon dip' as mentioned before was a very nice feature, even though you could still shoot at the NPCs face if you hit the shoot button while the gun was dipped.

[Slowtrain]

RolePlayer, I would say you are using the word "choices" in too broad a sense. There are degrees of choice possible within the set parameters of a game world.

 

 

Within the mission levels of DX, the player does have a great deal of freedom of how she/he chooses to go about achieving the mision goals. However, at the end of the mission, no matter what choices you made, your character is still going to be in roughly the same place either way. Help Paul live or let Paul die, it doesn't matter to the actual storyarc of the game. And overall I felt the devs did a pretty good job of balancing the two elements. As long as one is trying to tell a linear story, you are going to have to force a player into some kind of set path, all you can really hope for is an "illusion" of freedom, and that illusion is going to be generated by getting small choices that change the short term situation, but have little or no effect on the long-term story.

 

 

I'm not saying the DX doesn't deserve criticism, because I think it has a lot of very poorly done things that rip any illusion of OMG you are really there to shreds. However not being able to kill Jock is not one of them. I thinkk.

[Hell Kitty]

Even if a UNATCO agent's first objective is to safeguard human life, no civilian with a clearance below Angel/0A should be trusted and may be a potential spy. Anyone can be a spy and should be dealt with accordingly. Nevermind that Jock wasn't willing to cooperate that much, but when a gunfire emerged in the Underworld bar, I was attacked by him. UNATCO agents are meant to preserve human life, but this does not involve standing there getting shot at. Obviously, I returned fire which I'm sure you know is pointless.

 

What was the cause of this gunfire that "emerged"?

 

IIRC earlier in the thread you commended the DX2 devs for creating the "lockewd-weapon" environments in DX2 as a better way of preventing the player from attemptin to kill invulernable characters. But that same "locked-weapon" device caused howls of outrage on the DX forums when it was first discovered becausew it was so much more intrusive to the gameplay than making Manderley or Gunther invulernable.

 

The problem with arguing about what is and isn't immersive is that it's different for different people. Like how everybody on the old Ion Storm boards seemed to think levels split into multiple maps was the worst "immersion killing" sin ever.

 

Edit: CrashGirl: I agree with everything in your last post. The choices the player gets in DX are generally in how you approach completing mission objectives, while the story remains just as linear as a typical adventure game.

Edited January 8, 2006 by Hell Kitty

[Diogo Ribeiro]

RolePlayer, I would say you are using the word "choices" in too broad a sense.  There are degrees of choice possible within the set parameters of a game world. (...)

 

Yes, I am aware of that. And I don't disagree with anything you wrote on the following paragraph, either. As I pointed out before, the differences between trying to tell a story vs. trying to present choice and consequence to a player obviously collide. Choices, and more importantly consequences, are often compromised. However, this in a way is not all, or exclusively, what I'm arguing because I'm aware of this and the subject has been talked about. I'm mainly taking issues with how exactly the consequences of some player choices have no consequence, or in this particular case, don't allow for consequences. I am not, however, taking issue with the choices which actually have consequences in the gameworld such as short term player decisions regarding problem solving required for level advancement.

 

I'm not saying the DX doesn't deserve criticism, because I think it has a lot of very poorly done things that rip any illusion of OMG you are really there to shreds.  However not being able to kill Jock is not one of them.  I thinkk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Jock is just an example, and it's not even about the inability to do something as simple as kill the character; as I said before, this is just the surface of the issue being discussed. The real issue are the situations where the developers give the player freedom of choice but don't provide consequences. Jock is just one example and much more important than a player not being able to kill him is trying to understand why he was deemed so critical to the story when the character wasn't that necessary at all.

 

 

What was the cause of this gunfire that "emerged"?

 

Showing Joe Green my skill with blades. Or was it trying to widen the smile of one of the hookers? Whatever it was, it wasn't aimed at the pilot.

 

Even if his reaction had entirely been a direct, rather than indirect consequence of me shooting him, the 'in-game' reason is the same as whatever reason players have to shoot any other NPC, to avoid them, to talk to them, etc.. Saying there is no 'in-game' reason to do something is dubious considering there is no 'in-game' reason to perform most of the interactions in the game. There's no reason to hurt civilians, although I can. There's no reason to bomb a locker but I can. There's no reason to kick a trash can or stomp a cleaning bot, but I can. There's no reason to go into the ladies' restroom at UNATCO although I can. And so on.

 

The problem with arguing about what is and isn't immersive is that it's different for different people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why is it a problem? That it means different things for different people does not mean the subject itself has no definite meaning.

[Llyranor]

I think this is a problem that no doubt comes from developers who simultaneously want to tell a story but also want players to make decisions in them, which more than often leads to situations like these. They should either tell a story, or give me a game where my decisions are accounted for; if they combine both they can't expect it to work out perfectly fine. Personally, I'd do away with such linearity and critical NPCs and prefer to have games with a more organic, branching design behind them.

Zots.

 

Unfortunately, it looks like the way of linearity and critical NPCs is how it's going to be done "from now on". Devs want to forcefed you their storytelling awesomeness, and branching that not only costs more zots, also but dilutes their writing, so you don't get to see the awesome scenarios that the devs wrote if only you stuck to the "right path".

 

On the other side of the spectrum, you get the "Let's let the player do whatever s/he wants!!! It'll be grreat!". Then of course that nonlinearity gets hyped. This, of course means that you can do "anything you want", but that also makes everything pointless and inconsequential. Story becomes irrelevant. Ironically, in - say, Morrowind, because it's so awesome, the story consists of linearity and critical NPCs as well.

 

Making branching storylines is a big investment, one that won't mean more sales. I don't agree with you that telling a story means not taking into account the player's decisions - it just needs to be part of the game's design. Alas, such design is unnecessary in the industry, because people will buy anything with the RPG label on it.

 

I think you can have a strong storyline with strong writing that's ACCENTUATED by allowing nonlinearity and branching. Like I said, FO's plot was made STRONGER because of those features. Imagine a game that actually focused on storytelling with those features.

[Nick_i_am]

and by storytelling you mean somthing more than 'get waterchip, mutants lol, boom *walk walk* boom' Game Over!

 

After all, one of the strenghs of design of fallout was that you could complete the game in 15 minutes or so if you really wanted to (and knew how). That the 'story' is as a story should be, you are lead by the information you have and NOT where you are and arn't allowed to travel.

[Hell Kitty]

Why is it a problem?

 

Well, not a problem, rather that there isn't any "right" answer. I think my view of discussing immersion has been soured by the old Ion Storm boards.

 

I find placing story-critical characters in no-kill zones much more of an immersion breaker than unkillable characters, or characters that simply doesn't respond to your attacking them (like in FEAR, or Rainbow Six).

 

On a number of occasions I have had Paul attack me, both in the beginning on Liberty Island and in the Ton, because I have accidentally hurt him. Either a stray bullet hit him or he was caught in the radius of an explosion I caused. In all cases it was an accident, and I don't think the developers should factor in every mistake I might make and alter the game accordingly. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should be able to do it and still continue on. Sometimes it's just game over.

 

Saying there is no 'in-game' reason to do something is dubious considering there is no 'in-game' reason to perform most of the interactions in the game.

 

Killing someone is not the same as walking into a bathroom. It's easy to provide a consequence to walking into a bathroom, it's nothing more than a few extra lines of dialogue. A much bigger problem when a story-critical character is killed. Jock isn't that hard to replace, you could just have a UNATCO pilot that unlike Jock you never have any access too, but is it really worth it for the developer to put the resources into creating these alternatives based on the fact that the player might accidentally kill someone? What if the player accidentally kills someone like Tracer Tong?

 

Say out here in the real world, an agent of some kind is on a mission to retrieve information, but he ends up accidentally destroying it, how does he complete his mission? He doesn't, he fails, game over. Or an agent is behind enemy lines, and he kills the one person willing tp help him escape because he mistook him for an enemy, how does he get out? He doesn't, game over.

 

This is exactly how it is in games like DX, just because you can perform an action doesn't mean you can perform it without screwing yourself over.

Edited January 8, 2006 by Hell Kitty

[Llyranor]

I'm not sure I can say any game since has really tried to implement such a notion, or at least done it sincerely.

 

Linear storytelling and critical NPCs are what novels and movies are all about. They're there because the writer wants them to be there. Why repeat the cycle in games as well? What's the point of player input, aside from just selecting dialogue options that lead to the same linear path? What happened to player-driven storytelling?

 

EDIT: In reply to Nickdude.

Edited January 8, 2006 by Llyranor