Character development vs. Character freedom

[Ginthaeriel]

Would you guys rather have a character that you could personalize, and make unique, at the expense of a weaker story (as not all stories will fit the character you imagine) or would you prefer to have a prebuilt character whose personality and motivations are more set in stone (and the game is more about guiding this character to success rather than "becoming" or "roleplaying" him) so that you can have a stronger story?

 

Or perhaps something in between? A game where certain aspects of the character are defined, to clinch the character to a plot, but leave the rest up to you? But the problem that poses is that it's half half- the character is never really "yours", and the plot can never be *totally* believable.

[Moose]

Latte

[Blaise Russel]

The problem I have with character freedom is that it makes it more difficult to integrate the protagonist into the story. The major difficulty, I reckon, is self-expression; most games limit the player's ability to define their character to LIGHT SIDE/DARK SIDE, which usually translates as: sweetness and cakes or thuggish bastard. Not that subtlety is used particularly often in defining NPCs either, but still... how can I demonstrate that my character is a military hobbyist, say, or a culture vulture, or doesn't drink alcohol or does drink alcohol or is a right-winger or a progressive or deeply admires abstract art or... any of the myriad of things that define real people in the real world?

 

That aside... even if I can express these things, it rarely has an impact on the story as a whole. Features that define who my character is exist parallel to the main story, where (in the name of choice) my player-shaped hole is going through the motions of progressing the story. The only opportunity to actually alter the story to fit the character so that they produce a cohesive whole usually comes at the end, where I can randomly choose which final cutscene I view first, then go back and see them all, regardless of whether or not they make sense when contrasted with my progress throughout the rest of the story.

 

"Sure, I was at 100% LS alignment throughout the game right up until this point, Bastila, but I'll just suffer a moment of psychological disjunction and I'll be all set to take over the galaxy, 'kay?"

 

Actually, this ties into something I was thinking about when that whole 'multiple antagonists' thing was being discussed. As a proof of concept, I constructed a basic game outline with four disparate villains, the most powerful people in the region, teaming up to unlock ancient magical power, so on so forth. The kicker was the kind of job you took as a player character at the beginning set the story into one of four paths, each with their own villain and each taking a different approach to the story umbrella of ol' "power corrupts".

 

So, for example, joining the Army as a soldier/peacekeeper led to the rebel aristocrat in exile as the main villain and the story being centred very much on temporal power, the reality of war, on politicking and the failures of monarchies, feudalism, democracies, etc. Meanwhile, joining the bureaucratic Church put you up against the avatar, had lots of supernatural shenanigans and (theistic) magic, things about the 'natural order' and freedom of will and such. The goal was to merge player freedom with strong narrative.

 

See, I don't think it's necessarily that the two are mutually exclusive, it's just that player freedom just isn't used as well as it can be. Player freedom too often translates into player contrariness, with people bleating and whining about having to save Imoen or whatever. Similarly, sometimes not enough choices are given and more often than not they're meaningless and irrelevant, existing in aforementioned parallel-story-universe. Stuff like the Fallout endings is good, but I reckon it ought to be taken one step further and combined so that instead of a series of disjointed snapshots you get an overall 'saviour of the wasteland/down'n'dirty scumbag/enigmatic shadow/etc.' result with your actions in the various towns being evidence for that wider conclusion rather than mini-conclusions existing in (potentially contradictory) isolation. Better yet, get it into the game itself, so that by the end you can cite your actions in Shady Sands, Junktown, the Hub, Adytum as reasons for your being a hero, for why the Master should listen to you or whatever.

 

Not that the other half is used any better, but that's another story...

[Ginthaeriel]

So, for example, joining the Army as a soldier/peacekeeper led to the rebel aristocrat in exile as the main villain and the story being centred very much on temporal power, the reality of war, on politicking and the failures of monarchies, feudalism, democracies, etc. Meanwhile, joining the bureaucratic Church put you up against the avatar, had lots of supernatural shenanigans and (theistic) magic, things about the 'natural order' and freedom of will and such. The goal was to merge player freedom with strong narrative.

 

That sounds like an incredibly interesting game to play, but how practical can it be? The resources required to develop a game with almost four different alternate paths would be like... making four games at once. It's not economically feasible to undertake a project of such magnitude.

 

And isn't your scenario just a lot like four different narrative driven stories sewn together? You can ONLY be a soldier, cleric, or the other two paths you've written into this game concept. Each path is extremely archetypal and the same criticisms against narrative driven stories will be levelled at it. ("What if my soldier doesn't WANT to side with the military, and decides to side with the Church?") You could put multiple points in the story where one could rebel and switch to another side, but with three different "rebellions" for each side, and multiple "side changes" required to be put throughout the game, good luck hammering out all that scripting, much less the rest of the game.

 

On the other hand, give a GENERIC plot hook that could intrigue any character (a mysterious stranger gives you a strange ring as he lays dying, pleading you to 'find the boy') and you could get a whole RANGE of backgrounds, as demonstrated by Arcanum. The unfortunate thing then however, is that the plot makes no sense at all and is weakened bizarrely (WHY would I accept a strange ring from a mysterious dying stranger?!) The motivations are thrown out the window.

 

But then there is the approach where only as much background is preset for the character for it to create a good plot hook, but not much else. For example in Fallout, you HAD to be the Vault Dweller. You HAD to be from Vault 13, and you HAD to go find the Water Chip. Everything else was up to you. I agree with you that it wouldn't be difficult at all to put in an ending narrative of your general character, maybe based off of your alignment in Fallout. But that is still a story that is lacking, imo. Whether your character ended up as a "good guy", "bad guy" or "neutral guy" is irrelevant, but that you killed "the master" is what is important. I don't think the technology that enables us to string all the ending slideshow segments of the Fallout games into one long, strong narrative recap of your character's journey/plot is available yet.

 

But in the end, I think that the character's individual story and the plot are two difficult things to reconcile. Fallout was disjointed because each individual "adventure" was built to be nice and tidy, like a theme park world: that was what allowed the massive freedom in that game. Instead of creating a branching tree of a plot (which is incredibly difficult and exponentially time consuming) they planted many little trees. The number of branches stay the same, but the length is maintained. But they didn't interrelate, and each individual shrub could never become a towering, epic, redwood (am I the only one who gets my own metaphor?).

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

If the character is pregenerated ala JRPG then development is fine. If the character is my creation then I expect it to stay my creation and for my imput to matter.

 

Either one is ok but I detest games where I supposedly create my own character only to find out that the designers are still pulling all the strings.

 

It's totally yawnsome playing an amnesiac just so the writers can still spring suprises. You may as well put a big sign saying "Amnesiac character = plot twist"

 

Actualy X-2 although the characters are pre gen you still have an incredible ammount of freedom to totally fail :D

To get the happy ever after requires a lot of work, way more than just clicking a conversation option. Which makes it all the more satisfying. I fell off my chair laughing at the conclusion to chapter 5 which I'd not seen in two previous games because of the choices I had made.

Edited February 21, 2006 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[kalimeeri]

Would you guys rather have a character that you could personalize, and make unique, at the expense of a weaker story (as not all stories will fit the character you imagine) or would you prefer to have a prebuilt character whose personality and motivations are more set in stone (and the game is more about guiding this character to success rather than "becoming" or "roleplaying" him) so that you can have a stronger story?

 

Or perhaps something in between? A game where certain aspects of the character are defined, to clinch the character to a plot, but leave the rest up to you? But the problem that poses is that it's half half- the character is never really "yours", and the plot can never be *totally* believable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The story is everything; and at least part of it arises because of the character (him/her)self. Unique characters are fine and all, but I prefer something that makes this character 'uniquely qualified' to deal with the situation that is presented. (A character trait or history, not some lame prophecy). So in general, I think it's more believable to have some aspects pre-defined.

[Blaise Russel]

That sounds like an incredibly interesting game to play, but how practical can it be? The resources required to develop a game with almost four different alternate paths would be like... making four games at once. It's not economically feasible to undertake a project of such magnitude.

 

And isn't your scenario just a lot like four different narrative driven stories sewn together? You can ONLY be a soldier, cleric, or the other two paths you've written into this game concept. Each path is extremely archetypal and the same criticisms against narrative driven stories will be levelled at it. ("What if my soldier doesn't WANT to side with the military, and decides to side with the Church?") You could put multiple points in the story where one could rebel and switch to another side, but with three different "rebellions" for each side, and multiple "side changes" required to be put throughout the game, good luck hammering out all that scripting, much less the rest of the game.

 

Excuse me while I go off on a tangent here.

 

All right, to expand: the game had one story, about four disparate entities teaming up to 're-jig' the world (an eighteenth/nineteenth industrialising low-frequency-magic world) in order to make a prophecy occur, so that a Charlemagne-figure and his Eternal Army would be resurrected and could be used by the villainous team to accomplish their own individual ambitions. The four villains were a rebel anti-monarchical lord who had been defeated and forced into hiding, and wanted to conquer the local Empire, remove the royal family and instil the roots of republicanism; a goddess-avatar figure from myth and legend, one of the creators of the original prophecy, who, frustrated in 'old age' by an increasingly alien world, wanted to retake her power and reshape things to her own (benevolent)desires; an ancient lich, equally revered and loathed by the wizard community, who sought the power of the army as a bargaining tool to forestall his imminent final death; and the last of the bear-men, a race destroyed in a series of wars previously, a king without subjects, heavily inspired by Iorek and the armoured bears of His Dark Materials.

 

Anyway, the basic premise of the story was "power corrupts," and you would see this represented throughout the game world: officials, nobles, high clerics, officers, celebrities etc. would be lazy, corrupt, morally lax, incompetent, paranoid, uncaring or downright evil, proportional to how 'powerful' they were. Very anti-authoritarian vibe, I guess. Obviously the four villains, as the most powerful people present in the game, would be the worst of the lot; the lich would be the most selfish, the avatar the most arrogant, the lordling the most hateful, the bear-king the most self-absorbed and angsty. I suppose the player would provide the second half of the premise, "corruption can be resisted," by becoming more powerful than the villains and remaining a hero (well, if they played a heroic character).

 

Now, the four operated for the majority of the game as a single unit, with individuals performing tasks that helped progress their plan. However, a 'main' villain, or rather a 'focus' villain, was chosen by the player's choice of vocation. Each path and respective villain shared certain traits and associations that allowed for a narrowing down of the story to look at a particular aspect of it. So the Army path gives you the rebel lord, because the lord was once an army officer, the army put his rebellion down, etc. and because both the army and the rebel lord give you access to the political side of power and corruption. The Church and the avatar go together because the avatar is a 'Virgin Mary' figure for the Church and because both allow for philosophical meandering, for the abuse of spiritual and theological power. Becoming a bodyguard/assistant to one of the great mages of the region leads to the lich because of his history with the wizards and because together you get lots of transhumanism, ivory towers and intellectual supremacy and all that. Finally, the traditional adventurer, the exploring troubleshooter wandering the wildernesse gets the bear-king, because you're walking through the ruins of his life and because of opportunities to explore relations between various groups of different race, physical and personal (monstrous) power and so on.

 

Whichever path you went for, you got the same story; the same events happened no matter what. At this stage, the bear-king raids a museum and steals a precious artifact. At this stage, the lich and the avatar murder a local official and the band of government assassins assigned to kill the four villains. At this stage, the four journey to the pole and attempt to realign the stars in order to invoke the prophecy. What changed was the perspective, the images drawn and the subquests centred around each path.

 

Now, the paths correlate roughly to the four 'main' classes of D&D (not that it has to be D&D). The Army: Fighter, the Church: Cleric, the Wizards: Mage, the Adventurer: Thief. However, they weren't limited to just those classes. If a cleric wanted to join the Army, he could - and he could have the opportunity to become a chaplain as well, ministering to soldiers as well as being part of an elite squad. Similar situation for wizards (battlemage) and thieves (scouts). The Church needs warriors, wizards and thieves just as much as it needs clerics - it's a bureaucracy, not a collection of spellcasters. Indeed, the paladin, a 'warrior' class, would perhaps be better off in the Church than in the Army. The wizards don't care who they hire to do their dirty work, and anyone can be a freelance adventurer. The player could chop and change between the four, but after a certain cut-off point, when the threat level of the villains reaches a certain point, the organisation would 'trap' you, deciding that as a hero on the rise you were too valuable to simply let go. Of course, I'd be perfectly happy with including an 'out' at this stage, for the contrary player who just doesn't care about saving the world or having a job and doesn't mind a game-over halfway through the game.

 

Okay, I'm done. What I'd really like to see is the combination of player participation and narrative construction, which I reckon would tap the full potential of games as storytelling devices - inclusion of the audience in telling a story. As things are, player participation generally gets shunted off for the most part into an irrelevant sandbox area that doesn't do anything except help the player pretend to be affecting the story as an individual.

 

But in the end, I think that the character's individual story and the plot are two difficult things to reconcile. Fallout was disjointed because each individual "adventure" was built to be nice and tidy, like a theme park world: that was what allowed the massive freedom in that game. Instead of creating a branching tree of a plot (which is incredibly difficult and exponentially time consuming) they planted many little trees. The number of branches stay the same, but the length is maintained. But they didn't interrelate, and each individual shrub could never become a towering, epic, redwood (am I the only one who gets my own metaphor?).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To stretch your metaphor even further, perhaps the effect could have been heightened if the many different trees shared a common species. If all the seeds of, uh, whatever Fallout's main story concept was - let's say transhumanism - were grown and developed so that you have dozens of little stories across the map about mutants and blame for the war and struggling to survive a harsh desert enviroment and robots and self-loathing and other things that tie into the Master's larger scheme of forced evolution and transcending the mistakes of humanity in general and the pre-apocalyptic powers in particular... there would be a solid narrative that the player could pick up and piece together. "Hey, this Military Base reminds me of the situation in Junktown... and the Glow... and Necropolis..." The key would be to make it dominant without becoming monotonous, I think.

[Ginthaeriel]

Excuse me while I go off on a tangent here.

 

<snip>

 

That sounds like an awesome game, though I slightly disagree on the archetypal channeling of characters into "classes", which then correspond to their path. I prefer if there was some flexibility involved, and I would venture to say that it'd be even easier to program the game if it was totally skill based and there were no classes: then you could define your character as you wanted. But here are a couple of things I see that seem difficult in terms of actual implementation:

 

Whichever path you went for, you got the same story; the same events happened no matter what. At this stage, the bear-king raids a museum and steals a precious artifact. At this stage, the lich and the avatar murder a local official and the band of government assassins assigned to kill the four villains. At this stage, the four journey to the pole and attempt to realign the stars in order to invoke the prophecy. What changed was the perspective, the images drawn and the subquests centred around each path.

How exactly? How exactly do you get a "different perspective"? If it's the same villain, and the same event, what makes the experience different for the various paths? If by "images" you mean the visual look of the experience, then that would be a nightmare for the artists. But what I find completely unfeasible is the mutating subquests.

 

For the different subquests to have any effect, the devs would have to nightmarishly program 4x more subquests than a normal game. Considering that then the rest of the game will remain the same, I'm not sure all players will be willing to do a playthrough just to reach those subquests, and infact many players refuse to replay games again at all (game renters). This means that about 75%, or at least a large majority, of the content developed by the devs will be never experienced by many of their players. Content requires time, effort and a lot of money to develop. I don't think many developers will think its worth the sacrifice to develop content that will only be experienced by a small margin of the target audience.

 

Okay, I'm done. What I'd really like to see is the combination of player participation and narrative construction, which I reckon would tap the full potential of games as storytelling devices - inclusion of the audience in telling a story.

That's really difficult, in my opinion. There is just so much creativity, insight and possibility that the audience could bring to a game, that no matter HOW big the game is, the audience will still feel restricted. And the bigger the game, the more expensive it is: so I don't think this will be happening anytime soon simply because of monetary limits. It's an ideal, though, and I too wish that games could evolve to a level of such sophistication. But sadly, I doubt that's going to happen in our lifetime.

 

As things are, player participation generally gets shunted off for the most part into an irrelevant sandbox area that doesn't do anything except help the player pretend to be affecting the story as an individual.

That's because the more the player can affect, the more variables are involved, and with more variables involved, the content required to cover it all grows exponentially.

 

To stretch your metaphor even further, perhaps the effect could have been heightened if the many different trees shared a common species. If all the seeds of, uh, whatever Fallout's main story concept was - let's say transhumanism - were grown and developed so that you have dozens of little stories across the map about mutants and blame for the war and struggling to survive a harsh desert enviroment and robots and self-loathing and other things that tie into the Master's larger scheme of forced evolution and transcending the mistakes of humanity in general and the pre-apocalyptic powers in particular... there would be a solid narrative that the player could pick up and piece together. "Hey, this Military Base reminds me of the situation in Junktown... and the Glow... and Necropolis..." The key would be to make it dominant without becoming monotonous, I think.

 

Isn't that already how Fallout is like? The theme of the destructive nature of human evil is what I felt was laced throughout Fallout's many small narratives.

 

The problem here is that theme and narrative are mutally exclusive. You can have narratives with shared themes, and you can have a narrative that have many themes in it, but they are indepedent variables and you cannot fool people into thinking they have both. I think people are smart enough to figure out the causal chain of events in any game, as that is the way to piece out any plot, so regardless of how similar the small narratives may feel, they'll still feel disjointed since in terms of sheer logical procedure, they're disconnected. Anthologies of short stories all share common themes, but you don't read them together like an epic novel.

 

What I think causality brings into a narrative (thus increasing its length) is the sense of suspense: no closure is offered yet, so you want to find out how it all ends. In Fallout, all the narratives ended so abruptly that you never really had that chance. But adding non-linearity and branching pathways to a causal chain of events means that inevitably, a lot of content is going to be skipped.

[metadigital]

Too often player development is just a euphemistic phrase for a single dimension array representing some alignment quality (LIGHT-DARK side of the Force, for instance). Choose the first option and get bonus LIGHT points; choose the last option and suffer DARK demerits. Still the same story pans out and the only difference is the immediate reaction of NPCs (i.e. the storekeepers still trade with you regardless of your homocidal megalomania).

 

Poor utilisation of a Reputation attribute can turn out to be just an extension of this single dimension. (Now the simple tactical response from the shopkeeper, above, is tempered by a global response to the PC's overall treatment of NPCs throughout the game). Blaise's example demonstrates the subtlety that can be employed with a little more effort in the planning side. It's not that big a step up from the minimum level available at the moment in RPG narratives, and the development costs would be not dissimilar to the game without the extra Weltanschauung sophistication.

The problem here is that theme and narrative are mutally exclusive. You can have narratives with shared themes, and you can have a narrative that have many themes in it, but they are indepedent variables and you cannot fool people into thinking they have both. I think people are smart enough to figure out the causal chain of events in any game, as that is the way to piece out any plot, so regardless of how similar the small narratives may feel, they'll still feel disjointed since in terms of sheer logical procedure, they're disconnected. Anthologies of short stories all share common themes, but you don't read them together like an epic novel.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I really don't know what you are talking about here.

 

If you are saying that themes must be appropriate to plot, then I would tend to agree. I'm not at all sure what your anthology metaphor is trying to say ... a series of narratives (e.g. films) centres on the same core characters experiencing different stories, which ideally demonstrate the length and breadth of their virtues and vices, and the depth of their characters.

 

So I don't know what point you are trying to make: please elaborate.

How exactly? How exactly do you get a "different perspective"? If it's the same villain, and the same event, what makes the experience different for the various paths? If by "images" you mean the visual look of the experience, then that would be a nightmare for the artists. But what I find completely unfeasible is the mutating subquests.

 

For the different subquests to have any effect, the devs would have to nightmarishly program 4x more subquests than a normal game. Considering that then the rest of the game will remain the same, I'm not sure all players will be willing to do a playthrough just to reach those subquests, and infact many players refuse to replay games again at all (game renters). This means that about 75%, or at least a large majority, of the content developed by the devs will be never experienced by many of their players. Content requires time, effort and a lot of money to develop. I don't think many developers will think its worth the sacrifice to develop content that will only be experienced by a small margin of the target audience.

 

Okay, I'm done. What I'd really like to see is the combination of player participation and narrative construction, which I reckon would tap the full potential of games as storytelling devices - inclusion of the audience in telling a story.

That's really difficult, in my opinion. There is just so much creativity, insight and possibility that the audience could bring to a game, that no matter HOW big the game is, the audience will still feel restricted. And the bigger the game, the more expensive it is: so I don't think this will be happening anytime soon simply because of monetary limits. It's an ideal, though, and I too wish that games could evolve to a level of such sophistication. But sadly, I doubt that's going to happen in our lifetime.

 

As things are, player participation generally gets shunted off for the most part into an irrelevant sandbox area that doesn't do anything except help the player pretend to be affecting the story as an individual.

That's because the more the player can affect, the more variables are involved, and with more variables involved, the content required to cover it all grows exponentially.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How is this any different from creating an RPG NPCs that only team up with a like-minded alignment, with magic weapons and items that can only be used by a certain class, or subquests for NPCs that are unlocked by a specific trigger?

 

I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

Sure it involves a certain amount of work, but no more than is done for standard RPG development of a decent game. It's a geometric relationship, not exponential.

 

Think of Onderon, for example, in K2. Depending on how the planet is played, the NPCs react totally differently (allies or enemies), yet they're all still there as part of the story, and the story is still an integral part of the narrative, even though it can be told in a dramatically different way. All the same artwork (backgrounds, characters, etc) has to be completed, so graphics expense is negligible. VO and scripting is more complex, but these costs are dwarfed by the graphics.

 

If anything it is a quick win for the development team: easy money for the invested artwork, making more efficient use of the same graphical assets.

 

Seems like a no-brainer, to me.

[Haitoku]

Well, I'm not all that into roleplaying. I would gladly swap my characters freedom for the sake of creating a much better storyline.

 

Though if I'm playing something like Fallout 2, I expect to have all the freedom in the world.

[metadigital]

... AND a great storyline. "

[Haitoku]

... AND a great storyline. "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Eh, sorry, I don't agree with that.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

The more freedom you have the shakier the story becomes.

 

Whether thats inevitable. Which in my experiences seems to be the case. Or whether it's just lack of recsources and not having enough to cover all the branches.

 

Even FO which most extole for it's freedom. Well the story wasnt steller and even though you had a lot of freedom you were still always bound to collect the water chip or you would fail and the game would end.

 

All the best stories with the character, story and NPCs slotting into place have been more or less linear affairs (at least until a point)

 

I suppose X-2 could be an exception, but then only if you play it in a linear manner anyway which probably defeats the objective.

 

Hooking a character which has no hook, since hooks impinge on freedom is probably neigh on immpossible. Even Morrowind has it's hook for the character although it's no where near as restrictive as most, its still there. Probably because it has to be.

 

Honestly I think your going to see more character developement as the CRPG continues to grow away from it's PnP roots. And more designer creation and less player imagination.

[Volourn]

"you had a lot of freedom you were still always bound to collect the water chip or you would fail and the game would end."

 

No.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

"you had a lot of freedom you were still always bound to collect the water chip or you would fail and the game would end."

 

No.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Huh ? If you didnt get the chip within so many days the game over scene would play.

 

Afterwards you would then get a countdown to the the overun scene as well.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

You needn't get the Water Chip, you could deal with the Mutant situation instead (wheter by destroying them or joining them).

[metadigital]

Don't give spoilers out without ROT13.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

You needn't get the Water Chip, you could deal with the Mutant situation instead (wheter by destroying them or joining them).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I thought that only cropped up after you found it ?

[Shadowstrider]

You do not need to have one or the other. It is entirely possible to have both character freedom and character development within a "deep" story. Simply because something has not been done does not mean it is impossible. Unfortunately, when you're working on a tight schedule, if you add something you must take something away.

 

Editted Clarification:

 

I am not saying that this has not been done, rather I was using the statement to make a point. A game can have both of these things wrapped neatly up in a pretty package. The problem is that it could be buggy, and could lead to development problems.

Edited February 23, 2006 by Shadowstrider

[astr0creep]

You do not need to have one or the other.  It is entirely possible to have both character freedom and character development within a "deep" story.  Simply because something has not been done does not mean it is impossible.  Unfortunately, when you're working on a tight schedule, if you add something you must take something away.

 

Editted Clarification:

 

I am not saying that this has not been done, rather I was using the statement to make a point.  A game can have both of these things wrapped neatly up in a pretty package.  The problem is that it could be buggy, and could lead to development problems.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hence the need to start QA at the beginning of development, not at the end, and make deadlines more flexible.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

You do not need to have one or the other.  It is entirely possible to have both character freedom and character development within a "deep" story.  Simply because something has not been done does not mean it is impossible.  Unfortunately, when you're working on a tight schedule, if you add something you must take something away.

 

Editted Clarification:

 

I am not saying that this has not been done, rather I was using the statement to make a point.  A game can have both of these things wrapped neatly up in a pretty package.  The problem is that it could be buggy, and could lead to development problems.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A lot of things could be done with unlimited time and money. It's whether or not it could be done realistically and it's really out of reach of all but the biggest outfits. I dare say Sqenix could do it if they had the inclination but they already have a formula that works (though not afraid to make changes looking at FXII).

 

I'd say you would have to be in a posistion where you are able to publish yourself because I cant think of any publishers who would be that understanding offhand.

[Shadowstrider]

@astr0creep

1) QA work does begin at the beginning of a project's development. You just don't see it if you're not a project lead.

2) It wouldn't be called a deadline if it was meant to be flexible.

 

@Shadowpaladin

Writing a "deep" story that allows freedom and development isn't difficult. Implementing it is also surprisingly easy. If I can do it in modules using NWN, I'm sure a professional development house can manage. The problem here isn't that it is out of reach, it is that the focus is not on this. Most of the focus nowadays is on "cool" features that enhance gameplay, or "cool" game mechanics. The major problem with it is the problems that arise in bug testing and fixing, and the art assets required.

[astr0creep]

@astr0creep

1) QA work does begin at the beginning of a project's development.  You just don't see it if you're not a project lead.

2) It wouldn't be called a deadline if it was meant to be flexible.

 

@Shadowpaladin

Writing a "deep" story that allows freedom and development isn't difficult.  Implementing it is also surprisingly easy.  If I can do it in modules using NWN, I'm sure a professional development house can manage.  The problem here isn't that it is out of reach, it is that the focus is not on this.  Most of the focus nowadays is on "cool" features that enhance gameplay, or "cool" game mechanics.  The major problem with it is the problems that arise in bug testing and fixing, and the art assets required.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1)I've worked on now released games(good and bad ones) for which QA didn't start until what the publisher considered the end of developement and dropped a complete POS on our lap and we had to make sense of it all with the devs. Believe me when I say it WAS NOT the end of developement as the pub thought...

 

2)Ok then away with deadlines! Let the devs do their jobs!

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

@Shadowpaladin

Writing a "deep" story that allows freedom and development isn't difficult.  Implementing it is also surprisingly easy.  If I can do it in modules using NWN, I'm sure a professional development house can manage.  The problem here isn't that it is out of reach, it is that the focus is not on this.  Most of the focus nowadays is on "cool" features that enhance gameplay, or "cool" game mechanics.  The major problem with it is the problems that arise in bug testing and fixing, and the art assets required.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That would depend on our definition of deep story. Anything that gives the character an identity or a purpose beyond that created by the player would break my rule for example.

 

Sure if you give someone a pregen to run through a maze you can write a great story around that character. But thats not what I call freedom. Even if you take something like FFX (you can name the character) you have full freedom to create the character any way you wish statistically. The only thing you cant do is determine the appearence. You can also go where ever you please as long as you have the appropriate transport. Even if that sometimes means running into something that can kill you outright, you still have the freedom to do it.

 

But thats far removed from my idea of freedom which stems back to PnP roots.

[Zachech]

I don't think the two genres are really comparable. Games like Ocarina of Time allow no character development and little deviation from the main storyline, and OoT is the best single player game ever made. Games like Morrowind allow complete character customization and even storyline customization, with unlimited possibilities and unlimited gameplay. But it's not like one is better or anything. It depends on what you want to play.