'The Role we don't play' Opinion piece from the Codex

[Azarkon]

Rhetorically, there are alot of problems with the article. The main issue, I think, is that the article roughly follows this line of argument:

 

"Games and films have very different narrative structures. As such, there are many fundamental problems with using cinematic narratives in games. These issues are particularly problematic because what players really want is to roleplay in a non-linear fashion. Therefore, I propose we ditch linear narratives altogether and focus on simulating dynamic worlds. The End."

 

... It does come off as working back from the conclusion, in other words, because it is not imperative that we follow this line of thought. While Role-Player certainly did offer one interpretation of the problems we're facing and a possible solution we might adopt, there is no evidence whatsoever that this is the only assessment. On the contrary, there are some very large leaps of logic (and counter-arguments ignored) required to go from what the article started as (a critique of superimposing cinematic narrative techniques onto games) to what the article concluded as (we should really be building simulations of worlds).

 

However, I don't think it's fair to dismiss Role-Player's article simply because it failed to offer an in-depth assessment of the narrative intersection between games and films. Alot of the criticism on this thread seem to be approaching this from a rhetorical standpoint - attempting to sniff out a central argument and seeing how well the article supports it. Yet, it seems to me that the article works best as one gamer's rant about why current storytelling techniques in RPGs are inadequate, and in that respect there is quite a bit to muse over.

 

Take this point, for example:

 

"Dramatic turns between interactivity and an absence of it also contribute to a poor characterization. Occasionally, gamers are given control of characters which have been developed prior to any player input in a way that several of their skills or personality traits may have been determined, resulting into catastrophic contradictions. During pre-written sequences characters may be presented as great swordsmen or chivalrous paladins, but when these characters are submitted to player control they lack all these special characteristics or traits

[Fionavar]

*peaks in from the Roost ... "Are we all settled down now?"

[Blank]

Good job Azarkon!

Edited March 31, 2007 by Blank

[Maria Caliban]

For me, the best use of cut scenes is to give players information on events that the character is unaware of. For instance, in Hordes of the Underdark, we have in-engine cinematics that introduce us to the drow queen and her schemes against the player. Much of it was classic villain ranting, but it fleshed out her character and let dramatic tension to the game.

 

I agree that cut scenes which pull the PC's actions out of the players had are a bad idea. A KotOR spoiler here:

 

When the PC first battles Darth Malak, a cut scene ends the fight in which Bastila is kidnapped.

 

 

This is a great example of a horrible cut scene. An NPC that you've been beating suddenly becomes so powerful another character has to leap to protect you. Moreover, the PC stands as still as a rock throughout all of this. I've yet to hear any player say they found the event believable or in-character for their PC.

 

 

Azarkon,

 

I think it's simpler to not let Keldorn attack a friendly NPC.

 

A party companion reacting to the actions of a player, as opposed to the PC seems odd. If you click on Keldorn, pick an attack icon, and click an NPC, nothing has happened in the game world, so there's nothing for Keldorn to get upset about.

 

Your Aerie example is a bit different. In D&D, every character has combat skills. No matter how shy, withdrawn, and sweet she is, at 10 cleric/10 wizard, Aerie will bash your head in with a mace. If BG II were less of a combat oriented game, I might say a no melee party companion or even a pacifist one is an okay idea, but given the nature of the game, it's a reasonable leap of logic for the sake of gameplay.

[mkreku]

FINALLY! A CHANCE FOR ME TO ENTER THE DISCUSSION!

 

And not to beat a dead horse, but I wonder at your idea of role-playing.

And not to beat a dead horse, but I wonder if you actually read the article.

Here. Let me help you with that:

 

 

Thank you.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

[quote name='

[Spider]

I'm actually starting to dislike cinematic storytelling in CRPGs more and more. It was kinda cool in Kotor where it felt new and fresh (not to mention very appropriate given the license). But I am not a huge fan of the technique. So I can certainly see where RP is coming from.

 

For me it has nothing to do with cinematic story telling being unsuited for CRPGs though. When done right it can be a really fun experience. It's just not what I am looking for in my "ideal" version of an RPG.

 

I think it places the emphasis too much on the story and storytelling techniques instead of other elements I prioritize higher. Like choice and consequences and the ability to be in control of my own character. If a game manages to include that and still deliver a good cinematic experience, then go for it. It's just that in my experience they tend to be a little at odds. Most likely due to budget constraints. It takes more effort to account for a variety of choices when delivering in a cinematic fashion.

 

This is not to say that I dislike story driven RPGs. But there are other ways of delivering a good story. Take Torment for example. It has a fantastic story and elements of it are found everywhere in the game world. You're free to find as much of it as you like really, and it's definitely not a cinematic game (having a few cut scenes does not make a game cinematic).

 

I just think it's unfortunate that both bigger devhouses that produce CRPGS (Obsidian and Bioware) are both leaning more and more towards that style. I mostly wish they'd mix it up a little.

[Sand]

So, in terms of cut scenes, good cut scenes are ones that are independent of the central player controlled character that gives background information and shows characterizations of NPCs and those which have a direct effect on the game world caused by the choices of the player controlled character. Examples would be the Black Garius cut scenes in NWN2 and the Vats in Fallout 1 blowing up.

 

Bad cut scenes are those which take control away from the player even though he or she should have the ability to control the actions of his or her character, but can't because the designer wants to place a forced event to happen no matter what. Examples of that would be Darth Malak on the Leviathon and Imoen casting magic missile in the beginning of BG2.

 

At least that is how I am getting the general gist of what people are saying here, and if so I agree.

[Spider]

Heh, I forgot to write about that in my last post. I do loathe cut scenes that take away control from the player, and I'm not a huge fan of the other type either. While I can tolerate those I'd prefer to be without them. Mostly I don't like to have information that my character doesn't. This is my PnP background coming into play, I think. But the more information I as a player have that my character does not, the harder it is for me to act accordingly. Not impossible by any means, just more work.

 

But they are a typical tool of cinematic storytelling, and have their place there. Which is another reason I'd like to see more variety.

[Gromnir]

is lot o' assumptions being made... for nonce we will only address one small aspect. am gonna stay mostly on sidelines, 'cause not want this to become 'bout Gromnir. that being said, we would like some folks who has determined that a "cinematic" approach to narrative in a crpg is a bad thing, to simply consider what happens if focus of the narrative is removed from the pc. still have all those so-called cinematic aspects, but consider how the somewhat fuzzy notion o' rp freedom changes.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Girias_Solo]

is lot o' assumptions being made... for nonce we will only address one small aspect. am gonna stay mostly on sidelines, 'cause not want this to become 'bout Gromnir. that being said, we would like some folks who has determined that a "cinematic" approach to narrative in a crpg is a bad thing, to simply consider what happens if focus of the narrative is removed from the pc. still have all those so-called cinematic aspects, but consider how the somewhat fuzzy notion o' rp freedom changes.

 

Well, if you take NWN2 as an example, the player would have the power to either heal, or resurrect that chick companion tho dies at her uncle's hands. This would effectively change the storyline from then on. Player freedom, though within the narrative. Best if both worlds for almost everyone here.

 

This does take extra coding on the part of developers, but its all a juggling act of what aspects of games are most important to the RPG player.

[Gromnir]

is lot o' assumptions being made... for nonce we will only address one small aspect. am gonna stay mostly on sidelines, 'cause not want this to become 'bout Gromnir. that being said, we would like some folks who has determined that a "cinematic" approach to narrative in a crpg is a bad thing, to simply consider what happens if focus of the narrative is removed from the pc. still have all those so-called cinematic aspects, but consider how the somewhat fuzzy notion o' rp freedom changes.

 

Well, if you take NWN2 as an example, the player would have the power to either heal, or resurrect that chick companion tho dies at her uncle's hands. This would effectively change the storyline from then on. Player freedom, though within the narrative. Best if both worlds for almost everyone here.

 

This does take extra coding on the part of developers, but its all a juggling act of what aspects of games are most important to the RPG player.

 

you is still thinking too limited. why take nwn2 narrative as an example? try to gets out of box.

 

we will give 1 example, from there you can probably thinks o' dozen approaches that is cinematic and allow high freedom.

 

heck, since you is so enamored with nwn2 example, we will use an aspect o

[taks]

I don't know if you wrote this or something Girias, but I don't know what you see as the strengths of the argument in this article. Any argument that is built on faulty evidence is lacking.

role-player is a regular poster here, but alts do exist!

 

taks

[taks]

What is it with you making sense and being moderately reasonable lately?

there's suspicions, nay fears, that he may not be who we think he is... dum dum duuuuuummmmmm.

 

taks

[Girias_Solo]

you, the pc, start roaming the world doing quests... some o' which seem related to the Grand Conflict, and others which appears complete tangential. maybe you helps good guys. maybe you help bad guys. maybe you simply do whatever the heck feels like most fun. regardless, every once in a while you gets some cut-scene movie that lets you know what is going on in the world and how the Grand Conflict is advancing. cut scenes not take you out o' action or even focus on your character. they is actually cinematic narratives telling story o' what is going on 'cross the larger stage.

 

anywho, after you has been playing for a good long time and has done 'nuff good stuff or evil stuff (or some other trigger,) you is given an opportunity to join forces with good or evil. nothing you has done up to the trigger point has seemingly changed story. however, a significant % of your quests has been crossroads keeps kinda quests in which you were bolstering the forces o' good or evil in some small or big way. from this point on, the narrative splits and the cut scene movies shows you supporting the good or evil camp... but more important, your earlier actions gots impact on the end game conflicts. maybe by having done something good for the Trolls of Black Fen you gets them to either join your cause or 'least remain neutral. maybe you has joined forces o' good, but you poisoned the Fen's clean water source and now the trolls is dead and dying. Heck, if developers wanna go the extra mile, you coulds refuse to join either group

Edited March 31, 2007 by Girias_Solo

[Azarkon]

A party companion reacting to the actions of a player, as opposed to the PC seems odd. If you click on Keldorn, pick an attack icon, and click an NPC, nothing has happened in the game world, so there's nothing for Keldorn to get upset about.

 

This is actually an interesting point. I guess there's two ways you can look at it - either player actions are meta-game activities entirely outside of the game world, in which case the player is sort of a disembodied entity who "oversees" everything that's going on, or player actions are in fact abstract representations of giving commands in-game, where we might imagine taking control of a NPC to be the equivalent of the PC telling that NPC what to do.

 

I can't say I know what the interactive effects of the latter approach would be, seeing as it's never been used extensively in any RPG I've played. The former does, however, lend itself to the critique that it creates additional distance between the player and the PC (in the sense that the player is no longer restrained to the PC's POV, but can take on any POV), which I think Bioware was reacting to when they denied players control of NWN henchmen. There's actually quite a bit of variation in how games approached this, historically. On one extreme you have Bioware's fully AI-controlled NPCs, and on the other you have what many JRPGs do, which is to completely deprive you of a "central" persona in lieu of putting you in the shoes of many characters as the story progresses (think KOTOR when you took control of a single NPC to infiltrate the ship). The latter approach certainly does seem more "cinematic" in origin in that it places a greater emphasis on narrative, at the expense of taking the player "out of character," so to speak.

 

What's better? I don't know, but I think it might be worthwhile to experiment. The analogy between user actions and player character commands seems a natural one, and it has been used to some degree in earlier games (ie in Baldur's Gate you couldn't remove Boo from Minsc's territory - when you tried, there was a scripted response from him). I'd personally like to see it used more, seeing as it strikes a good compromise between preserving NPC personality while still giving players ample control of their tactics in battles.

Edited March 31, 2007 by Azarkon

[Maria Caliban]

Spider:

" I'm actually starting to dislike cinematic storytelling in CRPGs more and more. It was kinda cool in Kotor where it felt new and fresh (not to mention very appropriate given the license). But I am not a huge fan of the technique. So I can certainly see where RP is coming from.

 

Might I enquire as to what 'cinematic storytelling' means to you?

 

" I just think it's unfortunate that both bigger devhouses that produce CRPGS (Obsidian and Bioware) are both leaning more and more towards that style. I mostly wish they'd mix it up a little."

 

Given that KotOR II and NWN 2 were both sequels, I think it makes sense that they'd have the same style as their predecessor. I don't know enough about Aliens to guess if they'd use that style, though it might make sense given that it's based on a set of films.

 

Sand:

" Imoen casting magic missile in the beginning of BG2."

 

I agree with what you're saying but not the specific example. Imoen is not the PC; therefore, her acting independently of the player is not authorial intrusion.

[Llyranor]

Sand:

" Imoen casting magic missile in the beginning of BG2."

 

I agree with what you're saying but not the specific example. Imoen is not the PC; therefore, her acting independently of the player is not authorial intrusion.

I think it has more to do with the PC being a gibbering primate while it happens. The same could be said about the PC being a complete moron when Bastila "heroically" saves you from Big M. I'd suspect that both scenes could have been improved in terms of creating an issue of the PC almost being able to change the outcome, but anyway.

 

Inaction is action. Apathy is death.

Edited March 31, 2007 by Llyranor

[Maria Caliban]

Spider:

" Heh, I forgot to write about that in my last post. I do loathe cut scenes that take away control from the player, and I'm not a huge fan of the other type either. While I can tolerate those I'd prefer to be without them. Mostly I don't like to have information that my character doesn't. This is my PnP background coming into play, I think."

 

In PnP, I constantly overheard conversations and events that my character did not. Depending on the information, I like it when I see and know things my character does not. The 'surprise' in KotOR was one example of me having information and being irritated that my character had not. It would have been nice if the PC had access to verbal responses other than "ZOMG! What you say?!"

 

On the other hand, tension between what I know and what my character knows can be pleasant. It can create anticipation on my part, as I wait for the situation in to resolve.

 

As we're talking about 'cinematic storytelling,' I'll use a famous example - Jaws. In Jaws, you hardly ever see the shark and the swimmers don't know it's there until it's attacked. In order to create tension, the filmmakers would play the 'dah-dum' score over a relatively benign, even boring, scene of people swimming. It's effective because of the discord between what the audience knows and the character knows.

 

When a person role-plays, they are simultaneously a character in a game (Ser Hippokrene the noble), the audience of the game (I bet this thief will betray the PC), and player of the game (3 def and 4 dex bonus, or 5 def and 1 dex bonus?). The notion that *any* experience that caters to the audience portion of that triune always takes away from the character portion is, I believe, flawed.

[samm]

sidenote:

But how on earth you keep this LARPing of yours, as Gromnir the Bhaalspawn, going for so many years is beyond me....

You are confusing things: Gromnir the forum-user was actually the model for the son of Bhaal

 

on topic:

PnP is in my opinion and experience a bad comparison for a CRPG. As well as movies. You even can't compare an RPG to another RPG, as there are so many ways of telling a story, of giving the player the feeling of playing a 'character' in this story, that all you can do is saying what you'd like to see in an RPG. Some people here are doing that, some others are generalizing, and to those individuals: Let games stand as individually as you do. They can be fun or boring, and it does not depend on single things like story, cinematics, gameplay, graphics, but on how well all elements play together, and on your mood while playing it. If you're tired, then the music of Baten Kaitos will put you in a dreamlike state while keeping you awake with it's fast paced combat, a very cool experience. If you're keen on playing a character of your own design, you'll loath the game. If you're tired while playing Morrowind, you'll fall asleep in no time. If you're keen on playing a character of your own design, you'll probably like the game. Both games gained some critical acclaim in their own right. (I mentioned no Obsidian or BlackIsle games on purpose)

 

What I mean to say is: There are so many ways to design a CRPG that is viewed and enjoyed as a good game by customers, that all one can say is what makes one certain game good or bad for him/her and him/her alone. Don't judge, but be creative, give input and opinions, and hope you'll find some game that suits your current taste in games. After all, one's own criteria for a good game change with time, experience, mood...

[Maria Caliban]

Azakon:

" This is actually an interesting point. I guess there's two ways you can look at it - either player actions are meta-game activities entirely outside of the game world, in which case the player is sort of a disembodied entity who "oversees" everything that's going on, or player actions are in fact abstract representations of giving commands in-game, where we might imagine taking control of a NPC to be the equivalent of the PC telling that NPC what to do."

 

Or games like Black & White, it had role-playing aspects, that tried to incorporate the player into the game world.

 

It's obvious which of those perspectives I prefer. However, it is a fluid boundary; they must be communicating something to one another, or they wouldn't work together so harmoniously in combat.

 

" The former does, however, lend itself to the critique that it creates additional distance between the player and the PC (in the sense that the player is no longer restrained to the PC's POV, but can take on any POV), "

 

If complete lack of distance between the PC and the player is wanted, then I'd start by making the game in the first person. That would remove the 'clicking on other party members' problem entirely.

 

However, I don't believe that clicking on Keldorn and then clicking on a monster to attack is gaining his point of view, anymore than picking up a rook and using it to steal a knight gives me the rook's POV. From a gameplay perspective, Keldorn not attacking a friendly PC is much like the rook's inability to move diagonally. Only, there's an actual reason in-game for this limitation.

 

To gain Keldorn's POV, in BG II, I'd expect to be able to influence his actual personality and character.

 

In fact, thinking about it, I don't believe point-of-view is the best term for how the player relates to a PC. POV suggests, to me, either the physical viewpoint of a camera placement in a movie/game, or the mental viewpoint an author gives me in a book. The player doesn't gain the PCs point-of-view, but create it. On the other hand, I never create Keldorn's POV, his thoughts, wants, and desires are always separate from me, though my PC might influence them during the course of the story.

 

I'm also critical of the notion that everything that puts distance between the player and the PC is bad. However, I covered that in my previous post.

[Maria Caliban]

Llyranor:

"I think it has more to do with the PC being a gibbering primate while it happens."

 

As I understand it, the casting time of magic missile is four seconds, and the only way of stopping someone from casting is to whack them with a weapon.

 

However, if the issue is the PC doing noting during that scene as opposed to Imoen casting, then I agree.

 

samm,

While I appreciate where you're coming from, please remember that people take joy from a large number of activities. One of mine is to take a work, whether it be film, poetry, prose, comics, games, or any form of art/entertainment, and analyze its components.

 

No matter how you feel, Deus Ex is in first person, while Quest for Glory is not. When KotOR II came out, I believe I played it for 25 hours straight. Tired or not, its elements were effective on several levels.

 

Yes, all of those elements work together, but that doesn't mean they can't be judged separately. No, all media or all works in a specific medium are the same, but they call all be compared and contrasted to one another. Both the similarities and differences are of interest.

Edited March 31, 2007 by Maria Caliban

[Sand]

Hell, we couldn't even fight the Cowled Wizards or able to grab Imoen and run.

[Maria Caliban]

Hell, we couldn't even fight the Cowled Wizards or able to grab Imoen and run.

 

Well, that just blows monkey b---s.

[Llyranor]

Llyranor:

"I think it has more to do with the PC being a gibbering primate while it happens."

 

As I understand it, the casting time of magic missile is four seconds, and the only way of stopping someone from casting is to whack them with a weapon.

 

However, if the issue is the PC doing noting during that scene as opposed to Imoen casting, then I agree.

Which is why the scene could have been much more effectively told simply by bringing the player with some illusion of action. Imoen would still have attacked the darkness, but in that instance the player wouldn't have been just a passive spectator, despite the outcome being the same. It has to do with structured storytelling within an interactive format without take away *completely* said interactivity.

 

Ultimately, it's a small short scene in a large game, but it sets a bad precedent.