How to balance narrative needs and player freedom?

[eschaton]

In another thread, I mentioned a hypothetical scenario where you, as the player, are put in a seemingly impossible encounter, but one lucky shot (say lighting a barrel of explosive powder aflame) kills off a large number of foes, and evens the odds.  It makes me think about the issues of narrative versus gameplay freedom more broadly.

 

Scripted solutions to in-game problems are of course required to some extent, as a game engine cannot allow for infinite choices.  But one can go further and say that generally speaking, if the solution (or solutions, preferably) to a quest is mapped out by the developers, the result will be more entertaining to the player, because it will be scripted to some degree.  Indeed, the reason why grindy MMO-style quests aren't typically entertaining is because no scripting has been done worth speaking of.  The player just needs to bring X to Y, or kill 5 X and collect their body parts.  Any fun that exists is only due to the mechanics of the game being fun, or the imagination of the player - there is no writing to speak of.  

 

But the problem is the more "novel-like" a game becomes, the less freedom it allows a player.  For example, forcing the death of a companion for the sake of narrative may be emotionally powerful if done right, but it also completely takes out of the hand of the player a choice on whether or not to save said character.  While there can be player reactivity, the writer will never be able to anticipate and accommodate all solutions the player might see.  

 

Where do you think games should fall on this line?  

[Malekith]

Games in general? They should fall everywhere. There should be novel-like games and complete sand boxes.That way everyone can choose what he likes.

 

PE spesificaly? It should have a focus on narrative like the IE games, but that doesn't mean that the game shouldn't be reactive. You can have a scripted game that it's reactive to a point. What the game shouldn't do ever is taking control away from the player. If your story cannot be told without taking control away from the player, make him behave like an idiot during a cutscene etc., change your story. To have a companion die is ok, as long as it is something that the player couldn't prevent in any way. For example having your companion die in a duel in cutscene like Gorion in BG or Ravel and your companions in PS:T is ok. Having them die in a scripted event during the battle, where the player could be winning and prevent it is idiotic. The same way that some games allow you to fight the bigbad middleway, you kick his ass and when is almost dead, he stands up an beats you in a hit , or says something along the lines of "you see i'm too strong for you, you are no worth my time". It's ok for e dev to design a battle with the intention to make the player lose to triger an event, but he should also script something in the off chance a really good player wins the "imposible" battle.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Malekith

[Sensuki]

Kinda sounds like the P:E Narrative will have some "at your own pace" kinda style to it with perhaps minor prodding.

[Nonek]

Personally i've always liked the way Obsidian deals with these matters, by giving us the choice and making us the final arbiter, this encourages the belief that these are our stories and we are making a difference. It's ego stroking, but it's ego stroking done correctly. By giving us choices that have logical consequences we are in essence approaching their creation from the stance of a player in the gameworld, rather than a bystander observing the theatre of conflict.

 

For instance Benny in New Vegas, when bearded in his lair we are given a plethora of choices on how to deal with him, and each of them has consequences, from his escape if you are naive and trusting, to his framing, death and in the long term maybe even an alliance. In other games we all know that such a high profile character would be invulnerable except for when the developers chose to arrange the inevitable confrontation, in New Vegas we are the final arbiters of Benny's fate however, and this to me is so utterly refreshing.

 

More importantly the game is changed by his disappearance, we do not get a replacement piece that doubles as his stand in, because that's not really choice and consequence at all. We are given a theatre of conflict, that reacts to our choices (unlike other hiking simulators) and adapts itself so that we might suffer or benefit from them. It's not quite at the level of a good DM but it's getting there.

 

The opposite side of this is the approach I found most distasteful, that where we are in essence viewers of the piece performed within the theatre, however much we may tweak our avatars looks, equipment and position on a morality scale, we are not actually involved at all. Our dialogue options all lead to the same conclusion, our choices are all false or quickly reversed if not suited to the narrative, our characters are not able to take any logical actions and we are basically herded down narrative corridors. Yes all games decide on what options we can have, so there is an illusion of choice, but that is no reason for not allowing us any interaction or effect on the tale you are telling.

 

In short we should be the writer and the lead actor, the developers should be the gameworld and its players reacting logically to our decisions, so that we are not merely passengers but drivers of the narrative. Video games offer interactivity, movies and books do not, I play video games for that interactivity.

[Utukka]

Games in general? They should fall everywhere. There should be novel-like games and complete sand boxes.That way everyone can choose what he likes.

This.