Felipepepe's Videogame History Articles Thread

[GarfunkeL]

Vanilla WOW did have a General, zone-wide chat.

 

[felipepepe]

Yeah, I was misinformed. I've updated the Gamasutra article, but forgot to edit it here...

 

[Trashos]

Interesting piece, Felipe, and fun to read. On the other hand, I was hoping to see some hard data that proved that a quest compass in not necessary in order to appeal to the casual audience. And I didn't see any. If anything, the article reinforced what we already know: that casuals can't do without their quest compass.

 

[Arulan]

I got some replies on GAF if anyone is interested.

Speaking as someone who has brought up the subject a lot over there, there continues to exist an ignorance among some when it comes to the repercussions that a single design change can bring, or in other cases, what the default choice is. There also continues to exist this notion that getting lost, or that the player may become frustrated figuring out what to do next to be bad game design. There are a variety of opinions in the responses.

 

[felipepepe]

On the other hand, I was hoping to see some hard data that proved that a quest compass in not necessary in order to appeal to the casual audience. And I didn't see any. If anything, the article reinforced what we already know: that casuals can't do without their quest compass.

Yeah, but not much I can do there... the data only reinforces how casuals desperately want a quest compass, and if you check the comments on Gamasutra, you'll see that a lot of devs also love or are dependent on them...

Perhaps I could've add a huge rant on survival games like Day Z, Ark, H1Z1, etc, which doesn't use quest compass and enjoy huge mass appeal. But honestly, I never played a single one of those. :/

 

[Archibald]

There also continues to exist this notion that getting lost, or that the player may become frustrated figuring out what to do next to be bad game design.

Its not only about getting lost. Game design these days seams to be moving towards either reducing amount of the (or completely removing) "failure states" like getting lost, having shit character, not being able to press buttons fast enough for QTE and so on. Failure states are tolerated only in PvP games since it is received due to another human player and not the game itself.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

Other early open-world games of the time were also experimenting with the concept. In 1999...we had and Crazy Taxi, with its giant arrow pointing towards your next objective:

A small aside here, but one reason why the 'giant arrow in the sky' from Crazy Taxi didn't catch on was because Sega thought it was so great that they patented it and took others to court that tried to use the concept in other games.

So developers looked elsewhere for giving players directions, many of which eventually turned out to be better than a floating arrow.

 

[Joined on the 4th of July]

Other early open-world games of the time were also experimenting with the concept. In 1999...we had and Crazy Taxi, with its giant arrow pointing towards your next objective:

A small aside here, but one reason why the 'giant arrow in the sky' from Crazy Taxi didn't catch on was because Sega thought it was so great that they patented it and took others to court that tried to use the concept in other games.

So developers looked elsewhere for giving players directions, many of which eventually turned out to be better than a floating arrow.

Thank you Sega!

 

[felipepepe]

New one, this time on POLITICS IN GAMING!: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/Feli..._I_want_more_Politics_and_Economy_in_RPGs.php

Spoiler

Should politics be in games?

This odd but recurring controversy was covered extensively by Errant Signal, Cool Ghosts, Kotaku and others, usually following the line of thought that everything has political undertones - from Civilization's winning conditions to Sonic's eco-friendly tone - so there will always be implicit politics in games.

But I'm here to defend the inclusion of explicit politics, of actively debating issues that we face daily in our democratic coexistence. Especially in RPGs, where having an interesting setting that enables thoughtful choices is highly desirable.

And let me tell you, after playing +200 RPGs for my CRPG Book Project - most of which I simply BATTLE EVIL! or make color-coded binary choices - I am desperate for games with a better (or SOME!) sense of economics & politics.

Sadly, when people think about "Politics in Gaming", what comes into mind aren't open debates, but rather political messages ill-disguised as choices... which leads to this poorly articulated controversy.

Because propaganda usually sucks.

Fable III (2010)
Fable III does politics in the dumbest, most binary way.

By the end-game your kingdom will soon be attacked by Ancient Evil™, so you must raise money and build defenses. As King, you pick policies which result in more or less money and in literal Good & Evil points.

Here's one: Should children work at factories or go to school?

Wow, such nuances...

They even have a ridiculously evil-looking rich man going against a strong black woman, as to leave you no doubt to what they think is the right answer. Choosing otherwise means you're an asshole.

Furthermore, every single EVIL choice wields you money, while all the GOOD choices reduces your money. It doesn't matter that there's Ancient Evil™ coming to kill & destroy everything in a few months, Lionhead has decided that dead children inside a school are better than living ones working.

This isn't a moral choice, it's propaganda. And a very stupid propaganda, because it has no real-world value. What moral lessons should I learn here? Schools > Child Labor? MONEY = EVIL?

Fable III is a PEGI-16 / ESRB-M title, yet a 5-year-old child would feel patronized... let's see if we can find something better.

Ultima V: Warriors of Destiny (1988)
In Ultima V, Lord Blackthorn takes over Britannia and transforms the pseudo-religious Virtues into strict, draconian laws - such as "Thou shalt donate half thy income to charity, or thou shalt have no income" or "Thou shalt enforce the laws of virtue, or thou shalt die as a heretic."

Yet, Ultima V wasn't a game about marching to the castle and deposing the villain (which would be a guerrilla coup d'état, BTW - not that games ever explore that). Unlike 95% of games that thread this path, Blackthorn is not EVIL INCARNATE, but rather a confused, well-intended man, who thought "if the Virtues are so good, why not make them mandatory?"

Most importantly, a lot of people support that. Obviously. We see this everyday, from "a good criminal is a dead criminal" to "ban this ethnic group/religion/sexuality/speech!", there are many "good people" who wish for harsher punishment for "bad people" - often via a more acting, controlling government.

During the last year here in Brazil, for example, amidst a massive political and economical crisis there were those who thought the best course of action was a military intervention (aka coup) - like the one we had in 1964 and resulted in a military dictatorship which lasted 21 years:

You may think these people are stupid, but these are *real* people, who are out there living in the same world as we are. They aren't demons, mindless husks, zombies, terrorists, Nazis or whatever other tag magically transforms them into evil-people-you-can-shoot.

It's 2016, and Donald Trump is raising millions of votes, with his nomination for the general elections all but guaranteed. And on the other side, Hillary & Sanders are no less of an odd pair, representing very different world views. This is an unpredictable political & cultural event that eludes the world. If games want to be socially relevant, it's a great time to examine this, to question our morality and beliefs.

Sadly, Ultima V has a disappointing outcome - it reveals that Blackthorn and the rest of the world are under the influence of the Shadowlords - three Ancient Evil™ figures who stole the land's Love, Truth and Courage. Destroy them, and Blackthorn and the others will see the error of their ways.

This is a lazy, cheap cop-out. Any moral debate the game had became this:

There's no Ancient Evil™ behind any US candidate, neither of them will be defeated by the power of Love, and any shallow "Good vs. Evil" dichotomy will only serve to burry debate under a shallow, useless bickery.

Yet, Ultima V remains one of the most interesting "political" RPGs ever made. Not only it shows how good "virtues" can turn bad, but because - even if for a moment - it showed players "hey, some 'good' people approve this 'EVIL' government".

A novel idea in 1988, that now only showcases how politically stale RPGs have been in the past 28 years.

So, for a change, let's take a look at a game which does handle this masterfully:

Divinity: Dragon Commander (2013)
Dragon Commander is a unique RTS / Board Game / Political Simulator hybrid where you are a half-dragon emperor who leads armies into the field against Ancient Evil™ and also rules the kingdom.

While the RTS part is rather unfinished (sorry Larian), the game is incredibly interesting for its political debate. Your kingdom contains five races: Undead, Elves, Imps, Dwarf and Lizards. They assemble at a council, and regularly present policies for you to enforce or discard.

Far from the stupidity of Fable III, here each of the 60 policies presented are representative of real-world issues - Public Health Care, Gun Ownership, Piracy, Torture, Deporting Criminals, Press Freedom, Same-Sex Marriage and even Breastfeeding in Public:

These policies are argued for or against by the five council members. While each is rather archetypal, they aren't GOOD nor EVIL, just different; making points you often hear in real-world's debates.

I.e., should there be Government Healthcare?

• Elves demand it, for there's a huge income gap;
• Imps approve, for they are often injured;
• Lizards think it's good for the people (and will piss off Dwarves);
• Undead say nay, for that would interfere with the work of the Gods;
• Dwarves are outraged, for it would cost a fortune and "lead to laziness".

What do YOU think?

There's no GOOD OR EVIL choice here, no moral judgment from the developers. The consequences of your choice are nothing but logical - some factions will like you more, other dislike you more. Approving Public Healthcare makes the population happier, but also increases your expenses.

This isn't propaganda, there's no agenda being pushed here - it only presents a very real issue, show some contrasting views and ask you to reflect on that. Then deal with the consequences of your choice.

Here's an amusing video showcasing some of those choices and how players voted:


More than that, Larian actually released the Excel file on player votes!

• 75% of players were in favor of Public Health Care, but 51% rejected Conscription.
• 53% offered wage increase for workers, but 63% were against Unions.
• 62% belived people should be able to kill burglars, but only 42% would deport foreign criminals.
• 56% were in favor of same-sex couples, but 56% also chose to teach religion in schools.

This is the boiling pot of politics & ideas that developers should explore. These are questions that have no clear answer, that lead to interesting debates. That we have such a diverse audience yet still choose to address politics by color-coded GOOD & EVIL choices is nothing but shameful.

Sadly, when not awkwardly asking for "politics to be removed", gaming audiences (and many journalists) still praise "moral choices" like "PUNCH REPORTER - Y/N", "NUKE TOWN - Y/N" or "SAVE DROWNING KID - Y/N". Those aren't interesting choices - they aren't even interesting as evil choices, but rather "LOL, I'M AN ASSHOLE!" moments.

Finally, let's take a look into a game that not only presents interesting politics, but also combines them with economy in its world-building & questing - leading to one of the most interesting settings in RPGs:

Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura (2001)
Arcanum's world was a cookie-cutter Tolkien-ish realm. Elves in forests, Dwarfs in mines, Orcs in the wild, humans lock in power struggles, mages casting fireballs, knights in armor, etc...

Yet, instead of an Ancient Evil™, it got a steam engine.

Its creator, Gilbert Bates, didn't use it to create an army of steam-punk robots to take over the world or anything - he started an industrial revolution. And the developers went crazy figuring out how one of the biggest events in human history would change a fantasy world.

Plagued by roaming tribes of barbarian, Orcs and Lizards, Arcanum is a dangerous and large land, so mercenaries escorted trade caravans while mages offered safe teleportation at a high cost. The technological progress and creation of railroads have since put mercenaries out of work and undermined the Mage's influence - after all, who will study Fireball when any idiot can throw a grenade?

The revolution began in Tarant and was embraced by its King. But the rising bourgeoisie soon overthrew him and turned Tarant into a democracy, capital of the newly formed Unified Kingdom; The King of Cumbria rejected technology as blasphemy and saw his kingdom crumble economically, while the Kingdom of Arland embraced it and it's now petitioning to be a part of the UK - all these events are explored in interesting side-quests.

Racial relations also changed - Gnomes, the weakest race around, began investing in this new technology and found themselves enriching and rising in power... which upset other races and lead to one of the best side-quest in RPG history (and believe me, I've played A LOT of them) - the Gnome Conspiracy.

I won't spoil it here, just tease it a bit:

This is the kind of well-thought world-building you rarely see in RPGs. It's part of why so many games devolve into lazy "collect 10/10 fangs" or "kill 5/5 Orcs" bullshit - their settings are too shallow and stale.

Arcanum's setting has enough depth and verisimilitude to form what we call in R'lyehian marketing-speech "Macro Environment" - major external and uncontrollable factors that influence organizations:

This is vital for a living, interconnected world - otherwise quests, characters, factions, events and choices exist in a vacuum. Sadly, the only major external force in 95% of RPGs is the Ancient Evil™ du jour.

Dragon Age: Origins, for example, is full of lore and conflicts... but they are mostly stagnant and isolated. The Dwarven xenophobia, the Mages vs Templars, the City Elves's ostracization and even the goddamn Elves vs Werewolves drama have all been going for literal CENTURIES! (Yup, check the wiki)

And it's not even the Blight which change things, but rather THE PLAYER, this messianic figure that solves centuries-old conflicts by making color-coded choices and killing stuff. Compared to Arcanum,Dragon Age's folk have no agency - they are idiots standing around waiting for change to come.

But more than "just" an active, changing world, Arcanum's depth leads to unique moral dilemmas.

In our own Industrial Revolution we had people being employed under cruel work conditions, sleeping piled-up in factories, child labor and all that. In a Tolkien-ish world, we have labor cheaper & more efficient than human children: Orcs, as Saruman and Sauron can attest.

So here we have Bates' factories employing Orcs - taken from the wilds and offered a chance to join civilization. Yet, secluded in slums and overworked, they don't seem so happy with how that played out:

The screenshots don't give the full nuance of this conflict - Orcs are a savage race, which were raiding towns before being integrated into society. And all of Arcanum's enjoying the benefits of an Industrial era, but someone needs to work - cheaply - at the factories for that to happen...

(Compare this to how DA:O's city elves live in slums simply because RACISM!, which is EVIL!!!!11)

Oh, but you know which fantasy workforce is cheaper than Orcs? Zombies! Lo and behold, Arcanum has a family of necromancers whom "employs" undead dwarfs:

In an 1988 interview, author Isaac Asimov had this to say about the role of Science Fiction in the world:

"It [Science Fiction] works up an artificial society, one which doesn’t exist, or one that may possibly exist in the future, but not necessarily. And it portrays events against the background of this society in the hope that you will be able to see yourself in relation to the present society… That’s why I write science fiction — because it’s a way of writing fiction in a style that enables me to make points I can’t make otherwise." ​

Well, here's Arcanum doing just that, but with an artificial past & magical society that can't possibly exist - what some would call "Science Fantasy". And it ask questions that our society never had to answer, but say a lot about ourselves regardless. For example:

• If to this day humans still enslave humans, what would happen if we had an "inferior" race like the Orcs around? Would YOU enslave them? If not, would YOU pay them the same as a human worker?
  
• If we could raise the dead to do brute, mindless jobs, would YOU do it? What about the dead's family & religion? And what would happen with the now-unemployed living workers?
  
• Income inequality is a huge issue in our world - the old 99% vs 1% debacle. What if it span multiple races? What if the 1% were all Gnomes? What would YOU do?

You may look at these and think the "right" answers are obvious. If so, STOP.

This is the mindset that leads to people ignorantly asking devs to "remove politics from gaming" - because you're not adding politics, you're adding propaganda - a false Good and Evil dichotomy.

There's no "right" answer, that's the point - it's an exercise, a debate players should have with their own morality & beliefs. And (if your game is good), live with the consequences of their choices.

To illustrate, I'll leave you with one final statistic from Dragon Commander:

• 57% of players were in favor of holding open elections for president, but only 12% agreed to resign for said democratically elected president.

"For my friends, everything. For my enemies, nothing. For all others, the law".​

----

PS:There's nothing wrong in and of itself with propagandising or push forward a message - you do you.
Just don't be surprised when people push back.

And I'm pro-politics! Soon the journo clique will finally accept me! HAHAHAHA (Also included: Dragon Age is dumb and Arcanum is besttest RPG ever)

 

[Space Insect]

That was probably the most interesting of all of these imo. Maybe I should play Dragon Commander sometime...

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[pippin]

The problem is that often people who create fiction feel they have to create a world where their own beliefs are portrayed in a positive light, and often the solution to the world's problems.
Tolkien is actually guilty of this. While the elven world is dying, the reactionary powers of the nobles, magic/religion and the monarchy still won against meritocracy, industry and the common man, which was the opposite of what he was seeing in the real world. And since almost everything in fantasy is seen through Tolkien in one way or another, then you have this kind of naive people writing fake worlds with fake people.

 

[felipepepe]

Almost every book author does this, it's their story after all. Complaining about that is like complaining that Lovecraft was racist. IMHO, the real issue comes when the interactive media steps in and pretend to offer you choice, only to have a "right" answer.

It's like Tolkien asked:
- "Will you have Aragorn as King?"
- "No, we'll form a democracy".
- "Too bad, he's Aragorn, son of Arathorn, the only one that can rightfully rule over Gondor. Eru Ilúvatar attacks the realm and everyone dies".

It comes out as butthurt devs protecting their carefully constructed fan-fiction canon.

Which reminds me that I cut a huge chunk of text on how writers often write 10 billion years of lore not to make their settings deeper, but rather to have excuses for dumb power relations & isolated conflicts. Arcanum and Morrowind are so interesting because I can instantly imagine conflicts based on their macro environment & faction interplay.

DA:O, Skyrim and the likes have nothing like this... like, what's the College of Winterhold side on Skyrim's civil war? Game never mentions, it was too busy delving into isolated & irrelevant ancient lore with no real consequences whatsoever. Supposedly, they are an extremely powerful & old faction, yet you can remove them entirely from the game and not a single thing would be changed. They exist in a vacuum.

 

[animlboogy]

I got some replies on GAF if anyone is interested.

Speaking as someone who has brought up the subject a lot over there, there continues to exist an ignorance among some when it comes to the repercussions that a single design change can bring, or in other cases, what the default choice is. There also continues to exist this notion that getting lost, or that the player may become frustrated figuring out what to do next to be bad game design. There are a variety of opinions in the responses.

I don't think Stardew Valley is a particularly great example of game design or something, but this early post really cuts to the core of the issue.

It's a problem with RPGs, specifically. Too many games in this genre have trained people to play them like idiots. They're games for relaxation, slow drip pleasure, rather than adventuring simulators.

 

[Jaesun]

Ultima V

 

[GarfunkeL]

New one, this time on POLITICS IN GAMING!: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/Feli..._I_want_more_Politics_and_Economy_in_RPGs.php

Really good write-up, too bad you didn't even get any comments

 

[Ninjerk]

The last one got crickets, too, didn't it?

 

[felipepepe]

Nah, last one got 21 comments, and shout-outs on Matt Chat and Super Bunny Hop.

It always start slowly. The problem is that Gamasutra works oddly... they approved my submission today and made it Editor's Pick - but the article will only go to the front page & be tweeted (if that happens) tomorrow or even later.

Honestly, I get most of my audience from Reddit and NeoGAF reposts... but I'm banned there, so can't barge in to argue stupid things people say. :/

 

[vonAchdorf]

AC: Syndicate's depiction of child labour and its moral implications / dilemma was surely in the vein of Fable 3.

The Manichaeism and clear cut good / EVIL games present seem to fit well in a time where people appear to be morally quite absolute and don't really want to think about an opinion they consider wrong, unless it's some "neutral" option if you are too lazy to make up your mind.

 

[Neanderthal]

Damn that were a good read, from Ultima Vs moral absolutism to Arcanums verisimilitude, often said what devs need more on is ambiguity an subtlety cos right now they're more transparent than fuckin star trek. Good demonstration o decline an all.

Surprised you dint mention first Witcher though, wi bloke whos tryin to "save" world an is sure o his righteousness bein your major antagonist, fit right in.

 

[felipepepe]

The original article was huge, had bits on Morrowind, the lore thing I've mentioned above, an analysis on how micro & macro environment theory applies to RPGs...

Cut all that and still ended with a massive article few people will bother to read.

Apart from The Witcher stuff you mentioned, another interesting fact is how Arcanum's ANCIENT EVILtm is a fool's errand - not only the prophecy and all that are fake, but the developers basically use it as an excuse to get the player exploring this rich setting and its conflicts. Also, as a fuck you to most RPG's perfect, omniscient prophecies.


Best gaem ever.

 

[Ninjerk]

Best gaem ever.

Irenaeus

 

[Neanderthal]

Apart from The Witcher stuff you mentioned, another interesting fact is how Arcanum's ANCIENT EVILtm is a fool's errand - not only the prophecy and all that are fake, but the developers basically use it as an excuse to get the player exploring this rich setting and its conflicts. Also, as a fuck you to most RPG's perfect, omniscient prophecies.


Best gaem ever.

Aye an what made it better were foreshadowin, got so used to takin games at simple face value that I dint even think it weren't Arronax, yet clues were all over place. Few games that have surprised me, Arcanum fuckin shocked me.

 

[felipepepe]

The very fact that you are asked to statuate on breastfeeding and homosexual marriage in a strategy game (i.e. without having played it, I assume the country you rule is at war?) doesn't sound neutral or reasonable to me. On the contrary, it takes a special kind of extremist to ask everyone to sit down in the ruins of Berlin to have a 100% reasonable-and-neutral-I-swear debate on the merits of green socks over red socks as the Soviets are closing in.

Yet the 60's - the time of the Cold War, Cuba Missile Crisis, Kennedy's Assassination and Vietnam War - was the era of the counter-culture, civil rights movement, second-wave feminism, LGBT's Stonewall Riots, etc... All while people were paranoid about communism and kids had lessons on how to duck & cover to "escape" a Nuclear Bomb... such is human life man. Some would argue that's precisely because the world was ending that some civilians felt the need to join behind a flag besides "not dying", that make them feel useful and working towards a better world.

Also, it's a mostly tongue-in-cheek video game - some liberties are allowed. FFS, one of the policies is "should we ban violent video-games?" and he mentions Dragon Commander by name.

But yeah, I agree that pure neutrality is impossible. Some policies are presented in an odd way, and the Undead guy (a religious faction) is way too intolerant and extremist. Still, Dragon Commander is by far the most mature and neutral game to tackle political debate I've ever played. That earn it some points, especially next to the brain-dead competition.

 

[Arulan]

NeoGAF thread

As I said in the OP, I wouldn't mind reading the uncut version.