36 réponses à ce sujet

[Maugrim]

Article here

The differences in core philosophy shone right from the start of the panel, which opened with a short but complicated question: why does narrative matter in games?

Gaider answered first, saying, "I think the importance of narrative is to give the player a reason to care. Any game can offer you great-looking models and great-looking levels... It's giving the player a reason to care about the goals you're providing them in the game." He continued:

What it provides that regular media doesn't is the interactivity, right? You can have great stories in a film but it's the level, it's the part where the player is personally invested in their own character and their own story that can bring it up to the next level. There's a lot of talk about whether games are art, and no one seems to question that
about a movie or a book, but in games their element of interactivity lets the player be partly an author along with the game's creator and that's unusual, that's weird. And from an outsider perspective that doesn't add anything — that's why there's all this discussion, because they don't see the value for the person who's playing the game, how to them that elevates the story and makes the stakes much higher. I think that's what's important.

....

Continuing the theme of restriction, Gaider added that from the player perspective, all choice is an illusion. "The player never gets to do what they want, necessarily," he said, "They get to do what we let them." He continued:

And I think that's true for every game, so really it's all a matter of how well the illusion is maintained. We're setting up those little pieces of crumbs for them to follow, and it depends whether we're setting them in a straight line to lead them to something, or whether we put them in strategic pieces around the level, or we do what Fallout did and just fire the pieces out of a cannon. But it's all a matter of  maintaining that illusion from the player, of maintaining that buy-in... The difference between good games and bad games, or good narrative and bad narrative, is how good a liar the people that make the games are.

And Gaider described how player manipulation, the core of game design, can be done both well and poorly, concluding to laughter and applause:

Let's hurt the player! Let's hurt the player bad. And you want them to feel the pain, but you also want them to love the pain. So for me, it's a kind of contract with the player. They're letting me stab them, they asked me to, and I just want them to thank me afterward.

Thank you Mr. Gaider !  Curious to see others thoughts on the article and apoligies if it was already posted a quick look revealed nothing but I've missed things before.

[Maria Caliban]

An article on Kotaku I find informative and interesting? That's a nice change.

[Korusus]

Some heavy hitters there. David Gaider and Chris Avellone on the same stage together, that's pretty epic. Obsidian without a doubt has the best writing team in the industry after BioWare. But I do like Ken Levine's point about the gameworld telling a story, that's one disadvantage (of many) to a gameworld like DA2's...it has almost no story to tell, the story is handled almost exclusively through dialogue... I'm thinking of BioShock and Fallout 3 particularly here as far as gameworld telling a story. BioWare should experiment in that direction a little bit.

Modifié par Korusus, 09 avril 2012 - 10:52 .

[Sylvianus]

Continuing the theme of restriction, Gaider added that from the player perspective, all choice is an illusion. "The player never gets to do what they want, necessarily," he said, "They get to do what we let them."

XD.  Pretty much.

And I think that's true for every game, so really it's all a matter of how well the illusion is maintained.

I remember my first topic where I complained about DA2, absolutely shocked by that game, when I was a young padawan, innocent and naive.  The title : " Illusion of choice in DA2. " 

Yes, it is a matter of how well the illusion is maintained, because with DAO, I had no such issue.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 09 avril 2012 - 11:09 .

[Chiramu]

Mr Gaider is right. The job of the writers is to get the audience involved in the story, and to make us care about what's happening.

Hopefully they'll have either more time or more staff to help them write the script so that we don't have a repeat of DA2.

[Chromie]

Chiramu wrote...

Mr Gaider is right. The job of the writers is to get the audience involved in the story, and to make us care about what's happening.

Hopefully they'll have either more time or more staff to help them write the script so that we don't have a repeat of DA2.

And ME3.


Avellone, he is awesome.

Modifié par Skelter192, 10 avril 2012 - 04:01 .

[MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES]

Avellone's response, meanwhile, challenged the idea that the story a game designer can write matters at all. Instead, he explained, the systems that designers put into a game can let the player tell their own, more compelling story. He had found that perhaps the best role of a narrative designer was to "ultimately let the systems and the player's interaction with those actually create their own story."

CHRIS AVELLONE GETS IT.

[Brockololly]

MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES wrote...

Avellone's response, meanwhile, challenged the idea that the story a game designer can write matters at all. Instead, he explained, the systems that designers put into a game can let the player tell their own, more compelling story. He had found that perhaps the best role of a narrative designer was to "ultimately let the systems and the player's interaction with those actually create their own story."

CHRIS AVELLONE GETS IT.

Yup, that man understands RPGs. Not from that panel, but his answer to "What makes a good RPG?" in this interview from when New Vegas was about to come out sticks with me:

What, in your opinion, are the crucial elements for a good RPG these days?

Avellone:
The range of character development and customization, and reactivity to  that character choice and development within the game world. The more  you can do to bring story, world, and characters into the equation, the  better, but ultimately, players want to build the character they want,  customize their character, and then have the world respond appropriately through dialogue choices, ways to solve quests, or even NPC's reactions to your character's purple mohawk.

Freedom in creating and building your character and having the world and characters react to your character.

Modifié par Brockololly, 10 avril 2012 - 04:16 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

I agree on everything they said. I wish their ideas can be equally applied to a single RPG because everything they mentioned are important to me. However, David Gaider's comment is the one that surprise me. I never thought he would share that point of view considering his tendency to lead the player in straight line aka linear story ( whether the illusion of choice is maintained or not ). This tendency always bother me because not only it restricts me as co-author of the story along with the creator, it also the reason why set protagonist is required in the first place.

Anyway. it's nice to know he does understand that player want to personally invest in THEIR CHARACTER and THEIR OWN STORY.

And Gaider, do you really want stab me? Sure why not? Just make sure you write a character that I do care enough otherwise your stabbing would not hurt me a thing.

Just make sure you don't invade player character's terrority ( like personality and emotion )  too much this time.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 10 avril 2012 - 05:13 .

[eroeru]

Nice find! A truly good article.

[Malsumis]

Why oh why can't Avellone and Obs get Bio levels of development funding.

He understands.

[schalafi]

As I recall, Chris Avellone stated at one time that he hated romances in rpgs, and would completely eliminate them if he could. Look at the romances in NWN2, and Mask of the Betrayer. They were lame and barely visible. Maybe he's changed his mind, but I doubt it, and wouldn't want him to touch a Bioware game with that attitude

[Sylvius the Mad]

Kotaku wrote...

Continuing the theme of restriction, Gaider added that from the player perspective, all choice is an illusion. "The player never gets to do what they want, necessarily," he said, "They get to do what we let them." He continued:

And I think that's true for every game, so really it's all a matter of how well the illusion is maintained. We're setting up those little pieces of crumbs for them to follow, and it depends whether we're setting them in a straight line to lead them to something, or whether we put them in strategic pieces around the level, or we do what Fallout did and just fire the pieces out of a cannon. But it's all a matter of  maintaining that illusion from the player, of maintaining that buy-in... The difference between good games and bad games, or good narrative and bad narrative, is how good a liar the people that make the games are.

I take issue with David's choice of words, here.  What David's describing isn't player choice, it's player freedom.

Yes, the player can only have his character do what the game designers allow.  But that's not a question of choice.  That's a question of freedom.

Player choice has to do with actually making selections.  Does the player get to choose what it is his characte does?  In DAO the choice wasn't an illusion.  The player saw the available options and chose one.  That choice wasn't an illusion.  Nothing about that choice was illusory.

DA2, though, made the choice an illusion, by hiding the options from the player.  The paraprases, as implemented, prevented the player from knowing what the available alternatives were, so the player's selection could not reasonably be described as a wilfull choice.  The player didn't choose to have Hawke spew invective at slavers, because there was literally no way to know that the selected alternative would lead to that outcome.

No contestant on Let's Make A Deal ever chose the goat.  No, the contestant chose Door #3.  But that's not what he got - he got whatever prize was behind door #3.  The contestant knew this, but there's no way that one could reasonably claim that any contestant wilfully chose the prize he won, because he didn't know what the prizes were nor how to find them.

This is exactly how DA2's paraphases worked.  The player does not know what his options are and does not know how to select the option he wants.

That's what made the choice an illusion.  There was no choice.

When players ask for choices, they're not asking for freedom.  They're asking for choices.  As long as BioWare conflates the two, they're not going to be able to address the actual problem.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Kotaku wrote...

Continuing the theme of restriction, Gaider added that from the player perspective, all choice is an illusion. "The player never gets to do what they want, necessarily," he said, "They get to do what we let them." He continued:

And I think that's true for every game, so really it's all a matter of how well the illusion is maintained. We're setting up those little pieces of crumbs for them to follow, and it depends whether we're setting them in a straight line to lead them to something, or whether we put them in strategic pieces around the level, or we do what Fallout did and just fire the pieces out of a cannon. But it's all a matter of  maintaining that illusion from the player, of maintaining that buy-in... The difference between good games and bad games, or good narrative and bad narrative, is how good a liar the people that make the games are.

I take issue with David's choice of words, here.  What David's describing isn't player choice, it's player freedom.

Yes, the player can only have his character do what the game designers allow.  But that's not a question of choice.  That's a question of freedom.

Player choice has to do with actually making selections.  Does the player get to choose what it is his characte does?  In DAO the choice wasn't an illusion.  The player saw the available options and chose one.  That choice wasn't an illusion.  Nothing about that choice was illusory.

DA2, though, made the choice an illusion, by hiding the options from the player.  The paraprases, as implemented, prevented the player from knowing what the available alternatives were, so the player's selection could not reasonably be described as a wilfull choice.  The player didn't choose to have Hawke spew invective at slavers, because there was literally no way to know that the selected alternative would lead to that outcome.

No contestant on Let's Make A Deal ever chose the goat.  No, the contestant chose Door #3.  But that's not what he got - he got whatever prize was behind door #3.  The contestant knew this, but there's no way that one could reasonably claim that any contestant wilfully chose the prize he won, because he didn't know what the prizes were nor how to find them.

This is exactly how DA2's paraphases worked.  The player does not know what his options are and does not know how to select the option he wants.

That's what made the choice an illusion.  There was no choice.

When players ask for choices, they're not asking for freedom.  They're asking for choices.  As long as BioWare conflates the two, they're not going to be able to address the actual problem.

Which is the largest issue with paraphrasing as has been said time and time again. FO:NV gets it right, even though the PC isn't voiced you have plenty of options and know exactly what you're going to say in dialog to have the ability to shape your character and the world around you. (Do you help the stowaway in Goodsprings? Or do you help the powder gangers maybe leading up to working with them again further along?) That is choice, that is player agency.  I'm actually replaying FO:NV right now having picked up all the DLC's that I never played the first time around and it's night and day how much more this title involves the player in various quests outcomes, Avellone gets what makes a great RPG. Choice!

Gaider by all acounts and purposes puts his writting above everything else, he decides what the player does and how the story plays out. Player choice be damned, what do those sniveling RP's know anyway?  At least that's the impression I tend to get.

[schalafi]

Is there any way use a dialogue wheel without paraphrasing, but by putting literally what the pc will say when choosing one?

[Meris]

schalafi wrote...

Is there any way use a dialogue wheel without paraphrasing, but by putting literally what the pc will say when choosing one?

That would be my opinion.

I don't understand the relevance of calling 'illusion' on the choices. Sure you can't do everything you want - no one expects that from a CRPG, especially on focused on Narrative as opposed to System ie BioWare's -, that's why the devs provides different choices and then let you sort out why your character would choose A over B (and, hopefully, C, D... as well). Aligning consequences (preferably gameplay wise as well as storywise) to each decision (or set of decisions, if the case may be) only makes the choice less of a illusion.

I'm pretty sure that the ability to call upon your allies on Denerim's final battle was not a illusion, but nice display of gameplay storytelling.

And considering that BioWare's strenght is narrative, making branching storylines should be their way of exploiting that strenght in a effort to make the choice less of a illusion.

But of course, the more often BioWare refuses to make branching storylines and overrules import decisions then, yes, the choice will feel like a illusion.

Modifié par Meris, 10 avril 2012 - 07:56 .

[Korusus]

Meris wrote...

But of course, the more often BioWare refuses to make branching storylines and overrules import decisions then, yes, the choice will feel like a illusion.

I think the problem here is importing...I think it was an awesome new idea in the beginning and BioWare really pimped the idea a lot...but now that I've seen the actual implementation my opinion is:

#1) BioWare is completely insincere about implementing the choices/consequences properly (see Mass Effect 3 concerning a certain bug-like species)

#2) It's overrated.  So in DA2 you meet one dwarf instead of another...yay?  Why waste development resources if you aren't going to do it properly?  It makes no sense.

#3) It forces BioWare into these bizarre railroading decisions today so that games they develop in the future won't have as many important permutations.  That's insane, we're getting fewer choices and consequences in a game we have now on behalf of a game we won't have for several years down the road that may or may not choose to completely ignore those decisions anyway.

Say what you will about SW:TOR, but at least you get to see the consequences of your choices more or less immediately which is a nice change.

[_Arkayne_]

schalafi wrote...

Is there any way use a dialogue wheel without paraphrasing, but by putting literally what the pc will say when choosing one?

Deus Ex: HR did it. It gave a word to say what the tone was, and beside that showed exactly what you were going to say.
It worked really well.

[Meris]

There certainly isn't a easy answer to imports, but I do maintain that adding it and then deliberately overrulling them (especially for writing needs) does have a hand at making the choices feel like a 'illusion', if anything does.

[Sylvius the Mad]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Gaider by all acounts and purposes puts his writting above everything else, he decides what the player does and how the story plays out. Player choice be damned, what do those sniveling RP's know anyway?  At least that's the impression I tend to get.

David does primarily want to tell a specific story, yes, but I don't think that necessarily needs to render all choice illusory.

David's desire to advance a single narrative does necessarily limit the player's freedom, but this isn't a new featuer in BioWare's games.  They've been doing this for years.  There's nothing else to do in most of their games but follow the story.

But DA2's mistake was in not allowing the player to follow the story, and instead forcing the player to follow the story.  It's the difference between driving the bus the and riding on the bus.  You follow the same pre-defined route either way, but in one of them you're the one in control.

[eroeru]

^^ Very well put, Silvius the Mad.

[Ostagar2011]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I take issue with David's choice of words, here.  What David's describing isn't player choice, it's player freedom.

I agree with this especially (and to a lesser extent the paraphrasing point too, but that's a separate matter). The issue of whether you have choice depends on how strong the consequences are. If I am given the choice of killing the Rachni queen in Mass Effect 1 ... and she turn up anyway in ME3, then I have been given the illusion of choice. I would have had "real choice" if the Rachni queen were dead in ME3 and instead I faced another foe (or an empty chamber). The issue is as Weekes described it at PAX - if you want to do choices you have to exclude people from bits of content. If you plan for everyone to experience all content (or all content plus minus one meaningless line of dialog) then you have to do illusory choice. That is the direction that we've been seeing in all of the latest BioWare IP's, and that is something that they promised would change in DA3.

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

I've played games that work much better from a choice angle - New Vegas is a good example. Not only does it work in terms of the emergent, player-directed storytelling angle MCA loves so much, it also provides what Mr. Gaider would no doubt consider excellent "illusory choice" - i.e., among the options it gives you at every juncture, there is an option that fits the character you're playing and feels like a natural part of the game's story. This is not something we see in ME2, DA2, ME3, and so on.

[Meris]

Ostagar2011 wrote...

If you plan for everyone to experience all content (or all content plus minus one meaningless line of dialog) then you have to do illusory choice.

While its true that developers seem to hate the idea of not letting everything laid out for the player, it does seem like that writer from Mass Effect was attempting some sort of populist excuse not to do branching storylines.

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

Meris wrote...

Ostagar2011 wrote...

If you plan for everyone to experience all content (or all content plus minus one meaningless line of dialog) then you have to do illusory choice.

While its true that developers seem to hate the idea of not letting everything laid out for the player, it does seem like that writer from Mass Effect was attempting some sort of populist excuse not to do branching storylines.

I can sort of see why this is an element of their design philosophy from a purely abstract perspective - after all, they have extensive data that show that most people who finish their games play through their games once. On the other hand, I don't feel that is a case for a lack of branching content any more than I feel that the tendency of people not to re-read books is a reason for authors to avoid writing books that reward multiple readings.