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

[Schazzwozzer]

I ultimately agree with the jist of this essay, but I'm a little puzzled at the why of it. Final Fantasy VII came out about TEN YEARS ago, and that is what I personally consider sort of the apex of the "look, games can be movies too!" movement. Essentially since then, and especially in the past five years or so, game design has been moving way the hell away from that. People don't buy those games anymore. People are buying games like GTA and Oblivion and Half-life 2 and, of course, WoW. And, while you can point to games such as Gears of War as being highly cinematic and highly successful, I'd argue that the cinematic nature is limited mostly to presentation and mostly leaves the gameplay unmolested.

 

Also, a good deal of what you touch on has been thoroughly deconstructed and explored much more deeply in the whole Ludology vs Narratology debate. Meanwhile, the whole text-assembly thing has been worked on at length by guys like Chris Crawford and groups like Grand Text Auto.

 

I'll readily agree though, and have argued in the past, that areas such as non-combat AI need to receive much greater emphasis in development, so as to better stimulate collaborative (emerging from interaction between the player and actual gameplay elements) storytelling. I remember a big ol' post on the old BIS boards wherein I ranted about how great it would be if every stupid villager in town were running something like The Sims AI. Of course, Bethsoft tried almost exactly this with Oblivion and failed, but still, a laudable effort and shows how forward-thinking they were.

[taks]

Wow, I am honoured!

 

So who is your alt Taks? Volourn perhaps?

oh no, i am taks and taks alone. i disagree with sock-puppetry unless they openly admit they're using an alt... sand USUALLY does in a roundabout way.

 

i could not ever bring myself to post with as many spelling errors as vol. besides, he's a kanadian named ted (right?) and i'm a coloradan named mark.

 

taks

[Dark_Raven]

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

 

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

That it does. What were they thinking?

[Maria Caliban]

I'm a fan of BioWare, but the majority of their RPGs rely on at least one instance of the PC standing around like a baked potato while things happen.

[Dark_Raven]

Imoen is suppose to be your friend/sister and the player and the other party members just stands there and do nothing. Gee like its not my problem kind of situation.

[Jorian Drake]

Wow, I am honoured!

 

So who is your alt Taks? Volourn perhaps?

oh no, i am taks and taks alone. i disagree with sock-puppetry unless they openly admit they're using an alt... sand USUALLY does in a roundabout way.

 

i could not ever bring myself to post with as many spelling errors as vol. besides, he's a kanadian named ted (right?) and i'm a coloradan named mark.

 

taks

umm, you mean Judge Hades, right?

[Spider]

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

 

This is a tougher question to answer than I thought it would be. I mean, I know whether or not I consider a game to be cinematic when I play it, but to put words as to why...

 

The easy answer is a game that relies on the tools, techniques and rules of the cinema to tell a story. But that doesn't really say anything. So basically games that plays like watching a movie. Or an interactive movie. This is not only about cut scenes, but they are definitely one way to create a cinematic feel. But using cut scenes alone does not a cinematic game create, it has a lot do with how the story is structured, how it's directed and so on.

 

Examples of games I feel are cinematic: KotOR 1 & 2, Jade Empire, Fahrenheit.

 

Examples of games that are not: The IE games, Vampire Bloodlines, S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

 

Does that help?

 

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.

 

Ah, but I didn't think NWN was very cinematic in it's storytelling. Of course it's been a long time since I played it (and I only played it once), so my memory could be flawed. But it is my impression that NWN2 definitely took this approach a lot more.

 

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.

 

Of course giving information that the character does not have isn't always flawed. Sometimes it can be used to great effect. I'm trying to not make oversweeping generalisations and say that one thing is always wrong and another is always right. I was merely stating my preference. But as you pointed out yourself, giving additional information to the player can be a really bad thing (KotOR) or really good (Jaws). I just find that it's often that it adds very little to, or detracts from, my enjoyment of a game.

 

This following part will contain slight spoilers if you haven't played NWN2, so be warned (I feel the spoiler tag would be disruptive here).

 

Take NWN2 for example. There were a lot of cut scenes in there that I felt the game could do without. Did we need to see Ammon Jerro kill all those noble men? And did we really need to see all the scenes with Torio and Glavius? Or even the scenes between Qara's teacher and the Hosttower mage?

 

All of these gave me information my character had not, and spoiled the surprise for both me AND my character. Wouldn't have been much more interesting if Qara had just suddenly been attacked by shadows and you actually had to work to find out why? Now I knew why and as such I also knew there was nothing I could do about those attacks rather than to wait for the next scripted event to play out, creating a disconnect between me and my character. My character would have been surprised, then angry, and then would have turned the world upside down to find whoever was responsible.

 

I suppose the gist of it all is that I want the focus of a CRPG to be on the character part first, the player part second and the audience part a distant third. I want to be my character as much as possible, not watch my character. And everything that creates a disconnect between me and my character is something I prefer to see less of.

 

Just to clarify now, I actually liked NWN2. I also liked both KotORs. (Jade Empire though, not so much) So it's not that I thought including the above cut scenes ruined NWN2. But I do think they detracted from it.

 

Edit: Also, as far as PnP is concerned, I frequently get information my character doesn't have. We typically don't send people out of the room when their character's not there, so we get to listen to each others characters do stuff by themselves. And while I'd prefer not to have that information (because it does make roleplaying trickier, but by no means impossible) it's better than the alternative. I have played a game at a convention where my character was abducted and that was a driving part of the plot, although the plot was designed that any rescue attempt would be futile. But my group didn't know this and planned elaborately and really tried. The game session was 5 hours and I spent 4 of those out of the room. It was incredibly boring. A CRPG doesn't have this problem, at least not single player. By not having me see things my character does not, it's only giving me more time of playing my character (at least more uninterrupted time).

Edited April 1, 2007 by Spider

[Tigranes]

Spider's NWN2 examples raise an interesting point. The focus on, say, the Animus Elemental cutscenes was clearly on creating suspense and plot 'pegs' for the viewer, treating the player as a separate entity from the character. The narrative is viewed as a plot that is consumed rather than verisimilitude that simply exists. For Spider, who wants to play his character, truly role-play, in that sense, and derive enjoyment and consumption of the plot from that perspective, this is a detraction because after the cutscene, he cannot immerse himeslf within Qara's character again. It's like being a Gandalf rather than a Frodo in Lord of the Rings.

 

I haven't read RP's piece yet (will do sometime soon) and thus won't offer a general analysis or whatever, but personally I think there were many examples in games Spider mentions where it *was* done well - for example, KOTOR2, Nar Shaddar, when the little rat guy pulls the heist to get R2-D2 out I think, in the warehouse? That was cinematic, brilliant, and brought a kind of swashbuckling feel that was perfectly in tune with the Star Wars universe. I think the main priority should be, cinematic doohickeys are fine, but if there is an alternative that lets the player find out what happened in a more roleplaying and gameplayish fashion, then that is so much better, development time / resources allowing. A cutscene can happen after the player has hunted down the hosttower lackeys to find out the truth about the Animus Elemental after he was soundly beaten a couple of times.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

[quote name='

[Diogo Ribeiro]

[quote name='

[Diogo Ribeiro]

[quote name='

[Diogo Ribeiro]

[quote name='

[Diogo Ribeiro]

[quote name='

[Sand]

Even though I do disagree with parts of it and agree with parts of it, I did find it an interesting read. More interesting and reasonable that what is usually posted at the Codex.

Edited April 1, 2007 by Sand

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

So are they two different things or it doesn

[Llyranor]

If by talking you mean having the game freeze everything and tell me that a party member seems agitated and that I should let her offer her heart to me despite the entire group being on the verge of death by superior dragon teeth count, then yes.

That's just plain bad design, it has nothing to do with the actual dialogue, whether it sucks or not.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

If by talking you mean having the game freeze everything and tell me that a party member seems agitated and that I should let her offer her heart to me despite the entire group being on the verge of death by superior dragon teeth count, then yes.

That's just plain bad design, it has nothing to do with the actual dialogue, whether it sucks or not.

 

I was being tongue in cheek in the reply. I have no problem with dialogue or interacting with other characters; just when it's poorly designed, as you said.

[Llyranor]

As I brought it up with Maria Caliban, compare procedural content covering possibilities spawned by near infinite narrative possibilities as opposed to a handful of writers creating specific text for near infinite narrative possibilities. Still think the writers would do it faster?

 

BOTH are unlikely for a long time.

But are either *desirable*?

 

In any case, the game industry could use more writing talent. When it comes down to a writer describing a particular scene vs a cutscene requiring elaborate scripting and someone to take care of custom animations, the writer is dirt-cheap.

[Llyranor]

BTW, I'm reporting you for quintuple-posting.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

It doesn't matter because similar principles apply.

 

If I

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

If I

[Schazzwozzer]

Not sure I agree with that. In the past five years or so there are still many games going this route. The Final Fantasy series still employ extensive use of cutscenes to tell their stories. The Metal Gear Solid series, the Knights of the Old Republic series, too many console role-playing games to mention here, Soul Reaver/Blood Omen series, Jade Empire, the Zeldas, the Castlevanias

[Azarkon]

[quote name='

Edited April 2, 2007 by Azarkon

[Girias_Solo]

Anyhow, despite my enthusiasm for interesting discussions regarding the direction of RPGs, I must say that I've always considered them rather futile. The game industry, like most popular mediums, pays little attention to theory - it is nothing if not practical, and learns only by example. No amount of critique or debate will ever convince the suits to try something new, but when someone creates a truly fad-worthy game that makes non-lineartiy the Next Big Thing

[metadigital]

Feel free to imagine that time is now. Which one would take less time?

If i had the choice, I'd have NPC & PC interaction taking place via spoken word, speech recognition, and an NLP driven text to speech with full cause and effect.

 

The world would be more procedurally generated and probably not have much designer input in dialogue, but more in scripting personality profiles for characters.

 

But i am also not stupid enough to expect this any time soon.

The problem is that to achieve this requires more than the intellectual capital to imagine it, and the finance to underwrite it ... just like any capitalist vehicle, the reward must be greater than the investment.

 

This would require a whole new game engine, where the actors (NPCs) would literally be given virtual personalities and agendas, rather than pre-scripting ... that means EVERYTHING in the game world would need to be created on-the-fly, and balanced (like Oblivion was) to prevent the protagonist from becoming just the closest member of the audience. The downside? Untried technology (would it work, how well, when would the developers know that it was "finished"), which equals unreliable estimates of return on (an inestimable) investment; not only that, but this potentially creates a virtual world that can be replayed ad infinitum without repetition ... so there goes the franchise as IP! (I'm exaggerating a bit on this point, as it is perfectly feasible to implement an episodic approach, like EA does for sports games.)

 

This would require a developer to create an INNOVATIVE engine, beyond that which has even been dreamt of so far. Think VALVe and Half-Life 2, although they were creating a FPS on the rail, or Duke Nukem Forever. Then they have to sell this idea to a publisher.

 

There are too many unknowns in the financial balance sheet.

 

The only way such a novel approach will ever eventuate is via VALVe: i.e. a large company (with stacks of reserve cash for emergencies) that self-publishes. It's a crapshoot of the order of Half-Life 2.

 

On the positive side, it sounds like STALKER has a lot of elements that might eventually lead to this sort of game engine, so perhaps a small, dedicated bunch of programmers will be prepared to go without life for a few years in order to bring about glory.