Mythic structure in RPGs/video games in general

[metadigital]

It's just candy. Some people like candy. Eat it all day. Fortunately they die young.

[Shadowstrider]

I posted this because (to a lesser extent) you, and others (to a greater extent) seem to think that writing is secondary and some abstract part that can be tacked onto the end of the development cycle.

 

LAWL.

 

No. You assume this, and you're wrong. Most of my day is spent writing.

 

You think graphics are the most important aspect of games. Bully for you. That is your opinion. You really aren't going to convince me, no matter how vociferous you get. Think of Tomb Rader: Angel of Darkness. It had the momentum of a successful franchise and the latest

[Azarkon]

Check highlighted quotation.

 

How exactly do you test NPC interaction and the environment without revealing the story? Don't think in the abstract. Think in the concrete. Think how you would've tested KOTOR's "environment" and "NPC interaction" in the sense of iterative development. You can't exactly show them every environment in the game - that'd be spoiling everything. Same thing with NPC interactions.

 

There is more to an RPG than the story. Interesting NPCs, joinable party members, hirelings, setting, technology and/or magic (there are NwN mods like the Enhanced Magic System of arQon, for example).

 

How do you test NPCs, joinable party members, hirelings, and setting in an iterative manner without spoiling the content? Be concrete.

 

Sure, keep the story quiet. Or not. Just have only a few alpha testers. People write books and include their friends / family / loved ones / et alia, this is no different. I never suggested it had to be an open beta.

 

But that's already being done (after all, the team itself constitutes a group of testers), so what is new about your suggestion?

 

you're just saying the same thing over and over again. There is more to a game than flashy graphics, otherwise Flash would be the ultimate modding tool.

 

No I'm not, you're just choosing to interpret it as such. What I said was that a game needs flashy graphics and marketing alongside quality gameplay. Btw, Flash is hardly what I'd call a great engine for high quality graphics.

 

Back (sort of) on topic: VALVe's Source SDK and Steam provide the bedroom modder with the mechanism to build and distribute their masterpieces. The mechanism allows for the creative development to be moved front-and-centre, where it should be.

 

And this shows why you don't really understand some of the roadblocks in game development. The engine isn't usually the problem because you can typically license one if you're commercial or download one if you're not (though the learning curve of Source SDK, which I've worked with, can be quite steep). The problem lies in producing the graphics *for* the engine. Do you know how many artist hours it takes to generate good-looking graphics and animation? It's not like you can build an engine and boom you suddenly have industry standard graphics. Development teams these days typically include a disproportionate number of artists compared to other branches of development - and for good reason, because the amount of graphical content you need to churn out for a typical 30-40 hour game requires anywhere from 20 to 30 artists working for years on ends. Consequently, this is also why a great many job openings these days in the game industry are for artists.

Edited February 19, 2006 by Azarkon

[metadigital]

LAWL.

 

No.  You assume this, and you're wrong.  Most of my day is spent writing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why bother? Just program better graphics! (w00t)

A bad game is a bad game.  It didn't fail because of piss-poor writing, it failed from shoddy gameplay.  Believe it or not, gameplay != writing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, the gameplay was crap. So was the writing. Or did you think the game's great writing was let down by the poor gameplay? Distraction?

Unique, no.  In an EXTREME minority?  Yes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ooo. You're hurting me!

 

Because you know the minds of the game playing demographic.

 

Wait, I know! You're a marketing executive for a big Publisher, and you KNOW how to predict what the Next Big Thing is! No? And even they have no idea?

 

Pull your pants up and give your face a go.

Where, o' where did I say graphics are more inportant?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You've been blithering on about graphics (and physics) for three posts, now. Just read the polemic you have been writing.

The graphics might be there to show real-time physics of what your character is doing, but if what your PC is doing IS BORING then no-one will play it. Regardless of how good the blood spatter effects are. Comprende?

 

Gameplay != writing.

 

Something you don't seem to understand.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gameplay?

 

Let me say the above again.

if what your PC is doing IS BORING then no-one will play it

Who said mandatory?  You're taking leaps that aren't in my post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let's see, a random quote from one of your previous posts:

Players want, no, demand a visual confirmation to their actions in modern games.  They also demand textual and auditory confirmation.  If there is none, they feel cheated, additionally there is no more efficient way to express something visual than with a visual trigger.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Seems to me you are saying exactly that.

demand

n noun

1 an insistent and peremptory request, made as of right.

⇒(demands) pressing requirements.

2 the desire of purchasers, consumers, etc. for a particular commodity or service: a recent slump in demand.

n verb ask authoritatively or brusquely.

⇒insist on having.

⇒require; need.

 

ORIGIN

Middle English: from Old French demande (noun), demander (verb), from Latin demandare 'hand over, entrust'.

Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th Edition

 

First of all, the NWN system of traps sucks.  Bigtime.  Any traps that can discern friend from foe, by default, is lame.

 

In Oblivion for example, traps cannot tell friend from foe.  You can set off a trap, using physics, by throwing skulls to break trip wires.  Or throw weighty items on pressure plates.  This all helps gameplay, and is generally fun for sneak types (despite something I pushed for not making it in game).

 

You seem to be raising points with no real point.  I spent 10x more time making NWN modules than playing, and still do.

 

Ask the vault folks what the most frequently downloaded packages are[:] cosmetic changes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cosmetic changes to what? Boring modules that are boring to play? Don't be a simpleton.

 

Of course people download graphical improvements to the modules. So? Do they download graphics without stories?

 

"I want to play the fireworks mod!"

[alanschu]

Azarkon, what exactly are you trying to say?

 

It seems initially like you were trying to say iterative testing cannot be done in RPGs, or something to that effect. I had some stuff to say about your most recent post, but I want to be certain that I understand your point before I reply.

[Azarkon]

That's still what I'm saying. However, if you define iterative development as alpha testing via family and friends, then my point makes no sense, which is consequently why metaldigital's allusion to that is senseless. Yes, of course you can show iterations of your game to family and friends - but that's already being done at major companies so what's with the "moving towards iterative development" comment?

 

To me, iterative development is the iterative model of software engineering - you draft a initial version, release it to your customers, have them critique it, and then make iterative improvements until it's more or less to their satisfaction. You can imagine doing this with most multiplayer games because there's nothing to hide - the replayability is the point, in these cases. Not so for single-player, narrative-driven games like RPGs and adventure. Customers simply won't play initial versions of your software, or they'll do so and not buy the final versions. You can't exactly comprehensively test the game's NPCs without also revealing their storylines, so in the end it's either spoil your entire storyline or test only isolated portions of the game that cannot constitute the experience of its entirety.

Edited February 19, 2006 by Azarkon

[Shadowstrider]

Yeah, the gameplay was crap. So was the writing. Or did you think the game's great writing was let down by the poor gameplay? Distraction?

 

Well, for one, if you played the Tomb Raider series the writing I'd check your priorities.

 

Ooo. You're hurting me!

 

Because you know the minds of the game playing demographic.

 

Wait, I know! You're a marketing executive for a big Publisher, and you KNOW how to predict what the Next Big Thing is! No? And even they have no idea?

 

Pull your pants up and give your face a go.

 

K.

 

Yes.

 

No, I'm not.

 

You're not very good at thinly veiled insults.

 

This is possibly among the least mature replies, ever.

 

You've been blithering on about graphics (and physics) for three posts, now. Just read the polemic you have been writing.

 

For someone who likes reading, and has an irritating fondness for pretentiousness (in both latin and english forms), you don't seem to comprehend posts.

 

Where, ANYWHERE, did I state, imply or even hint at graphics being MORE IMPORTANT than writing?

 

I'm saying graphics are important. They are. Writing is important, too, probably more important in the planning and even pre-production stages. However, once the game is in full production, the visual and technical aspects of the game take center stage. If a game still needs a ton of writing when the developers should be implementing, something is wrong.

 

Denial isn't a river in Egypt, but you seem to be bathing in it.

 

Gameplay?

 

Let me say the above again.

if what your PC is doing IS BORING then no-one will play it

 

You can say it a dozen times, it has nothing to do with writing vs. graphics. It is about gameplay, gameplay systems sound "really cool" when written down. The implementation (Gameplay) is what will be the deciding factor in whether it is boring or not. Some of the best ideas turn out to be utterly boring when you actually play.

 

Let's see, a random quote from one of your previous posts:

Players want, no, demand a visual confirmation to their actions in modern games.  They also demand textual and auditory confirmation.  If there is none, they feel cheated, additionally there is no more efficient way to express something visual than with a visual trigger.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Seems to me you are saying exactly that.

*snip*

 

Once again, your reading comprehension seems to be exceedingly low.

 

Physics and traps were an example. You're more interested in arguing semantics, than the core of the issue, though. So nice attempt at a dodge.

 

Players demand visual representation of their actions, thus a visual representation is necessary. Traps and physics was an example, I said that traps and physics are not mandatory. Next?

 

Cosmetic changes to what? Boring modules that are boring to play? Don't be a simpleton.

 

Of course people download graphical improvements to the modules. So? Do they download graphics without stories?

 

"I want to play the fireworks mod!"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This might be one of the dumbest replies I have ever seen. I'm not sure why I even bothered to reply, other than the fact that you seem to think you have convincing arguements that graphics aren't important to games. A fact that is ludicrous.

 

Basically, you're saying choose-your-own-adventure or MUD games are the pinnacles of game design. An idea that is laughable at best.

 

Thank god you do not work in game development.

 

P.S. Please get better at insults.

[alanschu]

Ah. Hehe, the true test-driven, extreme programming.

 

I didn't think that that was necessarily what meta was suggesting, but fair enough.

 

I'd be very surprised if they didn't iteratively test single player games in house though.

[Shadowstrider]

Ah.  Hehe, the true test-driven, extreme programming.

 

I didn't think that that was necessarily what meta was suggesting, but fair enough.

 

I'd be very surprised if they didn't iteratively test single player games in house though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Development houses tend to have QA divisions, or at the very least have artists, designers and execs. testing games as they go.

[alanschu]

Exactly.

[Azarkon]

Ah.  Hehe, the true test-driven, extreme programming.

 

I didn't think that that was necessarily what meta was suggesting, but fair enough.

 

I'd be very surprised if they didn't iteratively test single player games in house though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't know what he was suggesting either, considering that iterative development is the standard software development process for virtually anything these days (so in-house, everything is *already* developed iteratively) but the example he gave of:

 

"By methodology, I mean that the aim should be to use an iterative process to refine a game, with copious honest feedback from the alpha testers, rather than publish The Next Big Thing

[alanschu]

I can't see how it could be used, when dealing with anything story related.

 

I suppose ideas for types of character interactions may be iterative. Don't use your story perse, but have different, short stories that demonstrate your idea for NPC interaction and receive critiques like that though.

[alanschu]

Thinking about it a bit more, I can see how it could be very useful for interface issues especially. Level progression issues, game mechanics, rules, etc. could probably all be successfully done in an iterative testing environment.

[Azarkon]

That's definitely possible. But in some sense it defeats some of the goals of iterative development for embryonic developers , which is that iterative development can replace Q&A to some degree (since if you didn't have to release a fully polished product but can afford to, ala sourceforge, continuously improve the releases, then enthusiast development can get away without the kind of polish demanded of professional products). It also doesn't fix the problem of graphical (and sound, and VO, etc.) production, though, which in my eyes is the critical separator between fan efforts and commercial efforts, with a few rare exceptions.

[alanschu]

Oh, I definitely do not think it would work from a "you buy my product, and we'll continue to improve it" type model. More from a "hey, help us test our games for free" type model

[Calax]

isn't alpha testing handled by the qa staff on hand for the company rather than the general public as it requires much more... delicate handling of the game and coding and it requires a much easier access to developers to fix the build?

 

THe beta test isn't as wide spread as you might think. Personally if I was really interested in the game I'd not try to beta test (except as part of a stress test) because I'd be to obsessed with the good to say "this is broken this is broken and that makes my graphics card squeal like a pig when it 'splodes".

 

For the average game Beta testers don't get above the 1000's if it's a single player game. If it's a MMO... then you get the stress test where any number of people are pushed to join the game to see if it works right with a skillion people in each zone.

 

So to say the game was ruined by beta testing is wrong as generally unless your somthing of a pro you won't see the beta.

[alanschu]

With true iterative development, you get the Extreme Programming/Agile Development paradigm, in which alphas are indeed given to the end user for them to see how it is coming.

 

One of the big goals of this method is to ensure that issues get fixed while they are still easy to fix. You typically don't expand on the code base, until what you have is working properly, been extensively tested (i.e. it's now robust), and only if it is necessary.

[metadigital]

That's still what I'm saying.  However, if you define iterative development as alpha testing via family and friends, then my point makes no sense, which is consequently why metaldigital's allusion to that is senseless.  Yes, of course you can show iterations of your game to family and friends - but that's already being done at major companies so what's with the "moving towards iterative development" comment?

 

To me, iterative development is the iterative model of software engineering - you draft a initial version, release it to your customers, have them critique it, and then make iterative improvements until it's more or less to their satisfaction.  You can imagine doing this with most multiplayer games because there's nothing to hide - the replayability is the point, in these cases.  Not so for single-player, narrative-driven games like RPGs and adventure.  Customers simply won't play initial versions of your software, or they'll do so and not buy the final versions.  You can't exactly comprehensively test the game's NPCs without also revealing their storylines, so in the end it's either spoil your entire storyline or test only isolated portions of the game that cannot constitute the experience of its entirety.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Look, I don't want to argue this ad nauseam, but

[Azarkon]

IIRC the original point was something to do with games demanding graphics above and beyond all else. With is patently untrue and ludicrous.

 

The universal qualifier of "patently untrue and ludicrous" is what I take issue with. You're arguing that games can succeed without having great looking graphics (relative to the times and target platform, of course). I'm saying that it depends on your definition of success. I don't think that, at this particular junction of time, that a game without great looking graphics can "make it big." Small successes... Maybe possible (ie Jeff Vogel's games), but nothing that we'd have ten page threads about on these (or other, more popular) boards.

 

My friends play games without great looking graphics all the time, but mostly for the sake of nostalgia and then typically only downloaded, free games. They wouldn't plunk down $50 for any game that isn't AAA quality on its platform, so to speak, and neither would the vast majority of gamers, especially the casual crowd that most companies target these days.

[saintfrancisnudecenterfold]

Let's return to mythic structure in computer games, shall we?

 

A myth can be described as a sacred story that is no longer held sacred so much as regarded with interest and in some cases with reverence to its influence.

 

Now, as to most stories I've seen: they often lack heroism of thought and heroism of word, even heroism of nuance.

[metadigital]

In the interests of furthering discussion, I shall refrain from answering Shadowstrider's last post line by line. It is reasonable to clarify the situation, however.

 

Firstly, I used Tombraider:AoD as a quick example; taking its specificities as a general tenet is a falacy. I could quite easily cite almost every game made from a film. Then there

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Interesting stuff for the most part. But turning a "book" into a game isnt really ever going to work.

 

In order to accomplish this feat the protagonist must follow a certain path or the story will fall appart. Indeed if you examine a work such as Elric then it's pretty obvious that you NEED Elric as the protagonist or your story again falls flat.

 

Hence the more booklike you want your game to be the less freedom you can grant the player. I mean JRPGs have been doing it for years couldnt say for sure which was the first , but the idea of an interactive narrative with strong stories which work because they play out without much player input are numerous.

 

The best example perhaps is between FFX and FFX-2 since you have a game in the same setting (with carry over characters) but with a radically different structure and gameplay.

 

In FFX you are Tidus (you can name him but lets stick to the default). It's the story of Tidus, being pulled from his home, coming to terms with the loss of his father , and ultimately ... Well lets not spoil it.

 

Alongside you have Yuna who is also coming to terms with the loss of her father but in a very different way. Since her father is a revered hero who's footsteps she is following in. Along the way everything she believes is challenged and she emerges all the stronger for it and not only saves the world in the way her father did, but goes beyond that.

 

Equally you have the supporting cast each of which is dealing with their own issues as part of the main story.

 

The gameplay is the usual for an FF game. Linear to begin with then partially non linear, finally totally open once you get the airship. However by this point the story is reach the conclusion. It's simply upto you to determine when you "read" the final chapter. Prior to this the story is paced out (at least until you reach the calm lands at which point you can do a limited ammount of wandering). In most cases you are kept on track because of the insanely powerful creatures that have been sent after you.

 

Cut to FFX-2.

 

Events of FFX have left Yuna with a new outlook on life and a broken heart. She joins up with her cousin Rikku (who has sphere ,or video which contains what they think is the image of Tidus).

This time you start with an airship and the whole of Spira (thats the world name) is open to you. You can go anywhere, do as little or as much as you like and therein lies the problem with regards to story.

The first time I played it , I did the "hotspots" which are those areas required to drive the story onto the next chapter.

 

I should probably explain that the game is divided into five chapter. During each chapter you can revisit every location and things will have changed to reflect the events of the game upto that point.

 

In addition Yuna can make choices which will influence just what you do and dont see. Or as I like to say the game gives you total freedom to completely ****up.

 

As an example in order to see the good ending (the happy ever after) you need to get a very high completed score as well as have a bloody good memory and have played FFX.

 

While you cant miss the story exactly because you must visit these hotspots. This will just leave many holes and unanswered questions. Ironically the best way to approach the game is in a completely methodical manner doing each chapter in turn.

 

Although leave the last area of chapter IV till last and you wont get a very funny scene (as well as a dress sphere). So like I said plenty of freedom to ****up.

 

In fact there are so many threads linking all the subplots together that it takes a couple of games just to get them. Took me three before I got the Mascot for example.

 

In addition to all that you have a place where the story splits in two very different directions and this will change how the game plays out. In a nutshell you have to choose between supporting the remnents of the Church of Yevon (not likely if you played FFX) or the rebelious Youth League who are kind of like a mob of football hooligans..

 

What you do at that pivitol point will change the game completely.

 

 

So best story.. FFX no doubt about it. Everything about the game is there to enhance the story and drive it forward.

 

Not that the FFX-2 story is bad. Its just variable depending on just what sort of effort you put in. In some cases it can be like reading half a book simply because you can intentionally or unintentionally miss so much of it.

[Azarkon]

As ludicrous as it is to debate using anecdotes to attempt to convey some sort of universal truth to personal experience, I shall respond to your assertion with my own experience: maybe I'm "an extreme minorty", but I have no problem paying

[metadigital]

As ludicrous as it is to debate using anecdotes to attempt to convey some sort of universal truth to personal experience, I shall respond to your assertion with my own experience: maybe I'm "an extreme minorty", but I have no problem paying

[Azarkon]

Insofar as writing can be considered visual art. Lest we forget, today's audience do not like to read anything longer than 1-2 lines. Hence the push, even in Obsidian, to find another way to present story...

 

Half-Life's story (and Halo's), for example, is presented in a manner that do appeal to today's gamers - through the visual and the auditory, which is another reason why graphics, FX, and the like are paramount to a game's success - because they constitute the story in today's "cinematic" games.