Editorial Warren Spector against tyranny of choices

[Jung]

I understand what Spector is saying. He is saying that it is too difficult for him to create a game that incorporates a story and choice. It's not impossible, and I point to the Gothics as good examples of games that offer both.

 

[Azael]

Gothic 2 at least (haven't played the first one) only offered choice in the periferials of the game as far as I could tell, the main quest was pretty damn linear.

 

[Volourn]

Apoligize? I offically label Llama has the stupid person on the board. I humbly apoligize for actually thinking Llama had intergity and brains. My mistake.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Or are you trying to tell me that you have inborn ability to know any cRPG game rules?

No, but I enjoy figuring them out. Unfortunately, as games get less and less complex, it takes no time at all. Honestly, being given hints ruin the immersion, at least for me.

Or are you playing only Fallout and Arcanum because in these ones you know what to do and you simply don't understand other games?

You got me. Just don't tell anyone.

Judging from your words it seems to me that you even remotely don't understand that every game designer puts a lot of clues in his/her games but in "good" designs you think of yourself as a smart guy and in "bad" - you think they try to make you moron.

Depends. If such a clue is a dialogue line that leads you somewhere and make you want to continue talking instead of attacking, then, yes. If it takes any equivalent of moron indicators (visual aid) that it's always a bad design.

Something that's good for you seem total lameness to me and right now it's the case.

Finally we agree on something

Nope, I just figured out that you access RPGs not in the same way I do. So if we want to discuss it more it's better to agree on basic terms, like why do you need genres.

Ok, let's play that game, define the RPG genre or concept or whatever and let's take it from there. Do you feel confident enough to go first?

It won't go this way. Becuase you see something in Fallout I missed or don't see so please explain yourself.

Alright, while you're taking your sweet time, the mutant army doesn't wait for you, and sooner then later they invade Necropolis killing everyone.

So I guessed right you think that story = history, like some global-scale description of game events. And do you say I'm not smart? :D

Story, history? I'm afraid to ask for your definition of story, so I'll ask for an actual example. Tell me if you can what is the story in KOTOR?

I seriously don't think I can change the way you think, but I can give you a different approach which is at least amusing, isn't it?

It is, I give you that.

I agree that it's complex, but it doesn't mean that you should reduce this complexity by making more and more borders: don't use this, because they use it in adventures, dont use that, because they use it in shooters and so on.

These are not restrictions, any game that specializes in one area, would do it better, ie. shooters would have better combat, adventure games better story, etc. If an RPG would try to match that, it would become more of an adventure game, and less of an RPG (BG2, KOTOR, etc), or more of an action game like Diablo 2 and Sacred.

I don't like genres at all.

A genre is merely a definition of already existing things. So, I guess that means you don't like RPGs since you sure are crazy about adventure games

If I need to compare two games I use "aspects of gameplay" genres = limitations.

Yeah, let's compare apples and oranges. Let's compare a game like Diablo 2 that focuses on one thing only: combat, to Fallout 2 that deals with combat, story, dialogues, role-playing, etc. Oh, wait, it's been already done. Was it a friend of yours?

And it seems to me that you think of genre like something superior to game when in fact game goes before genre and not after.

A genre, like I said, is a definition. It's very useful when you have to explain a person what RPGs are and what they aren't.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

@Exitium:

There are different types of warnings. You have BG as an example. You can keep track of what is happening in battle via the dialogue window, and the attack rolls. You have NPCs play an audio file complaining about the lack of effectiveness of their weapons, or of spell disruptance, or even of being near death. And you also have detailed descriptions of spells, and their uses. You also have things like game tips during loading sections. You also have weapons descriptions often indicating what they are more useful against.

Some of these i agree with, others not. Then again most of those have their own use. My idea in this matter is basically that, if your abilities are fairly well documented ingame, then there is rarely a point to giving players pointers on how to use them. Bringing down immunities or bypassing them is an example. Many people complained about the creaturs who could, in BG2/ToB, caste Immunity or Protection from Magical Weapons. Its amazing how most people would ask for help about that on a forum when they can either bring the protection down, or use non-magical weapons. Using non-magical weapons is something that the player himself can devise when looking at the situation. Its one of the things i believe to be ideal for these kinds of situations, because you weren't told to use them, you just reached the logical conclusion that using them was a valid way of fighting the problem. No hints, no FAQs, nothing, except a player using his own brain. Those that used it, anyway.

There's also an interesting method of ingame help which i remember from a console game (Castlevania: Nocturne in the Moonlight). Basically you had an encyclopedia of enemies, and general information regarding them. Weaknessess, resistances, HP, item drops, etc - but some things had to be found by the player. For instance, you would not get an enemy in the list if you had not actually confronted it (which lead to the typical whinning back in the day "OMFG I CATN FIND TEH MUDMAN!!"), and the list will only give out an enemy's item drop if you actually manage to have the enemy drop it. The good part of this is that in an eventual replay, you could refer to the old list from some other save to plan ahead.

But usually i tend to dislike being told what to do in a given situation. Its not just a problem with presentation, either. Being told of an enemy's weak point doesn't really attract me, but i can tolerate it, but I prefer to discover it myself. There's different methods of achieving this, no doubt. You have the example of Final Fantasies where there's usually some form of divining magic, which lists general attributes and resistances, but this to me feels like a cop out. Something about effortlessly being told of an enemy's weak point IN BIG LETTERS during a battle lessens my interest in it.

Another thing i dislike is having the already discussed method of telling players what exactly is up ahead, and how to operate it, specially puzzles. Aside making me question myself why do these people die if they knew the answer (and i also ask myself why they bother writing in the middle of a deathtrap dungeon), i wonder what is the point of a puzzle itself. If my analytical and logical capacity, and trial and error, determine my success when solving puzzles, then why am i being told what to do? Why bother with a puzzle, at all, if i'm given near explicit directions to solve it? Moron indicators, as it were. O'course there is no problem with subtle hints, or just laying out something which requires common sense to be used. You don't need ANSHIENT RUINZ telling the player that a cog and a lever might be used to have the machine nearby work.

I can name one game for the PC which does, though: Soldier of Fortune 2. The only way you could get through most of the maps was if you reloaded hundreds of times due to the abundance of 'hidden snipers' in locations that you wouldn't expect, who were 100% accurate in their shots and the only way to take them out was if you had played through the area before, several times. That game was simply too annoying to play.

This i agree with. The game suffered from this a bit.

It's nice to know that the worries people had about Far Cry possibly suffering from the same issue were quelled with the inclusion of a set of BINOCULARS within the game which help you to detect enemies and aid in creating a set course of action before you proceed into the fray. It's this sort of information that helps to provide a much smoother, more intelligent gaming experience. An intelligent gamer would certainly realize to use all the information (or methods of gaining information) at his disposal in order to ensure his survival, much like a soldier would in real life. It doesn't 'baby' the player, nor does it force you to reload over and over again.

Persactly.

Hmm...but you can not break the game rules, you're in preprogrammed computer game after all. My point was that instead of trying to understand the game world by learning the environment you do mindless trials. Mybe they're not mindless from your point of view but they're mindless from the game point if you get "an error".

I don't think i could disagree more with this. Its not really a point of it being mindless to me. If you're given a problem to solve, you try to do it. This doesn't even need to be a case of a random puzzle just for the hell of it, this can be adapting to a combat situation. If you try a tactic and fail, then you try to use another. Simple as that. If you fail, you retry. This is breaking the game's rules? By that logic, so is relaoding after dying.

There is a difference between trying to get the best result and doing endless reloads as a consequence, and using trial and error to analyze a given situation. Trial and error doesn't necessarily include a reload game action, and it might include other possible solutions and not just an optimal one.

In golf terms, reloading would be considered a mulligan. It's considered cheating and I don't think tournaments even allow them. Bill Clinton plays mulligans a lot, so nobody likes playing with him. It's just cheap, plain and simple. In a computer game, mulligans are typically used to 'get a better result', so to speak - like for the purpose of saving ammunition, or saving your health and armor. It gets really boring after awhile as it wears the game down to the pace of a slow, 50s movie which eventually gets so boring that you stop playing it altogether.

That's one thing. It's another thing when the game forces you to reload over and over because of poor design.

Well, there is a difference between reloading a game for the purpose of getting the best result and engaging in a trial and error situation.


Now i'm off to listen to a radio program featuring Saramago and the questioning of democracy.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

If it takes any equivalent of moron indicators (visual aid) that it's always a bad design.

Hmm... i disagree with this. It depends, like other things. A visual indicator of something may be required for a certain situation. Take a look at GTA3/VC. How do you know which person needs a cab ride? How do you know a certain thing is a target? If the minute you entered into a car, everyone got arrows over their heads, yes, that would qualify as a moron indicator. However this doesn't happen, and the visual aid is actually necessary.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I should have been more specific. I'm talking about RPGs, not action games. Sure, in action games that's part of the design, i.e. keys are fucking huge in shooters, RTS have shiny beacons, your example, etc. These things would be ridiculous in RPGs. Hopefully you'd agree with that.

 

[triCritical]

Spector does have a point insofar that total freedom makes a weak or non existent story--see Everquest.

And anarchy makes a bad form of government... Choices in playing style, timing quest and methodology in achieving quest should have no affect on a story. Just tell the truth Warren....

"It cost too fucking much to make a game that doesn't suck and is l33t at the same time!!!!!!"

The more the simple the game is the faster you can spit it out and turn a profit. Less time designing, programming and QAing. Fucking sad but true, but that is why just about all commercial CRPG's made today suck. I mean why make interesting combat in a Star Wars environment when you can work on lip syncing and animations instead? Why make an open ended game when you can work on detailed lame dialogue, coupled with pointless and out of place puzzles? Well there is a legitimate reason, because its easier, and the stupid people that buy the game don't know either way.

BTW, I am stupid, because I bought the aformentioned game.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Well it all depends on how well the RPG presents itself. If it presents itself in such a way that doing most things would require several reloads then yes, certain moron indicators would be necessary. In the case of Fallout, there weren't any moron indicators but your cursor would change depending on where you hovered it (e.g. a hole in the floor for you to climb into).

In the case of Vampire: Bloodlines, thare is going to be a certain degree of 'moron indicator-ism' for characters with high perception which allows them to see equippable items or 'usable' terrain. Generally, I'd disagree with this implementation as the Half Life 2 engine is certainly more than capable of physical destruction in a degree much greater than present games allow, so I see such moron indicators as a kind of setback to the engine's full capabilities. On the other hand, moron indicators of the sort don't exactly allow the gamer to think for himself and this is the kind of moron indicator that I despise. In the case of Far Cry, it's certainly useful to have a binoculars which you alone will decide when and where to use and it's simply provided to you as an aid to the gameplay rather than a straightforward guide.

Personally, I think Vampire: Bloodlines could do without those moron indicators which guide you by the hand and implement something towards the likes of Far Cry's binoculars instead, which allows you to detect enemies on your radar once you have spotted them in your binoculars with the heat sensors. If, for instance, you didn't detect an enemy not visible to the binoculars (e.g. one hiding behind an obstruction) you would just as easily be ambushed, if you rely on your radar too much instead of your sight and hearing.

 

[triCritical]

Reading the all the post, it seems logical to arrive at the conclusion that a lot of things brought Morrowind down. While I easily played it for at least over 100 hours I can say I got my money's worth and in that sense I really can't dog it. Especially since there are other critically acclaimed games that I tried so hard to complete but could not subject myself to the pain -> KotOR!

Anyhow my main problem with Morrowind is that none of it real, its all just a giant facade with no real depth. Your actions don't seem to make your characters grow, the NPC's all seem samey and fake, and in the end the quest all become very boring. I think randomness would have helped MW alot, as well as more correlation between the your characters action and the world around. Build a better dialogue engine, and I would even forgive the combat. No problems with Morrowinds story, I thought it was one of the stronger parts of the game. Only wish I did not have to subject to myself the same ol' boring quest everytime I played a new character that wanted to follow the story line.

Problem is everyt ime I kncoked him out he'd be hostile twoards me forveer si I'd always be in combat mode on thats reen. otehrwsie, the non lethal damage was a nice pnp rule rule addition to the game..

No wonder you have so many fucking post! Slow down racerX!

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

*glares menacingly around, wielding a sharp pointy stick* Alright! Next one of you mofos that disses Daggerfall gets this up their ASS!

But seriously, Spector is a putz.

kthxbye

 

[Vault Dweller]

Otaku! I knew you'd come and kick the infidels' asses! The short-sighted morons failed to appreciate the beauty that was Daggerfall! Show them no mercy! :twisted:

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I should have been more specific. I'm talking about RPGs, not action games. Sure, in action games that's part of the design, i.e. keys are fucking huge in shooters, RTS have shiny beacons, your example, etc. These things would be ridiculous in RPGs. Hopefully you'd agree with that.

Yes. Sort of. Probably. I'm saying this because...

In the case of Vampire: Bloodlines, thare is going to be a certain degree of 'moron indicator-ism' for characters with high perception which allows them to see equippable items or 'usable' terrain. Generally, I'd disagree with this implementation as the Half Life 2 engine is certainly more than capable of physical destruction in a degree much greater than present games allow, so I see such moron indicators as a kind of setback to the engine's full capabilities. On the other hand, moron indicators of the sort don't exactly allow the gamer to think for himself and this is the kind of moron indicator that I despise. In the case of Far Cry, it's certainly useful to have a binoculars which you alone will decide when and where to use and it's simply provided to you as an aid to the gameplay rather than a straightforward guide.

I think a measure of these so-called moron indicators might still prove useful. I'd have to consider if a moron indicator is just a visible thing. This probably might put Dave off, if he still reads what we type, but NWN included moron indicators in the form of telling the player what stat was determining the extra dialogue options (like Insight for Wisdom, etc). I really disliked this. But again, i'm not in favour of mainstream gameplay and elements, so that might be why. I'd much prefer the feeling of awe and discovery i got from playing Fallout and getting new options because i had a differently set-up character, without being told in coloured letters what i did to get that.

And while i agree with VD and Ex on the above, i still believe visual displays can be included in a CRPG without becoming moron indicators. It depends on use really. A visual indication doesn't need to become a flashy sign telling me what to do repetitively and in an annoying way. Torment displayed character damage by using a different avatar of the characters to reflect damage. It also gave players the choice of using a coloured bar to represent character HP. On the other hand, BG used the method of coloring character portraits with a red tint to indicate damage. These aren't big flashy nonsensical things, they're just different ways of representing old conventions.

 

[Anonymous]

In the case of Vampire: Bloodlines, thare is going to be a certain degree of 'moron indicator-ism' for characters with high perception which allows them to see equippable items or 'usable' terrain. Generally, I'd disagree with this implementation as the Half Life 2 engine is certainly more than capable of physical destruction in a degree much greater than present games allow, so I see such moron indicators as a kind of setback to the engine's full capabilities. On the other hand, moron indicators of the sort don't exactly allow the gamer to think for himself and this is the kind of moron indicator that I despise. In the case of Far Cry, it's certainly useful to have a binoculars which you alone will decide when and where to use and it's simply provided to you as an aid to the gameplay rather than a straightforward guide.

Personally, I think Vampire: Bloodlines could do without those moron indicators which guide you by the hand

Ehhhh, I wouldnt really call them 'guide by the hand' moron indicators.. they are for people with maxed out Perception, so infact this would be some sort of roleplaying addition. I.E. you notice things alot easier than someone that didnt have good perception. Like that board on the fence, to most it'd just seem like another board and they wouldnt pay too much attention, but your super perceptive guy catches it out of the corner of his eye, and uses it to plan his sneak attack. It's first person too, so it makes a bit more sense.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Hey, I'm out of the loop for a week and everyone starts ragging on Daggerfall? Damn straight I'm gonna whoop their asses back in shape! :twisted:

While it may not have had the greatest story EVAH, it still had a decent plot to it and plenty of open endedness. For it's time, the game was a masterpiece despite the flaws. I still hold it high on a pedastal to this day as a shining example of what makes games FUN. Simple as that. BUT.... let us not forget Darklands either. I hold it on the same pedestal as Daggerfall. Both those games rock, even to this day. That's a testament there if I ever saw one.

kthxbye

 

[Anonymous]

I dunno, Daggerfall is pretty Diablo 2-ish.

Random, repetitive and losing it's charm quickly.

 

[Psilon]

I disagree. In fact, it and the Avernum trilogy are actually the only RPGs I have installed right now. It's so nice that DosBox can run Daggerfall now...

 

[Volourn]

Please. DF had nor eal descernible story. It was utter fluff. In all the times we've argued about DF Otaku you have *never* (IIRC) mentioned how wodnerful the npcs are, writing, or quests. You always go on, and on, and on about how much "freedom" one has to explore the same crap and different poo (ie. random dungeons :twisted: ).

Tri, yeah, I know I should; but oh well.

 

[Shevek]

Fallout didn't have a story? That's...interesting. Tell us more, please, tell us how you arrived to that conclusion. Surely you wouldn't have any problems presenting and defending your point of view?

Arrived? Very simple: played Fallout. No story detected. At least something better tahn Morrowind not detected, at all. Simple logic between NPCs, no relationship, no chemistry. Boring.

Wow, thats wierd. I always felt the story and characterization in FO was leagues above and beyond what I had ever seen in most rpgs (and have seen since). The quests were excellent and I generally felt driven not only to complete them for experience or treasure but simply to see what would happen and how it would affect the game world. As for chemistry between characters, the only rpgs that Ive seen really attempt npc-npc interaction have been Bio games (Kotor/the BG series) and even there the interactions were either extremely basic (they fight sometimes and maybe trade a snide comment or two in odd moments) or generally annoying (and often both). If the future of npc characterization in rpgs is bickering npcs and teenage romance, count me out.

As for the free-form/linear debate here, I think its ludicrous to say that a rpg need present the player with a clearly defined/deep narrative. Some great games like Daggerfall, SunDog and their ilk can provide immersive and involving play experiences without hitting the player over the head with strict linear stoirytelling like that found in games such as PS:T. This is not to say that strict linear storytelling is bad or flawed - hey, Ive played and enjoyed games from the adventure genre which are as linear and story driven as they come. However, to claim that a rpg must be story driven is utter rubbish IMHO.

 

[Psilon]

Volourn, complaining about the Daggerfall NPCs is like complaining about the town guards in Avernum, junkies in New Reno, or "Commoners" in the BG series. Of course randomly generated characters aren't going to have much to say.

On the other hand, the NPCs that are unique (Morgiah, Elysana, Lysandus, et al.) have a hell of a lot more background and direct plot effect than, say, Jan Jansen.

 

[Sol Invictus]

If you want a real RPG I would recommend playing Ultima VII, both the original and the expansion. Now there's an old school RPG worth talking about.

 

[Rosh]

Meanwhile, the "tyranny of choice," as he puts it, can threaten to make the player freeze up because they're simply given too many options for things to do and places to go. The player doesn't know the particular rules are of the game--what he or she can get away with, what the long-term repercussions are of "bad" behavior, and the rewards of "good" behavior.

Just great. Everything Richard Garriot and those who have worked at Origin envisioned and succeeded with, apparently Spector forgot it or just didn't get it to begin with. Then, of course, I really don't have to point out Ultima, which broke the mold of "be a good guy, kill the bad guy" bullshit that was stagnating the genre (and I have a feeling I'm one of few old enough to remember thhis). Spector keeps going on about problems that only exist when they are taken to an extreme, like Morowind or Daggerfall. Those in their own right are good for those who enjoy that sort of thing. However, as CRPGs, they tend to miss a bit on the interaction part of it, and a good part in the immersiveness, as the scale is just cloned many times. Morrowind can only be used as such an example ONLY if you take into account that they pretty much made the world by a random generator.

Is the implementation wonky? Without a collossal team, and oen good enoough at it, it surely is. The presentaton of the world was half ass, which in turn reflected upon the presentation of the freedom of choices. It still has little to do about choosing viable options in the CRPG methods from any game from Baldur's Gate to Arcanum. In fact, I thought the book in Bates' table was a good touch. Steal/kill/nice guy options all taken care of by adding a book, which allows the player to decide how to play the character. It's often as simple as that.

Frankly, I think this whole interviw bit is to cover up for the questionable job on Deus Ex 2, and serves as a bad omen for Thief III and anything else Warren touches. Thief was a game that thrived by doing the "multiple ways of doing something" bit, which is now likely going to be dumbed down into "shoot the moss arrow onto the red x".

We could also look at it the other way. Minus the options to pick your path, you have to go through a story-heavy "game" where the character makes the decisions and you're there just for the ride. Hey, just like Final Fantasy and the hundreds of DOOM clones.

Does that sound appealing, either?

Fuck that, fuck you, good night.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Please. DF had nor eal descernible story. It was utter fluff. In all the times we've argued about DF Otaku you have *never* (IIRC) mentioned how wodnerful the npcs are, writing, or quests. You always go on, and on, and on about how much "freedom" one has to explore the same crap and different poo (ie. random dungeons :twisted: ).

Actually, I have mentioned the NPCs. Sure the villager and guards were filler and rather bland, but at least it added to the feel of there being people about wandering around and doing shit. But then you examine the main NPCs. Hell, ask the fluff NPCs about the main ones enough and you'll get a healthy amount of background on each of them as Psilon so kindly pointed out. The main quests were decently implemented and the writing, while not spelling or grammatically correct in spots, was actually quite extensive and well put together as far as story advancement goes.

Now, as far as freedom to explore the same crap goes, I never once said that. You have the freedom to go about things DIFFERENTLY everytime you play. Also, there is so much to do in that game and so many guilds you can join, that you'll never do it all in even four playings of the game. Every guild has quests specific to that guild, so even after playing it three or four times, you'll still run across stuff you didn't before. The game has serious replay value with four different endings and lots of different ways to go about things. The ONLY real problem I have with the game is the fact that once you get the final object, all you have to do is save the game and then reload it, giving the item to a different faction each time, to see the different endings. Minor though as that's all dependant on the player whether he wants to do that or not. I didn't. I played through four different times to see each ending. Hell, I've played the game countless times and didn't even activate the main quest but rather bounced around from town to town living whatever life I felt like living.

You didn't like the game. Big deal. Did you even play it through, or did you just get lost in the first dungeon and crap out? Once you learn the map system, the game isn't too hard. Plus, you can save anywhere, so it's not like your stuck doing some huge ass dungeon to completion. Besides, get yourself a mark and recall spell somehow, and dungeons are super easy at that point.

Ahhh....... Daggerfall. I think it's time to fire it up and play some more. Now if I could just rename all the fluff NPCs to Volourn just to spite him........... :twisted:

kthxbye

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Ahhh....... Daggerfall. I think it's time to fire it up and play some more. Now if I could just rename all the fluff NPCs to Volourn just to spite him........... :twisted:

You'd also have to add once in a while in their lines. An dthe ocasionall; stange puntorunination.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Dude! ROFL! You just totally put a vision in my head of playing DF and having ALL the fluff NPCs' heads being the smiley and a sign hanging around their neck saying "I r teh Volourn! Pheer me!"!

OMG...... that's kinda creepy even to think about. :shock:

kthxbye