Choice as a mean to force the player understand the situation
Re: Sigl
I think your original example was a better example to what you meant, while the second example was closer to what Tim meant. There are many functions to give the player a choice. One of them is to simply make the player pause and think about the situation.
In your original Titanic example, by giving the player the choice for Jack to save himself, you put the player in Jack's shoes. The player is given the environment to think, "If I were in that situation, I would do what Jack did and hope that I would somehow survive." The choice itself could be ficticious: If the player chooses to save Jack, Jack would counter that thought and explain that he would not live with that decision.
If the player chooses to let Jack die, Jack should still explain that that was the only way he would have it. It saves the player from wanting to reload and try the other option. Therefore I think your first example was a good use of choice, although it was not the situation that Tim concerns.
Your second example is the kind that Tim concerns, and I think that it does dilute the emotion as Tim suggested. By giving the player a choice like that, you run the risk of asking the player to experience emotion to asking the player to experience strategy. That choice was sort of ill-designed because if you ask the player to strategize to evade an emotional scene, you are screwing yourself over. If you want to save Jack you need to pair that path with another equally emotionally charged point of effect, so that both paths would lead to emotional scene.
🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉
Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
Does choice reduce meaning?
Author
Actually the first example was the kind of thing I was talking about. The problem with having Jack tell the player that he isn't going to do it is that this isn't a real choice, the player cannot affect the outcome of the situation. That being said, I think you might have hit on a solution. If the player were more removed from the main character, where the character was able to make its own choices, this could work. It would be something like the sims, where the player can make suggestions, but the character still makes the choice.
The second type of choice is a problem, because the player will always choose to "win" and ignore the story option. The solution is to make sure that all outcomes have equal value to the player.
Thanks for all the thought you guys have been putting into this, its produced some really interesting ideas.
The second type of choice is a problem, because the player will always choose to "win" and ignore the story option. The solution is to make sure that all outcomes have equal value to the player.
Thanks for all the thought you guys have been putting into this, its produced some really interesting ideas.
In reply to snake5, I still go with choice increases meaning... if it's managed effectively. When we watch a film we can become emotionally attached to characters, which is part of the pleasure. But we watch the characters do things we might not have done. The meaning (whatever that means lol) in films is finding believable reasons for their choices. The meaning comes from the illusion that they could've done things differently but not having done so.
Macbeth could have chosen not to murder Duncan (Duncan, ah cannae seeeee! Spuggie's nicked mah rorr-leh bleads etc... Byker Grove ftw). But the tension, the meaning comes from his choice and the consequences. If he never had the opportunity (so never had the choice) we'd never have been bothered anyway would we? Ach, now I'm confusing myself.
Um... But in a game quite often we take the place of the actor. So saying 'oh in a Titanic game Jack wouldn't do that' is ok for Jack-from-the-film... but in a game there's much less of 'Jack-from-the-film' and much more of 'First-Person-Player' (you n me) in the character representation (the Jack-like thing that moves at our command). In fact.. hmm.. the Jack-like thing that moves at our command. Before we've even made any 'plot-choice' we're already far more involved with 'Jack-the-avatar' than 'Jack-from-the-film'. We can't help but put ourselves in there? So our moral choices can be more flexible, because the film Jack is way too rigid a character for a game, unless the game is just a linear 'unlock the next level' style.
What I meant with the second example was it's a cleaner sort of moral choice (the save Jack/let Jack die felt a bit too contrived).
And anyway... what the heck does 'meaning' mean? lol
Macbeth could have chosen not to murder Duncan (Duncan, ah cannae seeeee! Spuggie's nicked mah rorr-leh bleads etc... Byker Grove ftw). But the tension, the meaning comes from his choice and the consequences. If he never had the opportunity (so never had the choice) we'd never have been bothered anyway would we? Ach, now I'm confusing myself.
Um... But in a game quite often we take the place of the actor. So saying 'oh in a Titanic game Jack wouldn't do that' is ok for Jack-from-the-film... but in a game there's much less of 'Jack-from-the-film' and much more of 'First-Person-Player' (you n me) in the character representation (the Jack-like thing that moves at our command). In fact.. hmm.. the Jack-like thing that moves at our command. Before we've even made any 'plot-choice' we're already far more involved with 'Jack-the-avatar' than 'Jack-from-the-film'. We can't help but put ourselves in there? So our moral choices can be more flexible, because the film Jack is way too rigid a character for a game, unless the game is just a linear 'unlock the next level' style.
What I meant with the second example was it's a cleaner sort of moral choice (the save Jack/let Jack die felt a bit too contrived).
And anyway... what the heck does 'meaning' mean? lol
Author
Hmm, by meaning I'm talking about the significance of the outcome of the decision. The ability to affect the lives of the characters. For example,Jack's decision to sacrifice himself to save Rose would have a lot of meaning in a film. His decision to have cereal for breakfast would not. Watching a character make these dicisions grabs the audiance's attention and can pack a real emotional punch.
Choice in the general sense does increase meaning, but by choice I mean the player having the choice instead of the character. I have always found that this ruins those moments, and I am trying to find a way to fix this.
By asking me to clarify meaning, I think you have helped me get closer to the root of the problem. If the player knows that the consequences of the decision are not permanant (because they could re-play the game and choose differently) then the significance of that decision is vastly reduced. Still can't figure out how to fix this, but at least I can see the issues better.
A possible solution would be to make each play-through totally unique, thereby making the consequences permanant. The problems with this are the ability to implement it and that the quality of the story would probably vary in quality each time.
Choice in the general sense does increase meaning, but by choice I mean the player having the choice instead of the character. I have always found that this ruins those moments, and I am trying to find a way to fix this.
By asking me to clarify meaning, I think you have helped me get closer to the root of the problem. If the player knows that the consequences of the decision are not permanant (because they could re-play the game and choose differently) then the significance of that decision is vastly reduced. Still can't figure out how to fix this, but at least I can see the issues better.
A possible solution would be to make each play-through totally unique, thereby making the consequences permanant. The problems with this are the ability to implement it and that the quality of the story would probably vary in quality each time.
Jack-from-the-film vs Jack-the-player-played-thus-far
Re: Sigl Cifr
In my explanation I was talking about letting Jack choose the choice that is coherent to who he was as shaped by the player. It was about implementing inertia in personality.
I have forgotten the plot in Titanic. Where did "agreeing to marry Whatsizchin" occur in the plot? Did it happen before or after the ship hit the ice?
Re: Sigl Cifr
In my explanation I was talking about letting Jack choose the choice that is coherent to who he was as shaped by the player. It was about implementing inertia in personality.
I have forgotten the plot in Titanic. Where did "agreeing to marry Whatsizchin" occur in the plot? Did it happen before or after the ship hit the ice?
Wai that is intesting - shaping a character through play and then letting them make decisions that are 'consistent'. Like having a character you'd spent weeks turning into a paragon of justice deciding that you can't shoot the peasants just coz you now want to do some hating. (You asked: Where did "agreeing to marry Whatsizchin" occur in the plot? I answer: I have no idea. Didn't he propose at some point? Maybe he'd have turned up with a thermal thingy suit for ol' Floppyhair and blackmailed her... the point doesn't change, you just have to find it. When you do let me know. Ta).
Maybe that's the answer to Tim's question - if you make characterisation a one way street (slyly or slowly done, to undermine constant reloads) then when it comes to the crunch... it isn't that the character has the choice, it's that you already chose.
u maed me maek a blog. it'll probably be the only post but it was too long for a forum. http://sigicifr.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/
Maybe that's the answer to Tim's question - if you make characterisation a one way street (slyly or slowly done, to undermine constant reloads) then when it comes to the crunch... it isn't that the character has the choice, it's that you already chose.
u maed me maek a blog. it'll probably be the only post but it was too long for a forum. http://sigicifr.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/
Re: Sigl Cifr
You write like a hurricane. You should post your conversation demo when you are done.
You write like a hurricane. You should post your conversation demo when you are done.
Quote: Original post by sunandshadow
But to some players including me, the perfect happy ending is the most desirable and thus the most interesting. (It's only interesting if you've done a good job of creating lovable characters though.)
I agree with you, you have to love the characters first. And a perfect ending so to say that is only achievable via very thorough gameplay is what many gamers (mostly RPG gamers) play for. Although I don't like going through the game a second time as much (I used to as a kid because I had an infinte amount of spare time on my hands)you should be encouraged to play through the game thoroughly once. And then perhaps twice for just bonus materials.
Author
Quote: Original post by Sigl Cifr
u maed me maek a blog. it'll probably be the only post but it was too long for a forum.
Sorry about that, if it helps, it was an interesting read. I was thinking about the part where you said that in most games the player only gets to choose from a small number of option in a limited number of places. That isn't true in games like sim city, where the player has massive influence over what happens in the game. Equally though, in a game like sim city, when you make a choice, if you later change your mind you can't go back and change it, each play through is unique. I think this is the key, any game where the player can easily re-play or reload to change the outcome of a choice will be simple enough that we can give those choices to NPCs or spread the choice over a period of time. Any game too complex to do this and it is complex enough that the player will not be able to get back to the exact situation again.
I think Tim brought up a great difference in perspective.
Re: Tim
Do you see what you said about Sim City as a solution? Or an analogy that exemplifies the problem? As a solution, you create value by letting the player define the character using a long history of decisions. The focus is in interacting with what the player has shaped so far. The player explores what the game offers not by starting over but by trying the possibilities on the existing game world.
For example, if it is a romance simulation, "having a walk along the beach" could be an option that is always present to the player. The player is not confronted with the decision at a particular moment on whether to bring the character for a walk, but a softer decision on whether or when to do it. The way to choose such decision is to bring the character to a place at a time. The basic operations (to move and to choose when to move) are always present. When the player learns about the possibility, the player needs not to "reload" to try it. The player only needs to schedule it.
Re: Tim
Do you see what you said about Sim City as a solution? Or an analogy that exemplifies the problem? As a solution, you create value by letting the player define the character using a long history of decisions. The focus is in interacting with what the player has shaped so far. The player explores what the game offers not by starting over but by trying the possibilities on the existing game world.
For example, if it is a romance simulation, "having a walk along the beach" could be an option that is always present to the player. The player is not confronted with the decision at a particular moment on whether to bring the character for a walk, but a softer decision on whether or when to do it. The way to choose such decision is to bring the character to a place at a time. The basic operations (to move and to choose when to move) are always present. When the player learns about the possibility, the player needs not to "reload" to try it. The player only needs to schedule it.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
