Editorial Warren Spector against tyranny of choices

[Volourn]

Of course I didn't play it through. I don't play games I hate to the end. I'm not as masochistic as others are.

 

[Andyman Messiah]

<b>Warren Spector</b>, the champion of morons, has done it again! You may remember him from such games as <b>Deus Ex II</b> and <b>Thief III</b>, adapted and produced for mentally challenged. Anyway, according to <a href=http://pc.ign.com/articles/502/502382p1.html>this article</a>, Spector gave a speech at <a href=http://www.gdconf.com>Game Developers Conference</a> about stories, open-endness, and choices. Since choices are the trademark of RPGs, I decided to post it here:

<blockquote>For Spector, open-endedness is not the be-all, end-all. As a story design widens out to a free-form system, he argues, the "emergent narrative" (story that's partially created by the player, rather than completely designed by the developer) ends up with a relative lack of direction and emotional resonance. There are fewer exciting, "holy crap" moments, since the narrative can't be designed as easily to flow towards those moments as effectively. <u>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.</u></blockquote>
Uh, how about the good ol' trial-and-error method? You do something, and see what happens. No? Too much mental work? Yeah, we understand, Warren. The tyranny of choices and the tyranny of fun gameplay have to be stopped.

Oh no... I have to take a big ponder to see where my true feelings for Warren Spector actually stands after this article. Thanks, Vault Dweller. Actually, this was what I least had expected him to do. Seeing as his previous games Deus Ex and System Shock where pretty nonlinear I can't help but wonder why he had this sudden change of heart? After Deus Ex 2? Oh come on, Warren. There's no need to show any solidarity with your co-workers. We both know DX2 sucks. Yes, Alex D is a wimp. Yes, we both let JC Denton kill him at first before we were forced to finish the game. :wink:

The tyranny of choices, is it? Hmm... I can't honestly think of something clever to say about it, other than that the tyranny of linear choices has to be stopped. Period.

 

[triCritical]

audience

Warren is actually right, if you take into account his new audience. It goes without saying that console games have been historically less complicated. Take the epitome of free-form on a console Vice City, and if you think of it there is only so much you can do. Aside from the extraordinarily linear quest and cumbersome saving, its all very repetitive.

I think Warren now speaks to the XBOX community, and not the PC community, where the Tyranny choices is actually welcomed. Hell even some of the most primitive games ever such as Might and Magic 2 offered many choices. So many choices, it never even told you what to do. So choices are nothing new to PC games, and no self-proclaimed guru is going to tell me that PC gamers don't want choices. And if he continues, just remind him how he reminds you of Romero more and more.

 

[Limorkil]

This whole discussion on non-linear versus linear really comes down to this argument:

"I see a lot of linear games with good stories but I do not see any non-linear games with good stories, therefore it is not possible to have non-linear games with good stories."

It's very similar to this argument, from around 1904:

"I see lots of people riding horses but I do not see anyone driving cars, therefore horses will always be better than cars."

I have heard the linear versus non-linear argument from Bioware and other game development studios for a while now, and what they are really saying is that non-linear requires more work but does not generate more revenue, except that they dress it up as an intellectual argument rather than a financial one.

Personally, I think a non-linear game with a good story and atmosphere is very easy to do, it's just that developers prefer to stick with tried and tested formulas. I mean, how else would you explain why almost every fantasy game has elves, dwarves and dragons in it? With non-linear games there is very little material to copy off, since all books are linear and almost all prior computer games are linear. Coming up with a good non-linear story and non-linear game mechanics is not something that anyone has any experience with, so no wonder people shy away from it. Even pen and paper RPGs tend to feature fairly linear stories, even though there is a certain degree of freedom surrounding tactics and plot development.

Pointing at Morrowind and Daggerfall as proof than non-linear games cannot have good stories is like pointing at a Ford Model-T and saying, "Yep, cars will suck for all eternity." Those games appealed to some because they had non-linear elements, although even a huge fan like me would not go as far as to say that the story was original, compelling or even non-linear (particularly in Morrowind). But the point is that just because Morrowind had poor story and shallow NPCs does not mean that a non-linear game cannot have those elements.

I believe that we are some way off having more than the occaisional rare non-linear gem to choose from. It might happen in the future when generating good graphics becomes easier and more mundane, so that games have to compete more on story or gameplay and developers will focus more on those elements. Right now I think the easiest way to have a good non-linear game would be to have a MMORPG that features a really good alliance/political system so that the non-linear elements are automatically generated via the machinations of the various factions. With the right framework surrounding the game the non-linear story will hopefully write itself.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

A non-linear game can have a good story, but usually developers believe that a story has to keep players on a leash for it to be good, or to draw players in. But therein lies the problem, because devs make the story revolve around the main character. Of course its going to need a tighter leash in that case. But you can easily set up a game where the story is a good one, but evolves on its own without needing players' constant input; where its up to the player to be involved in the story as he/she feels (thus giving players a more freeform structure to fool around with).

 

[DarkUnderlord]

In Fallout you can play the entire game without killing anybody. Did you know that?

Yeah, i know that. Although playing Fallout in such a way is incredibly dull and tedious.

Dull and tedious for YOU.

 

[psorcerer]

The thing about Fallout, was the story wasnt handed to you (like you're probably used to), you made it yourself. If you even bothered to finish the game, you'd know this from the ending slides..

What you made can not be called "story" (although if you like that kind of "stories" it maybe was good enough for you).

Need to get water chip->Do whatever you want, with your prize eye on the chip, do different things in the towns, etc. etc -> Get chip and return it, hear about the mutants. Destroy the mutant base and the master-> same as before, do whatever. Lots of stuff you dont even have to do, but you can like the Brotherhood->Blown up the base and the Master is destroyed-> Ending and outcome of all that you have done so far.

Yep, very good. So the story consists of: get the chip, destroy mutants, destroy Brotherhood, end game. Dull isn't it?

I can clearly say, psocerer, that you are probably the stupidest person i've met on this board so far. Volourn, I apologize for all my previous comments, this guy takes the cake

Now that's funny, thank you.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

The thing about Fallout, was the story wasnt handed to you (like you're probably used to), you made it yourself. If you even bothered to finish the game, you'd know this from the ending slides..

What you made can not be called "story" (although if you like that kind of "stories" it maybe was good enough for you).

Why not? What exactly is it missing to be called "story"?

Need to get water chip->Do whatever you want, with your prize eye on the chip, do different things in the towns, etc. etc -> Get chip and return it, hear about the mutants. Destroy the mutant base and the master-> same as before, do whatever. Lots of stuff you dont even have to do, but you can like the Brotherhood->Blown up the base and the Master is destroyed-> Ending and outcome of all that you have done so far.

Yep, very good. So the story consists of: get the chip, destroy mutants, destroy Brotherhood, end game. Dull isn't it?

That's a summary of it, actually. Summarise any game to its few key moments and it makes them all sound rather dull. The story is the why you have to get a new water chip, why you have to destroy the Master and so on.

 

[Araanor]

The thing you'll have to realize is that your definition of story doesn't fit anyone else's. By insisting on an odd meaning you're stearing the discussion to something else.

 

[Balthus]

What you made can not be called "story" (although if you like that kind of "stories" it maybe was good enough for you).

It really boggles my mind what you would call "story". Care to enlighten us?

Oh, and anything other than story=history would be appreciated.

 

[psorcerer]

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.

I thik nobody can play a game that has more actions than just "shoot" and "use" without hints. But as far as I can see you don't like hints to be too obvious, nobody likes that. But the problem is that even in such a plain and straightforward game like Far Cry (recent example) there were places where hints were obvious to me and very confusing to other players and vice versa.

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.

See...all of these are too biased by one's way of thinking and imagination. You know what, I personally think that if somebody made a game exactly as you want even you won't play it.

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?

No problem. RPG aspect of a computer game is an aspect that makes a player experience as personalized as possible.

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.

Time trigger. So?

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've already told you what's my definition of story is, look in previous messages.

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.

But "your" RPGs are not trying to match that, judging from your words you want Fallout-based gameplay.

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

Yep, exactly, genre is a definition of existing. So if you say: "RPG games won't do that because it's not in the genre", you merely say: "genres are existing and RPGs should stick to genre" while it's exactly the opposite.

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?

I have no problem comparing any game to any game as long as they have some common game aspects.

 

[psorcerer]

That's a summary of it, actually. Summarise any game to its few key moments and it makes them all sound rather dull. The story is the why you have to get a new water chip, why you have to destroy the Master and so on.

Sorry, but these "why-s" are expressed through talking pillars, and I can't imagine talking pillar doing something besides standing and talking, so I can't immerse in this "story".

 

[Balthus]

I've already told you what's my definition of story is, look in previous messages.

OK, lets look at what you said about story shalll we?

Since when story = history?
I call "story" to anything in the world not affected by PC actions. Any event either happening in front of the PC eyes or which happened long before that and not because of PC actions is indeed a part of the "story".

So anything not affected by the Player is story, right? But wouldn't this mean, given a linear game, that this game would equal story? Afterall in a linear game you have no choice and thus cannot affect anything.

Err...I assume that PC by interacting with the game world changes it's story.

Now all of a sudden the PC is able to affect the story?

I call "story" to things that happen or already happened to the game world when PC is not present there.

So kinda like the background story, right?

If the game world "lives" which mean developes this so called "story" while player is not present - it's a good story. If the world consists of talking heads and pillars and nothing happens if it's not chosen by player - it's a bad story.

Now you're talking about the presentation about your mysterious story.

See, the storytelling of a game can be seriously hampered by variety of choices just because you start to think that your avatar = you when a lot of choices are present, and your avatar failures become your failures, so instead of "it's sad" it gets to "it's frustrating", instead of compassion it becomes dullness and so on.

This part doesnt make any sense at all. Because there are coices you get immersed.
Immersion => PC's failure = your failure => Frustration. So immersion is a bad thing after all.I've got to say I don't understand you or your "definition" of story, so I must ask you again to explain what story means to you.

 

[psorcerer]

So anything not affected by the Player is story, right? But wouldn't this mean, given a linear game, that this game would equal story? Afterall in a linear game you have no choice and thus cannot affect anything.

For some extent yes, totally linear adventure game = pure story.

Now all of a sudden the PC is able to affect the story?

I'll give you an example: ornge is orange, but if you "affect" it, for example smashing it on the floor, can it be still called orange?

So kinda like the background story, right?

Nope, it's kinda like everything that's happening while PC is/was not here.

This part doesnt make any sense at all. Because there are coices you get immersed.
Immersion => PC's failure = your failure => Frustration. So immersion is a bad thing after all.I've got to say I don't understand you or your "definition" of story, so I must ask you again to explain what story means to you.

Immersion is a good thing. When it's immersing in someone else's story.

 

[Elwro]

So, SimCity has the best story ever.

 

[Balthus]

For some extent yes, totally linear adventure game = pure story.

Actually what I wanted to demonstrate was that your definition of story was faulty because you said what story isn't or rather said anything not affected by PC is story. But there are a lot of things in a game that is neither story nor affect-able by the PC.

I'll give you an example: ornge is orange, but if you "affect" it, for example smashing it on the floor, can it be still called orange?

I fail to see the relevancy as an orange is a clearly defined object while your concept of story still eludes me.

Nope, it's kinda like everything that's happening while PC is/was not here.

But there's more to story than this, for example the temporal sequence of the "things that happen/ed". Then there's also the fact that story can very well take its course even if the PC is present, so that this cannot be the whole mysterie of "story".

Immersion is a good thing. When it's immersing in someone else's story.

This would be okay if we'ld be talking about a book or movie, but this is about a computer game or interactive movie for others. There is no interactivity in following a sigular set path. I can enjoy and immerse in this while watching a movie or reading a book, but it takes me out of my immersion if I am unable to refuse a quest my character(the role in rpg) simply wouldn't do or if I can't kill an npc because the designer doesnt want me to do it. All of this happens in a truely linear game and is the true Immersion-killer.
You're also hitting the nail on the head when saying someone else's story, because this is just what shouldnt happen in an rpg. You play your own role, your own character and you should also write your own story. That's what an rpg is all about.

 

[Vault Dweller]

It really boggles my mind what you would call "story".

It really does. It literally boggles. Now I know what it feels like to communicate with an alien life form that doesn't use the same concepts as we do.

 

[psorcerer]

You play your own role, your own character and you should also write your own story. That's what an rpg is all about.

Here comes the question: your story or your character story?
Mutitude of choices makes you believe that the story is yours and not of your character.

 

[psorcerer]

It really does. It literally boggles. Now I know what it feels like to communicate with an alien life form that doesn't use the same concepts as we do.

blinks with his third eye

 

[Vault Dweller]

I thik nobody can play a game that has more actions than just "shoot" and "use" without hints.

And this assumption is based on what? On personal experience? Then a more appropriate way of putting it would be "I can't play complex games without hints".

But as far as I can see you don't like hints to be too obvious, nobody likes that.

I don't want hints at all. There are hint books and walkthroughs for those who need help.

But the problem is that even in such a plain and straightforward game like Far Cry (recent example) there were places where hints were obvious to me and very confusing to other players and vice versa.

Didn't play it, so can't comment.

You know what, I personally think that if somebody made a game exactly as you want even you won't play it.

And you know that because...? What's with all the empty statements and assumptions, btw?

No problem. RPG aspect of a computer game is an aspect that makes a player experience as personalized as possible.

Personalized? That sounds too vague, don't you think? By that definition, RTS, FPS, chess, and even pinball would fit in the RPG genre as well. Wanna try to narrow it down a bit?

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.

Time trigger. So?

So what? Does it really matter how that achieved? We were talking about examples of events taking place without PC actions. As you probably realize by now, all actions in games are programmed, so what's your point?

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.

But "your" RPGs are not trying to match that, judging from your words you want Fallout-based gameplay.

Only because Fallout did so many things right, and is a shiny example of what RPGs should be like. Technically I don't want Fallout-based gameplay, I want gameplay that is based on the same principles that were used in Fallout so elegantly.

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

Yep, exactly, genre is a definition of existing. So if you say: "RPG games won't do that because it's not in the genre", you merely say: "genres are existing and RPGs should stick to genre" while it's exactly the opposite.

What I'm saying is: genres define already existing things (design elemens, gameplay mechanics, etc), if somebody makes a game that doesn't fit the standards of the genre, then it either belongs to a different genre or to a completely new genre. So if somebody wants to make a great adventure game with an awesome story and throw in some stats for fun, that doesn't automatically make it an RPG.

 

[Balthus]

Here comes the question: your story or your character story?

Both, it's my character and and it's his story, thus it is -in a way- my story. If it would not be my story, it could impossibly be my character.

Mutitude of choices makes you believe that the story is yours and not of your character.

I would like to know how you came to that conclusion but anyhow, I disagree.
Of course the story you are living thru is not entirely yours, because as of now no game has unpredictable and emergent outcomes. Every outcome is effectivly perceived by the designer, even in a non-linear game, but it is still my story because I decided how it should shape up. I am therfore basically the co-author of the story and not merely a consumer.
Oh, and whats wrong with believing that it's my story?

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

It's rather obvious that psorcerer is one of those players who likes to have his hand held through the entire game. Yeah, whatever. *points to psorcerer and looks at the robotic ninjas bearing down* Look fellas! He's in way more need of a good whacking than I am! Sick 'im!

*breathes a sigh of relief to be finally rid of those pesky ninjas as he wanders off*

kthxbye

 

[DarkUnderlord]

That's a summary of it, actually. Summarise any game to its few key moments and it makes them all sound rather dull. The story is the why you have to get a new water chip, why you have to destroy the Master and so on.

Sorry, but these "why-s" are expressed through talking pillars, and I can't imagine talking pillar doing something besides standing and talking, so I can't immerse in this "story".

Actually, the original Fallout story is expressed through:
- The manual (mentions the water chip / vaults)
- Opening intro movies (TV ads in a ruined city / War... war never changes speech)
- Necropolis being invaded (it's what tells the PC the Mutants are the big bad)
- Holodisks
- AND talking to interesting characters (By the way, since when did ANY NPC in a game do anything other than stand and talk? Morrowind, Final Fantasy etc..).

If you can't immerse in a story just because you have to talk to several characters as well as everything else to get it, then buddy, you've got a problem.

 

[Voss]

I'll give you an example: ornge is orange, but if you "affect" it, for example smashing it on the floor, can it be still called orange?

I fail to see the relevancy as an orange is a clearly defined object while your concept of story still eludes me.

Actually this is the crux of the problem when talking to this guy, nicely summed up in a fairly stupid metaphor.

He apparently thinks that doing something to an object changes its fundamental nature, hence his confusion as to whether an orange smashed on the floor is still an orange. {for the record, it is. Its just smashed and spread about, but it remains an orange, and doesn't spontaneous become an apple or some other fruit, or even non-fruit}

Same thing with stories. He sees altering a story as making it something other than a story, rather than (as is obvious to everyone else) simply taking the story in a different direction.

You see, a story is still a story, no matter who is making the decisions. Whether its the player, the programmer, the writer, or a small dog named Kevin, its still remains a story.
Whether its a *good* story is a whole 'nother question, and depends more on the quality of the writing than a simple formula involving the number of potential choices.

And then theres is the question of if the good story is inside a good game...

Oh, and...

Mutitude of choices makes you believe that the story is yours and not of your character

Eh. No. The only thing a multide of choices makes me believe is that I have a lot of choices. The only story I think is mine is my life. Even stories I write are somewhat questionable... they could be considered my characters' stories, since they are the only place those characters exist.
As for whether or not a game is the character in the game's story, well, it depends on the story, really. If the character is directly involved, yes. If the character is just skirting the edges on the main story, then not necessarily. It depends on how it plays out, really. I mean, if you wanted to, you could consider the NWN original campaign as Aribeth's story as told from the point of view of a combat-trained porter.

 

[psorcerer]

He apparently thinks that doing something to an object changes its fundamental nature, hence his confusion as to whether an orange smashed on the floor is still an orange. {for the record, it is. Its just smashed and spread about, but it remains an orange, and doesn't spontaneous become an apple or some other fruit, or even non-fruit}

That's good, so it does remain orange. Good. Then why don't you eat it?
Are the book fanfics equally satisfying reading as the original book is?
(and for the jury: I've never told that smashed orange is not orange, I've just asked if it is)

Same thing with stories. He sees altering a story as making it something other than a story, rather than (as is obvious to everyone else) simply taking the story in a different direction.

It depends on the point of view. If we go by my definition of a story - by your actions you transform the story. It doesn't become something else but it can become "unedible" if you smash it too hard. That was a purpose of "orange comparison".

And then theres is the question of if the good story is inside a good game...

I'm not so narcistic to think that I can alter the story of somebody else to make it better.

P.S. Spector will make console game in Deus Ex universe - now THAT's funny!