Between story and freedom - how to combine

[Samurai Sanjuro]

Hello everybody, I'm from Germany and I'm looking forward to the game! (Sorry for possible mistakes in grammar or expression.)

I would like to emphasize one point, which is very important to me, concerning the relation between the level of story integration and freedom of action in the game. What i really like, and at some point for me is determining for fascinating rpgs (like PE for me seems to become), is when you as a player get at the same time two things:

 

- a wide range of side quests and side events in addition to the main story (feeling of freedom of action)

- but also the feeling, that these happenings (actually all actions) are somehow connected to the main story, or at least advantageous for getting ahead in the game (for instance required experience)

 

The combination of these two things, is what i really like in games like BG II: for instance when you entered the open world of Amn, you had your first major goal: To find Imoen. The next step was to collect a certain amount of money to get some information from an obscure person. All the variing sidequests (were you can gain the required money) now that came to the player, maintained their connection to the main goal, also they had their own little stories. They kept their sense/meaning in relation to the main story, albeit not in a linear way.
 

This is what I miss in games like Elder Scrolls: The game advertises with it's large level of freedom of action, but at the same time the completion of all the (side) quests feels like totally meaningless in terms of a superior story. The story never gained momentum. There were no greater background story, no greater relations of all your actions and so there was nothing like a worsening of the story.

The negative counter-example would be strictly linear stories like you have in games like Neverwinter Nights II or maybe The Witcher II. Almost every event represents a strict (between) stage of the main story.

Maybe that sounds like high expactations I have, but I think it is not too difficult to implement, as we can see in the example from BG II above.

 

What are you saying?

Best wishes
Sanjuro

 

 

[JFSOCC]

I'm saying welcome to the forums Samurai Sanjuro, you'll fit right in!

[eimatshya]

Yeah, I too find it distracting when games give you a main story that presents the player with some sort of urgency, and then gives them a bunch of sidequests to do that have nothing to do with the urgent matter that is patiently waiting for you to get started on.

 

The Tomb Raider reboot had that problem. The story made it sound like you had to hurry to rescue your friend, but then the game kept giving you random tombs to explore that had no connection to anything. I wanted to explore the tombs, 'cause some of them were kind of neat, but I didn't feel right doing so since I knew that my friend needed rescuing.

 

I had the same problem in Dragon Age: Origins. The main story sets up this sense of impending doom where you're one step ahead of this advancing army of monsters that's going to raze Ferelden unless you gather the support to stop them. But then the game gives you all these little side quests to do. I never felt right about doing any of them because my character should be focused on the imminent threat. As such, I missed out on a ton of content because it was out of sync with the main narrative.

 

So, yes, if P:E's core narrative gives the player a sense of urgency, I would like to see the game be more like NWN2 or BG2 in terms of how it handles side quests.

 

And welcome to the forums!

[Samurai Sanjuro]

thanks, you found good words (the urgency of side quests) and examples (DA:O). Before every possible side quest I need the feeling that I somehow really should to this, either to gain required money, experience, better equipment or further followers. What made me emphasize this is that some people really don't think so; they rather enjoy being totally free like: "wow, I can build an own house and buy any furnishing". In Elder Scrolls, you even can play ahead after the main story has finished. I mean this is interesting, but P:E really should not go this way. At the other hand there are these very linear games. But anyway, I think you understood me quite well!

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Welcome, neonate. Also, nice avatar you got there.

[Labadal]

I like your thoughts on the matter but would like to see them go even further in some instances. Alpha Protocol was great in this regard.

[mcmanusaur]

I don't really understand the "story" vs. "freedom" contrast (which to my knowledge is mostly invoked by those identifying more with the former). Their opportunity costs certainly compete over the same finite supply of resources (as is the case with any feature in a game), so perhaps one could argue that there is a tradeoff between depth/length vs. width. However, those aren't the same thing as "story" and "freedom". and I'm still not convinced that these two have an intrinsically inverse relationship as gameplay aesthetics.

 

In fact, that contrast between "story" and "freedom" might be far better characterized in terms of (1) linear vs. open gameplay and (2) embedded vs. emergent narrative. While emergent narrative tends to take a lot of roleplaying effort on the part of the player- and thus I could understand arguments for the more traditional embedded narrative- I do personally think that open-ended gameplay is essential to the genre.

 

That said, open-ended gameplay need not necessarily interfere with the enjoyment of embedded narrative, as far as I can tell, and this is where I don't really agree with a lot of the criticism directed toward games like Skyrim on this forum. As far as I know, in such games you're always able to forgo most if not all of the optional side material in favor of the main plot, and theoretically given equal quality of writing this shouldn't provide any less engaging of a narrative experience than a game lacking that optional side material.

 

The thing with an open game is that it provides not only more ways to enjoy the game, but also more ways not to enjoy it, and I suspect that- for whatever reason, and whether they know it or not- the "story-oriented" folk are choosing to play Skyrim in a way that they won't enjoy; I'm not really sure that you can blame the game for that. People seem to present "freedom" as merely a different form of not-freedom, when perhaps they're just not utilizing the full potential of that freedom. It's true the sense of urgency in games like Skyrim can seem to have some discrepancies, but that's an issue that should be able to be fixed without giving up much freedom.

 

TL;DR- I think that this "story" vs. "freedom" dichotomy is borne out of a lot of different things being confounded. Really we should be talking about those things individually rather than rolling them all up as somehow "anti-story".

[eimatshya]

That said, open-ended gameplay need not necessarily interfere with the enjoyment of embedded narrative, as far as I can tell, and this is where I don't really agree with a lot of the criticism directed toward games like Skyrim on this forum. As far as I know, in such games you're always able to forgo most if not all of the optional side material in favor of the main plot, and theoretically given equal quality of writing this shouldn't provide any less engaging of a narrative experience than a game lacking that optional side material.

 

Yes, you are *able* to forgo the side material, but that isn't the problem. The problem is that the side material often is incongruous. The main story tells you that you are racing to prevent some grave danger, but then you have all these side quests where people want you to rescue their daughter who's been kidnapped or something (this is a general example; I've never played Skyrim). Putting off the "urgent" matters in the main quest to do random tasks has no effect on anything in the main quest. Everyone's just waiting around for you get around to stopping them. This is a problem because it shatters my immersion in the game world. If I do the side quests, I can't enjoy them because I know that there are important things I'm supposed to be doing, and realizing that these tasks are patiently waiting for me to do them, when they should be progressing with or without my involvement, breaks my sense of immersion in the world. If I don't do the side quests, then I am always bothered by curiosity about what I'm missing. Either way, I'm unhappy so long as the side quests are out of sync with the main narrative.

 

BG2 is a good example of the opposite. In Act I, all the side quests make sense because they are just ways for you to make enough money to go after Imoen. As such, doing all these random tasks doesn't disrupt your immersion in the story. That is the point OP was trying to make.

Edited August 7, 2013 by eimatshya

[Yonjuro]

I was just about to join the forum so I could post the exact same topic (hence my derivative username - thanks for posting, my younger Samurai brother  ). 

 

(A good example of how this can go wrong was in BG1 with the TotSC expansion. From a metagaming perspective, going to Durlag's Tower too early is not a great idea. In fact, about the best time to go there is right before the final fight when your party has a lot of experience, but from a story perspective, that is all wrong. You're in hot pursuit of Sarevok and so you ... err... go to Ulgoth's Beard  for a vacation?)

 

In BG2, if you played through BG1 with the canon party (Minsc, Jaheira etc.) and decided that Imoen is, in fact, your character's best friend/little sister figure, then the story works well. (And, Yoshimo's story line works well too.) If you choose different party members in BG1, or didn't play it at all, you may not enjoy the BG2 story as much.

 

I think Mr. Sawyer has touched on this point in the past. The game ideally will let you play however you want and give you a good story(, but necessarily without adding exponentially many nodes to the story graph). This gets harder when you have sequels and expansions, I suppose. 

 

Tldr; There does seem to be conflict between a compelling story and freedom to explore/play in  different styles or with different characters. Getting this right is probably how one makes a masterpiece of a game.

[Silent Winter]

(A good example of how this can go wrong was in BG1 with the TotSC expansion. From a metagaming perspective, going to Durlag's Tower too early is not a great idea. In fact, about the best time to go there is right before the final fight when your party has a lot of experience, but from a story perspective, that is all wrong. You're in hot pursuit of Sarevok and so you ... err... go to Ulgoth's Beard  for a vacation?)

 

In BG2, if you played through BG1 with the canon party (Minsc, Jaheira etc.) and decided that Imoen is, in fact, your character's best friend/little sister figure, then the story works well. (And, Yoshimo's story line works well too.) If you choose different party members in BG1, or didn't play it at all, you may not enjoy the BG2 story as much.

re: BG1 - Or werewolf island for what, a month in game time?  While poor Scar is waiting outside the Flaming Fist HQ for me to come and report on the Iron Throne or (if I do it later) poor Duke wassname is getting slowly (slowly) poisoned.

 

re: BG2 - maybe, but you've still got the 'get what Irenicus knows' angle to make you pursue him, even if you're evil / don't care about Imoen

 

 

Agreed that BG2 does it well - the side-quests often have good little stories in themselves and work well as part of the greater narrative, also being optional as to when/if you do them.

I'm playing NWN2 at the moment (OC) and the side-quests in the Docks annoyed me.  I'm supposed to be trying to get into Blacklake district, but I'm asked to 'do this task' so I do, then it's 'do this next task' so I do, but then it's 'do this next task' etc etc - not optional and no idea where the end in sight is.  Perhaps if they'd made more of 'we're suspicious of you' and you need to prove yourself in 'these ways' instead of just being 'one more thing,... oh one more thing' [shrug]

It has picked up since then though.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Silent Winter

[Samurai Sanjuro]

_{In fact, that contrast between "story" and "freedom" might be far better characterized in terms of (1) linear vs. open gameplay and (2) embedded vs. emergent narrative. While emergent narrative tends to take a lot of roleplaying effort on the part of the player- and thus I could understand arguments for the more traditional embedded narrative- I do personally think that open-ended gameplay is essential to the genre.}

_{Thanks for this more precise definition of the concept I tried to argue with.}

 

_{I like all the posts being made. Apart from that I've found a good analogy: Ask yourself if you can write a good and compelling book with all the narratives given in the game. I think games like BG II could set a good fantasy book, games like Skyrim rather not: or do you want to find yourself reading a bunch of unrelated shortstories? (the fight for supremecy in Ferelden, granted, was quite exciting, even it had nothing to do with the dragonborn story - this might be comparable to the Watching Stronghold story (or how it was called in english) in BGII - refreshing addons)}   

[Yonjuro]

 

(A good example of how this can go wrong was in BG1 with the TotSC expansion. From a metagaming perspective, going to Durlag's Tower too early is not a great idea. In fact, about the best time to go there is right before the final fight when your party has a lot of experience, but from a story perspective, that is all wrong. You're in hot pursuit of Sarevok and so you ... err... go to Ulgoth's Beard  for a vacation?)....

 

re: BG1 - Or werewolf island for what, a month in game time?  While poor Scar is waiting outside the Flaming Fist HQ for me to come and report on the Iron Throne or (if I do it later) poor Duke wassname is getting slowly (slowly) poisoned.

 

 

Exactly - and if you wait until still later, the two people that Sarevok has stabbed in the thieves maze have to wait a month for you to arrive before they can finish bleeding to death. If that doesn't add insult to injury, then I don't know what does.

 

 

re: BG2 - maybe, but you've still got the 'get what Irenicus knows' angle to make you pursue him, even if you're evil / don't care about Imoen

 

I agree with you that the story still holds together. Circling back to Mr. Sawyer's point about wanting all characters being equally developed, let's take Jan Jansen as an example. Suppose you dismiss Imoen at the beginning and don't add her back and use Jan for your thief/mage instead. Jan has an interesting, side quest (with a nicely done uncharacteristically blunt comment to his rival that gives him some character development) but the story line is a bit unfinished (until the very end of throne of Bhaal when you get the epilogue). If that were fleshed out more and (especially) if it were more related to the main story, it would probably work better. As it is, you trade a major story element for a partially developed side quest (which is also a bit buggy in that if you kill his rival, nobody notices). 

 

 

 

Agreed that BG2 does it well - the side-quests often have good little stories in themselves and work well as part of the greater narrative, also being optional as to when/if you do them.

 

It's true. I think BG2 has a good balance between story and game play that works well - I've played through it a bunch of times and will play it again. I haven't spent as much time with any other game.

[Yonjuro]

 

_{In fact, that contrast between "story" and "freedom" might be far better characterized in terms of (1) linear vs. open gameplay and (2) embedded vs. emergent narrative. While emergent narrative tends to take a lot of roleplaying effort on the part of the player- and thus I could understand arguments for the more traditional embedded narrative- I do personally think that open-ended gameplay is essential to the genre.}

_{Thanks for this more precise definition of the concept I tried to argue with.}

 

_{I like all the posts being made. Apart from that I've found a good analogy: Ask yourself if you can write a good and compelling book with all the narratives given in the game.}

 

Absolutely. For example, I've never done a full play through of Icewind Dale (a linear game more than embedded one to use mcmanusaur's terminology). The combat was nicely done, but I didn't care enough about the story to keep going. On the other end of the spectrum, I really wanted to like Planescape: Torment because the atmosphere was so well done - but the game play didn't work for me. I think BG2 has a combination of story and game play that works. My hope for Project Eternity is that it will be a great story and will be as much fun to play as BG2.

 

 I don't think it's easy to do for the reasons that you mentioned in your first post. A good story needs to draw you in with a sense of urgency and exploring the world can be at odds with that. (A good example or, I suppose, a bad example is Elder Scrolls Oblivion which has an open world with lots of nice things to wander around and do, but ... wait wasn't I supposed to be stopping demons from invading the world or something? Oh, whatever, let's pick these mushrooms.) 

 

 

... this might be comparable to the Watching Stronghold story (or how it was called in english) 

 

it was called "Watcher's Keep" in English. 

[mcmanusaur]

I can see some validity in the "incongruent urgency" argument, but I think it should be said that the myopic approach to narrative taken by most RPGs is responsible for this being a problem in the first place. While many of the most memorable stories are those in the tradition of heroic epics, there is thankfully quality literature within many other forms and modes, and altogether few video games explore narrative's diverse potential in this way.

 

Though one could probably argue that RPG mechanics are conducive to stories of heroes overcoming epic challenges, there are many ways to present these concepts in such a way that doesn't rely on a constant sense of urgency to keep the audience's attention invested in the story. While good, old-fashioned linear narratives certainly have their advantages, it's among the many conventions of the RPG genre that I personally wouldn't mind seeing retired. I believe there are many other more versatile but equally narrative-centric options that have yet to be explored.

 

As far as whether you could write a good book from a video game's narrative, that's a function of two factors other than "freedom" in my opinion. Obviously the quality-subjective as it may be- of the writing is one important factor independent of gameplay design, and the second factor is the implicit preference for a specific literary form/mode in that statement. In other words, by "good book" do we mean "conventional epic/heroic adventure novel"? I'm just going to say that this isn't the only valid narrative option for RPGs, or video games in general, even if it might be the most obvious.

 

For me, identifying "freedom" as the root cause of poor narrative in video games is like stunting the growth of the medium, since the freedom inherent in interactivity is precisely what separates video games from other traditional media. I personally believe the future potential of video game narrative lies in exploiting this freedom to create memorable experiences, rather than confining freedom to facilitate formulaic attempts at imitating other media.

Edited August 8, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[Chrononaut]

To be honest I'm not a fan of long main quests, I prefer a game that just drops the player in the world head-first without much explanation and without direction (think Ultima, Darklands or early Might & Magics), and without hassling the player with an odious introduction or cutscene, and the player is set to stumble across a series of sparse side-quests with memorable writing and dialogues, more like modular mini-scenarios.

 

As for the main-quest, it would be cool if Obsidian just had a short MacGuffin like "Find the Water Chip" (minus the time-limit) in the background as the narrative, but never let it intrude upon the player unless they decide to follow that up. I just dislike it if an RPG feel like the game is pushing you onto the critical path or onto quests, as opposed to things only happening when the player makes choices.

[Yonjuro]

I can see some validity in the "incongruent urgency" argument, but I think it should be said that the myopic approach to narrative taken by most RPGs is responsible for this being a problem in the first place.  ...

 

 I believe there are many other more versatile but equally narrative-centric options that have yet to be explored.

 

 OK, sounds good. Let's take BG1 as an example because the story is fairly simple. Your main character is a young person who gets thrown out into the world and hunted by assassins which gives a sense of urgency to the problems in the region related to the iron supply that turn out to be related.

 

 I think we don't want to remove the personal urgency from this particular story or else we're the manager of WalMart solving our iron supply-chain issues. But there there are midpoints on the continuum (or other ways of telling this story entirely). So what kind of thing do you have in mind?

 

 

 

 

Though one could probably argue that RPG mechanics are conducive to stories of heroes overcoming epic challenges, ....

 

 

 I would argue that (but always with an open mind). I think the appeal of the BG story, in particular, was that the main character doesn't initially set out to do be the hero of the sword coast, but things happen and the character rises to the occasion, a very standard motif, but a good one.

 

 

 

For me, identifying "freedom" as the root cause of poor narrative in video games is like stunting the growth of the medium, since the freedom inherent in interactivity is precisely what separates video games from other traditional media. I personally believe the future potential of video game narrative lies in exploiting this freedom to create memorable experiences, rather than confining freedom to facilitate formulaic attempts at imitating other media.

 

 

 I agree that freedom to explore is important to good game play. Although, this can easily degenerate to wandering around wondering what might turn out to be interesting which I don't find engaging. My earlier comment about Planescape: Torment

falls into this bucket. There was too much: wander around, figure out whether you need to talk to this person (or this zombie who is named Fred instead of zombie) for the third time to find out something interesting (oh, but my intelligence stat is only 16, so I'm not smart enough to understand what they are telling me; if only I'd put that point into INT instead of CHR (of course then they wouldn't have been willing to speak to me in the first place)).

 

Anyway, sorry for the rant about a game that I want to love but don't have the patience to actually play. My real point here is that exploration makes for better game play, but if the story is too hard to uncover, then you don't end up with a good experience.

 

My fondest wish for P:E is to have the immersive depth of P:T with the great (epic) fun of BG. My unfondest antiwish is to have the pixel hunt of P:T with the depth of character development of IWD. Luckily, I think the former is more likely than the latter.

[decado]

I think BioWare's historical failure in implementing multiple endings and telling us that YOUR CHOICES MATTER!!! should be recognized for what it is: an inevitable reality of the medium.  Past a certain point, juggling multiple story lines becomes unwieldy, almost farcical.  The transition from ME1 to ME2 is a great example of this.  What meaningful impact did allowing the council to die have on the second game?  Except for influencing a few cut scenes here and there?  And further, what impact do they have if the story is going to eventually have a canonical ending anyways?  It was the same with Dragon Age. 

 

I envision two different ways to craft a narrative in an RPG, encapsulated here by a neat graphic I just made:

 

 

 

(Sorry for the big ass graphic!)

 

The first is the BioWare approach, where the branches of the narrative are equally accessible no matter how you use the game mechanics.  A good example of this is DA:O, where a rogue, a fighter and a mage all have equal access to all the major branches of the story line, no matter how you choose to play the game. All of the decisions that affect the end of the game are narrative in nature, as opposed to ludological (game focused).  

 

The upside to this is that all of the content is available to players throughout all of the game, no matter which mechanics you decide to use.  The downside is that the decisions you do make are all based on the narrative, and so in some respect they are almost unattached to the rest of the experience as a whole.  The other problem is the one I mentioned earlier.  BioWare's idea of choice is to give you multiple endings, but those endings don't quite stack up when it comes to the second game.  And if you never plan on playing the second game, the choices are even more meaningless because they come at the end.  The only thing they do give you is some narrative satisfaction, i.e. "I feel good because the story ended the way I wanted to."  This is great, but we should wonder what it is worth.  Also, sometimes this doesn't even happen.  Look at Deus Ex: Human Revolution, and tell me anyone really gave a crap which one of the three tacked on endings they eventually chose.

 

The second graphic represents the old school Black Isle way of doing things.  Fallout 2 only really has one ending, though it does have multiple 'slides' for the various locations/people you visited.  But realistically, the game only ends one way -- you storm the oil rig and kill Frank Horrigan.   The real decision making process occurs in figuring out HOW you're going to kill Horrigan, which is dependent upon character design choices you've made up to that point (use the turrets to kill him, go to to toe, blast his brains out with the Gauss rifle, etc).  It is the approach that makes the difference here, not which narrative path you choose to go down.

 

The disadvantage to this approach is clear -- there is only one ending.  But that is really the only disadvantage, and I can't even really agree that it is one because the game will have to have a canon ending anyways.  But the advantages over the first approach are obvious: your character, and the mechanics behind the game, decide which way you are going to complete the game's objectives.  This is real replayability, and real decision making.  Further, all of the consequences to these decisions can be contained in-game.  The player can have a vastly different experience while getting from point A to B, but they are always going to get to B.  And when it comes time to make Game #2, the developers aren't stuck doing stupid retcons or having your decisions "matter" by giving you access to a different cut scene.

 

I prefer the second approach.  The first method has always been a massive failure.

Edited August 8, 2013 by decado

[Orogun01]

Good point but I feel as though you are underestimating the importance of context and themes in games. To borrow from one of your examples; In DE: HR you could throughout the whole game be a corporate drone or a bitter aug, so when the three endings are presented to you there is context in which to base your decision on. You can always work your way so that one ending is the logical conclusion or three as long as the plot has been properly led there. 

BW's Mass Effect ending is based upon a giant Deus Ex Machina (quite literary) which is never properly explained or demystified. Throughout the game you are gathering resources with the sole purpose of using the Crucible to end the Reapers at some point whilst you were doing that it would have probably been prudent and logical to explain what the Crucible does. Instead the chose to dump all the info at once without any real explanation just the fact that you're supposed to take what this machine does at face value.
 

Also, if you are discussing how gameplay affect endings it may be of some relevance to argue the different mechanics of how its implemented. For example there is the completion rate upon which you may get the good or bad ending (e.g: ME2, ME3) Faction relations (Alpha Protocol) or unmarked quest completions (PS:T) 

[decado]

Good point but I feel as though you are underestimating the importance of context and themes in games. To borrow from one of your examples; In DE: HR you could throughout the whole game be a corporate drone or a bitter aug, so when the three endings are presented to you there is context in which to base your decision on. You can always work your way so that one ending is the logical conclusion or three as long as the plot has been properly led there. 

 

I'm not underestimating the importance, I'm more questioning the value altogether.  

 

DX:HR is, in my view, a great example of how this "context" doesn't make any difference at all.  It is not really possible to play as a "bitter aug."  It is possible to select dialog choices in this vein, but the game is played the same way whether you like augs, or not.   After all, what does it mean to play the game as a "bitter aug"?  You will still get augs, you'll still spend your Praxis points on them, and you'll still use the augs to bypass game obstacles.  So what exactly is your supposed hatred of augs really worth?  At the end of the game, it doesn't make any difference.

 

It doesn't have to be this way.  I think giving the player the opportunity to role-play certain styles can work with a canon ending set-up. But DX:HR is not a good example of how to do this.  

Edited August 9, 2013 by decado

[mcmanusaur]

I think BioWare's historical failure in implementing multiple endings and telling us that YOUR CHOICES MATTER!!! should be recognized for what it is: an inevitable reality of the medium.  Past a certain point, juggling multiple story lines becomes unwieldy, almost farcical.  The transition from ME1 to ME2 is a great example of this.  What meaningful impact did allowing the council to die have on the second game?  Except for influencing a few cut scenes here and there?  And further, what impact do they have if the story is going to eventually have a canonical ending anyways?  It was the same with Dragon Age. 

 

I envision two different ways to craft a narrative in an RPG, encapsulated here by a neat graphic I just made:

 

[snip]

 

(Sorry for the big ass graphic!)

 

The first is the BioWare approach, where the branches of the narrative are equally accessible no matter how you use the game mechanics.  A good example of this is DA:O, where a rogue, a fighter and a mage all have equal access to all the major branches of the story line, no matter how you choose to play the game. All of the decisions that affect the end of the game are narrative in nature, as opposed to ludological (game focused).  

 

The upside to this is that all of the content is available to players throughout all of the game, no matter which mechanics you decide to use.  The downside is that the decisions you do make are all based on the narrative, and so in some respect they are almost unattached to the rest of the experience as a whole.  The other problem is the one I mentioned earlier.  BioWare's idea of choice is to give you multiple endings, but those endings don't quite stack up when it comes to the second game.  And if you never plan on playing the second game, the choices are even more meaningless because they come at the end.  The only thing they do give you is some narrative satisfaction, i.e. "I feel good because the story ended the way I wanted to."  This is great, but we should wonder what it is worth.  Also, sometimes this doesn't even happen.  Look at Deus Ex: Human Revolution, and tell me anyone really gave a crap which one of the three tacked on endings they eventually chose.

 

The second graphic represents the old school Black Isle way of doing things.  Fallout 2 only really has one ending, though it does have multiple 'slides' for the various locations/people you visited.  But realistically, the game only ends one way -- you storm the oil rig and kill Frank Horrigan.   The real decision making process occurs in figuring out HOW you're going to kill Horrigan, which is dependent upon character design choices you've made up to that point (use the turrets to kill him, go to to toe, blast his brains out with the Gauss rifle, etc).  It is the approach that makes the difference here, not which narrative path you choose to go down.

 

The disadvantage to this approach is clear -- there is only one ending.  But that is really the only disadvantage, and I can't even really agree that it is one because the game will have to have a canon ending anyways.  But the advantages over the first approach are obvious: your character, and the mechanics behind the game, decide which way you are going to complete the game's objectives.  This is real replayability, and real decision making.  Further, all of the consequences to these decisions can be contained in-game.  The player can have a vastly different experience while getting from point A to B, but they are always going to get to B.  And when it comes time to make Game #2, the developers aren't stuck doing stupid retcons or having your decisions "matter" by giving you access to a different cut scene.

 

I prefer the second approach.  The first method has always been a massive failure.

 

That's an interesting graphic, but I still feel that you like others are conflating multiple variables. Whether or not player choices affect the ultimate outcome, and the degree to which narrative choice and gameplay choice are integrated with each other, are two separate factors (which therefore produces four permutations, more if you introduce other variables). While you might only be able to find examples of two of those permutations in most games, that doesn't mean there aren't any other options. In my experience, this is the case with just about every time something in games is construed as "you must do it this way or that way".

[mcmanusaur]

OK, sounds good. Let's take BG1 as an example because the story is fairly simple. Your main character is a young person who gets thrown out into the world and hunted by assassins which gives a sense of urgency to the problems in the region related to the iron supply that turn out to be related.

 

 I think we don't want to remove the personal urgency from this particular story or else we're the manager of WalMart solving our iron supply-chain issues. But there there are midpoints on the continuum (or other ways of telling this story entirely). So what kind of thing do you have in mind?

There are indeed many stories that rely on urgency, and that is probably one of them. As far as possible alternatives, there are really too many to mention, given how much literature there is about things other than saving the world (journeys of personal growth, pursuing relationships, etc.). I'll grant that exploration can be presented in a way that is incongruent with the specific kind of narrative that many RPGs happen to use, but I think if we really want to be all gung ho about literary value- as the narrativist/"story" camp seems to wish- we might reach some surprising realizations. Namely, the "story" that is espoused in this context is often extremely direct and of extremely limited sophistication, if not emotionally shallow (be hero, conquer challenge, feel good). Personally I don't think that RPGs have to be about saving the world from evil, and I think that the true potential of the video game medium lies in alternative approaches. The traditional linear hero narrative is certainly a proven formula, but I'm always a bit surprised to see those who supposedly stand for rich storytelling present it as the holy grail of narrative. It just seems so cliched and unimaginative.

 

At any rate, if we really want to stick to that approach, perhaps it is best that freedom remains limited, but I do think there are forms of narrative that accommodate and are facilitated by themes of exploration and choice. I guess my larger point is simply that sacrificing "story" or "freedom" doesn't necessarily lead to more of the other; they're independent elements that both require effort to succeed, and that can seem incompatible in some but not all configurations.

 

I would argue that (but always with an open mind). I think the appeal of the BG story, in particular, was that the main character doesn't initially set out to do be the hero of the sword coast, but things happen and the character rises to the occasion, a very standard motif, but a good one.

 

An extremely standard trope indeed, albeit a quite successful one.

 

I agree that freedom to explore is important to good game play. Although, this can easily degenerate to wandering around wondering what might turn out to be interesting which I don't find engaging. My earlier comment about Planescape: Torment falls into this bucket. There was too much: wander around, figure out whether you need to talk to this person (or this zombie who is named Fred instead of zombie) for the third time to find out something interesting (oh, but my intelligence stat is only 16, so I'm not smart enough to understand what they are telling me; if only I'd put that point into INT instead of CHR (of course then they wouldn't have been willing to speak to me in the first place)).

 

Anyway, sorry for the rant about a game that I want to love but don't have the patience to actually play. My real point here is that exploration makes for better game play, but if the story is too hard to uncover, then you don't end up with a good experience.

 

My fondest wish for P:E is to have the immersive depth of P:T with the great (epic) fun of BG. My unfondest antiwish is to have the pixel hunt of P:T with the depth of character development of IWD. Luckily, I think the former is more likely than the latter.

Perhaps many traditional RPGs' implementation of exploratory freedom didn't mesh in some way with the gameplay or narrative, but I still think it's a huge leap of logic to identify the freedom itself as the problem.

[Yonjuro]

 

OK, sounds good. Let's take BG1 as an example because the story is fairly simple. ...

There are indeed many stories that rely on urgency, and that is probably one of them. As far as possible alternatives, there are really too many to mention, given how much literature there is about things other than saving the world (journeys of personal growth, pursuing relationships, etc.).

 

 I should start by saying that I think we're in vehement agreement about most of what we are talking about here. In the interest of keeping the discussion going:

 

 What is an example, an existing story or a new one that would expand the cRPG genre in the way that you have in mind?

 

 I'll start with something that I don't think would work: About 12 years the play called "Art" toured the U.S. I think it may have been a French story (it seemed it might have been). The play had three characters and the main story line was an argument between two of them about a painting that one of them had purchased. It was a fantastic, deep and surprisingly funny story with lots of threads that mostly related back to the main story. I can't imagine this story being a successful or enjoyable cRPG (especially with the multiple choice dialogs that cRPGs currently use; maybe future CRPGs will do something better).

 

 So maybe this is a bound to the genre (then again, maybe some enterprising game developer will prove me wrong), but there's a lot of room between BG1 and "Art".

 

 

 

 

I would argue that (but always with an open mind). I think the appeal of the BG story, in particular, was that the main character doesn't initially set out to do be the hero of the sword coast, but things happen and the character rises to the occasion, a very standard motif, but a good one.

 

An extremely standard trope indeed, albeit a quite successful one.

 

 

 I used the word motif rather than trope because it is very easy to see this motif in a lot of stories. It is remarkably easy to apply  Joseph Campbell's "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" to a wide range of stories. For example, let's take "Art" again: The 'Descent into the dark' happens in the argument and the 'revelation' is the self-realization that two arguing characters come to about why they are arguing in the first place. It's hard to find a story that doesn't have at least a little sprinkling of the hero journey in it somewhere.

 

 

 

Perhaps many traditional RPGs' implementation of exploratory freedom didn't mesh in some way with the gameplay or narrative, but I still think it's a huge leap of logic to identify the freedom itself as the problem.

 

 We agree. The point I was hoping to make is that this is the challenge, not that it necessarily can't be done.  For example, BG1 came out and later 'Tales of the sword coast' came out as an expansion. All of the 'Tales' are optional, and have nothing to do with the main story. Perhaps they would have been more enjoyable with even a tangential connection to the main story (as it is, they are fun to play but feel a bit like either an XP farm for the main quest (that is, you might imagine your PC is hoping to strengthen the party for what is to come by doing these things) or a strange diversion from the main quest given what is going on.

[mcmanusaur]

I'm not sure why I feel inclined to mention this example over any other, but I'm thinking something along the lines of Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath; there's a whole lot of narrative potential in the plights of pioneers and refugees, and I think RPG mechanics could fit in decently well. Non-moralized political conflicts also work fairly well in this regard, in addition to both of the other options I mentioned in my last post.

 

Given how progression seems to be an essential part of RPG mechanics, it's probably true that RPG narratives must also share that sense of progression (rather than being some kind of static screenshot, which seems to be true of your example). However, there are many kinds of challenges that can be overcome besides evil intent on destroying the world, which necessitates a high level of urgency conflicting with freedom and exploration. It seems that somewhere down the line RPGs were designated as the go-to genre for epic heroism, and that other narrative forms were left for other genres to explore, which is very unfortunate in my opinion.

Edited August 9, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[Yonjuro]

I'm not sure why I feel inclined to mention this example over any other, but I'm thinking something along the lines of Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath; there's a whole lot of narrative potential in the plights of pioneers and refugees, and I think RPG mechanics could fit in decently well. Non-moralized political conflicts also work fairly well in this regard, in addition to both of the other options I mentioned in my last post.

 

 

 Hmmmm. That could work as a game. I never really of that of that before. There could be different characters (e.g. Woodie Guthrie-like bardish character; community organizer etc.).

 

 

Given how progression seems to be an essential part of RPG mechanics, it's probably true that RPG narratives must also share that sense of progression 

 

 

 Sure.

 

 homeless former farmer -> laborer -> labor organizer -> labor leader -> politician

 homeless former farmer -> petty thief ->.... -> organized crime boss

 homeless former farmer -> .....-> union busting business tycoon

 ...

 

 

 

 

RPGs were designated as the go-to genre for epic heroism, and that other narrative forms were left for other genres to explore, which is very unfortunate in my opinion. 

 

 Yes, I see what you mean.

[Lephys]

Well, I feel the relevance of discussing the freedom-coherency relationship (however it should be labeled/broken up) is simply this:

 

In Skyrim, they hand-designed this huge, open world. That provides an element that affects your gameplay, whether you explore the whole thing or not, and whether you do all the side stuff or just burn through the main narrative. So, at the very least, is it really prudent to make such a big, open world, that then hardly intertwines with itself in any way?

 

Yes, things don't necessarily have to be in any way mandatory to the narrative in order to be in the game. And freedom doesn't necessarily have to go against the story. But, isn't the game world sort of a fabric upon which the narrative is built? If you shake even the farthest corner, doesn't it make sense that that fabric should ripple across its breadth? And if it doesn't, does that not produce a bit of disconnect in things?

 

I'll just say that it DOES get a bit bad when side quests start feeling like books that aren't really in a series together: "Well... I mean, it IS a quest, and it's set in the same world... I wouldn't really call it a sequel, though. It doesn't really have anything directly to do with anything else here. But it's technically (insert game name here) content."

 

I just ask, why NOT have a connection to the main story? Even if it just changes a tiny, tiny factor, why NOT have some effect carry over into the adjacent content? Why isolate something to the point of seeming pointlessness?

 

Local group of bandits raiding a small village? You don't HAVE to get rid of them. The story doesn't rely upon that small village's banditlessness. But, maybe if you DO stop them, that village can ship more of its local crop to the larger cities. Maybe some NPC from that village ends up being in a different location, later on, because they can now use the road again to travel. *shrug*. Why does it need to be forcibly made SO isolated that it literally had nothing to do with the rest of the world and the narrative that's occurring within that world? I personally don't believe that it does, and I think having those ripples occur, as they would naturally, only helps the coherency of the overall experience.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Lephys