Branching and diverging storypaths

[alanschu]

A lot of games have championed choice and freedom, but typically it's only a facade with superficial differences until the end when the ending plays out a little bit differently.

 

Even a game like Fallout which allows for different outcomes in each town, does so because each town tends to be an isolated unit, in essence it's own little mini game. What I do in Shady Sands has little outcome on what is done in the Boneyard, for example.

 

One thing that intrigues me of Bioware's upcoming MMO, Star Wars: The Old Republic, is that it claims to support storylines that are distinct depending on faction choice, but also distinct based on the choices you make in your own faction.

 

 

Does an MMO experience, with presumably a large player base and as well, the prospect of subscription revenue, make it more financially feasible for a game developer to provide a game experience that truly allows diverging gameplay? One thing that some developers (notably Gabe Newell) have mentioned is that it's tough to have a lot of optional and divergent gameplay, because most people only play through a single player game once, and it's very easy for many players to never experience significant chunks of the content. With the idea that players get many different stories in one universe (this is good for many shared resources and content...allowing the game to overlap), perhaps they are more likely to replay though the game in several different ways in order to experience more new content (since they'll hopefully know it's there...the MMO experience means that there will be interactions with other players without having to go to a game forum or something similar). From a developer perspective, hopefully they'll play the game a variety of different ways, extending playtime and netting additional subscription fees (which would still be cheaper than buying a whole new game for the customer). Optimally, along the developer line, players will enjoy the MMO aspects of the game, and perhaps maintain a subscription and continue to play the game.

 

 

I sort of went on a bit of a tangent there at the end, but I can see MMO's as being a way for developers to allow for divergent gameplay, as well as also provide a gaming experience that appeals to several different people, and hopefully expose people to other game types that perhaps they might never have known about.

 

 

Any thoughts?

[Calax]

Honestly the only way you are going to get truly divergent storyline is when a dev gets kooky enough to take all their effort and put it into making a WILDLY diverging storyline based on multiple key points. You probably will never see this with RPGs and Open world games as it is. However I think that True Crime: Streets of LA actually did a fairly good job of giving you a divergent storyline. Basically the way it was set up was that there was a main plot that was like a line. if you got stuck and wanted to do a different story mission you could select an easier story that would take you down a branch that usually ended badly. But to have a story that ends in truly different ways where you can play through it twice and never have the same experience is unlikely to ever happen because nobody wants to put that much effort into making a game and story revolve around it.

 

Even the most choicey games have a single strand of a story that runs through it. (fable 2). I truly wish that we could have games that depending on significant decisions would turn on their ears for you instead of the usual "didn't be nice and save everyone? you get the BAD ending!" or having the giant choice be at the VERY end and the always make sure you know this is the major choice. I also think that as games have matured they have shortened. Less work is being put into a story and instead the developers are focusing on "I want as many AWESOME moments as we can get!" which tends to lead to the gamers being overawed by a relatively average game if it weren't for some stupid set pieces.

 

The biggest problem I can see is that if you make the choice to early in the game then you have to literally come up with more than one story line for a game (which personally I think would be awesome to see a game with several storylines you could end up getting railed along on). Wouldn't it be interesting if in mass effect you could choose to either chase down Saren or start a different investigation into, say, geth aggression in the traverse. the first story could be what we got from mass effect while the second could lead to more interaction with the Citidels military, and intelligence apparatus'. your investigation could cause Sarens plans to go awry differently than they did in the main game in that the drain on Sarens resources could cause him not to be able to initiate the end run to Citidel through the conduit and could lead instead to a showdown with him aboard his command ship while two fleets duked it out.

 

I had WAY to much fun crafting that in my head. but you get the picture, divergent storylines are something that we are going to see become more cliche than being space marines but the only real divergence is weather or not you choose to kill your color character in a fit of rage.

[Hell Kitty]

A really simple and seemingly meaningless choice in Front Mission 3 (want to go to the mall with your friend?) leads to a completely different campaign! Minor characters from one campaign become major allies in another. Stereotypically nasty enemies become sympathetic allies. Of course that's not really a choice and consequence thing as it is an odd way to choose from Campaign A or Campaign B.

 

The original Fallouts are always hailed as the champions of choice and consequence, but like you point out, what you do in one town doesn't affect the others. Major changes don't occur until the game is over.

 

The consequences in games tend to be fairly basic, rather than dramatically changing the story or gameplay. I guess it's our ability to make a choice that matters more then that choice having a huge impact on the game. Feeling like our choices matter is more important than dramatic change.

[random n00b]

However I think that True Crime: Streets of LA actually did a fairly good job of giving you a divergent storyline. Basically the way it was set up was that there was a main plot that was like a line. if you got stuck and wanted to do a different story mission you could select an easier story that would take you down a branch that usually ended badly.

Yeah, that was awesome. But, while the story developed in a completely different manner in each branch, there weren't so many "alternate" paths (2 or 3 IIRC), and they did shove it in the player's face, so to speak, and made it pretty obvious that she had either missed a diverging plotline or made the wrong choice. Not elegant at all, and by no means seamless. The game wasn't an RPG, though, and it's one of the few games I can think of that does present a choice that isn't fake.

 

As for the MMO having any real choice, I can very easily seeing it happen, what with all the bragging about how huge the game is in terms of content and all. How much of that will be directly affected by one player as opposed to being diluted by the input of the masses remains to be seen, though.

Edited November 5, 2008 by random n00b

[Calax]

who knows they may put half the worlds in SW:TOR as dynamic where Jedi and Sith duke it out in order to take the world and get the quests... wait... (remembers the illfated storyline with galaxies where you did quests for a certain story based contact, and the number of quests completed by your faction total would determine which way the storyline would go... and because everyone loved rebels, they always won)

 

thats a bad idea.

[Magister Lajciak]

Too many branches would significantly cut the amount of resources available for the length of the game.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Too many branches would significantly cut the amount of resources available for the length of the game.

 

 

THAT is the key factor.

 

 

Imagine you have the manpower money and time to make a linear game that takes 20h to play through. For every branch away from the centerline, you chip away from that time. You want to have both male and female characters? That rather small and seemingly insignificant option means the dev has to rewrite all the dialogue, re-record voiceovers andcreate new models, textures and rig for every variation of clothing you need. Throw in some branches in the storyline with new locations and all of a sudden you have a 2h game and noone wants to pay for that.

On this forum we're pretty educated on the process of developing a game, but out there you see tons and tons of kids howling for non-linear freedom without having a clue what it takes to accomplish that.

[Magister Lajciak]

Too many branches would significantly cut the amount of resources available for the length of the game.

 

 

THAT is the key factor.

 

 

Imagine you have the manpower money and time to make a linear game that takes 20h to play through. For every branch away from the centerline, you chip away from that time. You want to have both male and female characters? That rather small and seemingly insignificant option means the dev has to rewrite all the dialogue, re-record voiceovers andcreate new models, textures and rig for every variation of clothing you need. Throw in some branches in the storyline with new locations and all of a sudden you have a 2h game and noone wants to pay for that.

On this forum we're pretty educated on the process of developing a game, but out there you see tons and tons of kids howling for non-linear freedom without having a clue what it takes to accomplish that.

 

Indeed, and all this gets the more amplified the more different the branches are from one another, because than you cannot reuse as much content between them. That's why I rarely call for 'more choice' in games - I like my games longer, though the illusion of choice is essential.

Edited November 5, 2008 by Magister Lajciak

[Morgoth]

It showed in Mass Effect. Even the big and mighty Bioware was forced after all to fill the lifeless planets (uncharted worlds) with meaningless tasks, without any link to the story whatsoever. Seems like even Bio bit off too much that they couldn't handle to digest.

Heck, for that reason alone I wish they would have better left that uncharted world nonsense completely out, and better focus on polishing and fleshing out the actual story missions and sidequests on the citadel. I don't mind linearity in terms of leveldesign, but I really wished there were more engaging and deeper quests in the story mission and on the Citadel for Mass Effect. I hope they learned that lesson for ME2.

[Calax]

It showed in Mass Effect. Even the big and mighty Bioware was forced after all to fill the lifeless planets (uncharted worlds) with meaningless tasks, without any link to the story whatsoever. Seems like even Bio bit off too much that they couldn't handle to digest.

Heck, for that reason alone I wish they would have better left that uncharted world nonsense completely out, and better focus on polishing and fleshing out the actual story missions and sidequests on the citadel. I don't mind linearity in terms of leveldesign, but I really wished there were more engaging and deeper quests in the story mission and on the Citadel for Mass Effect. I hope they learned that lesson for ME2.

I think Mass Effect is going to learn from it's mistake and make the next game have 8-10 planets that are well designed rather than countless boring plants that have seemingly no reason for you to appear.

[Magister Lajciak]

Wow, I am surprised BioWare did that! I would have thought that with their usual emphasis on story, they could avoid such a pitfall.

[Maria Caliban]

I think the real problem is that people want cRPGs to be RPGs. They're not. Even a hack-n-slashtastic game of PnP DnD where everyone plays to stereotype has more flexibility than a cRPG. A human GM allows a level of gameplay a computer cannot duplicate or even come close to.

 

A cRPG is an adventure, or a FPS, or an action game with stats for character and/or dialogue options. This is not a bad thing, but people need to learn to except the limits inherent in computer games.

[Volourn]

Maria wins.

 

Only pnp role-playing is true role-playing.

 

You can only branch/diveger so much in the CRPG. There are no limits in pnp outside of the players/dm's imaginations.

[alanschu]

Too many branches would significantly cut the amount of resources available for the length of the game.

 

 

Yes I know. But perhaps in an MMO, a genre that typically has persistent content additions, makes it more feasible.

 

As long as the game isn't too short, the idea of replaying the story in a different way with other characters in an MMO could perhaps be more common? I often play through other classes in an MMO simply to experience the other classes. Rarely, do I continue playing them though, because the story in an MMO is typically exactly the same. If the story of the game was unique to the character class, as Bioware plans to do with SW:TOR, perhaps people could get more longevity out of their games, and designers won't be hesitant to include divergent gameplay for fear of players not experiencing content.

[Spider]

I think Mass Effect is going to learn from it's mistake and make the next game have 8-10 planets that are well designed rather than countless boring plants that have seemingly no reason for you to appear.

 

I don't know. I kinda liked the uncharted planets. I especially liked that they had virtually no tie ins to the story at all. It made me feel like I had a say in what I was doing. What I would have liked is if there would have been a reason for me to do the non-essential stuff. Make the main quest feel a little less rushed (they kept putting emphasis on the fact that time was in short demand) and instead reinforce that the threat you're about to face needed you to get as much resources as you could (and make stuff available that was so expensive that you couldn't afford it if you didn't do a lot of side-stuff). Just make sure that stuff isn't essential to finish the game so the side quests are still optional. Maybe they'll just make the end game a bit easier.

 

Or give cooler bonuses for maxed out characters. Just make it rewarding to do the grinding stuff somehow, while making it feasible that your character would actually consider doing it, instead of going off to fight the big bad rightnow.

 

It helps give that illusion of choice.

 

(and maybe add a bit more variation to the side-planets, not a lot, but maybe have 2-3 different styles of planets at least)

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Maybe they'll just make the end game a bit easier.

 

Or give cooler bonuses for maxed out characters. Just make it rewarding to do the grinding stuff somehow, while making it feasible that your character would actually consider doing it, instead of going off to fight the big bad rightnow.

 

It helps give that illusion of choice.

 

(and maybe add a bit more variation to the side-planets, not a lot, but maybe have 2-3 different styles of planets at least)

 

Chrono Trigger used this to a certain degree; when the time to fight Lavos came, the Timemaster (or whatever its name was) told you of several events across the time stream that could be corrected. These were anciliary to the main plot and its characters, involved grinding but were optional. You could do them if you felt like it, partly because you enjoyed the story and wanted to see more of it fleshed out, but no one prevented you from jumping right into the big final fight.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

The original Fallouts are always hailed as the champions of choice and consequence, but like you point out, what you do in one town doesn't affect the others. Major changes don't occur until the game is over.

 

While limited, one could argue that specific actions - such as becoming a Slaver or not acting fast enough to prevent the march of the Master's Army - *do* affect other cities or at least, your reputation and future NPC reactions in other cities. Dealing with the Gecko power plant, for instance, does affect Vault City. Likewise, decisions made across Torment's locations had but the most vestigial links between themselves and it's unquestionably the most choice and consequence oriented game of the Infinity Engine era. Would this really be meaningful in presenting a different story, or does it lose value because - at least in the Nameless One's journey - they are mostly personal? Can't it be argued that consequences on a global or personal scale represent a different path through a story, thus altering the story itself? I don't see choke points as necessarily inhibitors of diverging branches. Naturally, radical changes could present radically different story paths, but if the branch is significantly different, I fail to see how the fact that the locales are not interlinked in such a way really make it bereft of choice and consequence. Yes, you will always meet the Master, just as you will always meet Deinorra - the amount, type and result of interactions between them is constricted to a set few, but they provide different experiences which, in the end, tell different stories.

 

 

A cRPG is an adventure, or a FPS, or an action game with stats for character and/or dialogue options. This is not a bad thing, but people need to learn to except the limits inherent in computer games.

 

It used to be common knowledge we couldn't replicate the multiplayer aspect of D&D on a computer game, let alone the ability to DM. It was a limit inherent in computer games. Now we have titles like Arcanum and Neverwinter Nights, among others, which do precisely that. The same was once said of transposing the *feel* of D&D on computer games. Now the Infinity Engine era is considered to be the best exampling of achieving this. Do we need to accept limitations, or do we need to challenge them in order to push forward?

[Calax]

I think Mass Effect is going to learn from it's mistake and make the next game have 8-10 planets that are well designed rather than countless boring plants that have seemingly no reason for you to appear.

 

I don't know. I kinda liked the uncharted planets. I especially liked that they had virtually no tie ins to the story at all. It made me feel like I had a say in what I was doing. What I would have liked is if there would have been a reason for me to do the non-essential stuff. Make the main quest feel a little less rushed (they kept putting emphasis on the fact that time was in short demand) and instead reinforce that the threat you're about to face needed you to get as much resources as you could (and make stuff available that was so expensive that you couldn't afford it if you didn't do a lot of side-stuff). Just make sure that stuff isn't essential to finish the game so the side quests are still optional. Maybe they'll just make the end game a bit easier.

 

Or give cooler bonuses for maxed out characters. Just make it rewarding to do the grinding stuff somehow, while making it feasible that your character would actually consider doing it, instead of going off to fight the big bad rightnow.

 

It helps give that illusion of choice.

 

(and maybe add a bit more variation to the side-planets, not a lot, but maybe have 2-3 different styles of planets at least)

I wouldn't have minded the uncharted planets that much if they weren't so disconnected. If they had a connection at least slightly to the story then they might have been more worth doing but as it is I just felt like i was doing the same 2 quests over and over and over and over and that's not necessarily a good thing.

 

It would probably be better if they had fewer planets that were sidquest only but then packed those planets with quests. The Citidel was AWESOME how it did it's quests but after that quests usually went "go here kill X" and I get enough of that in WoW.