|
|
|
A Nintendo community by the fans!
|
|
|
∧ |
Forum main |
|
|
Let's talk about choice in videogames [roundtable]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10/19/10, 00:59 Edited: 10/19/10, 20:37
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oldmanwinter said:Go get Planescape Torment off of GoG. It's an absolutely fantastic crpg and does a much, much better job of implementing the types of moral choices you are talking about than Mass Effect, which I love but is very black and white.
Also Deus Ex is one of the best ever at this. I want to second your last point about Deus Ex. It's absolutely amazing to me that a game that came out 10 years ago still sets the standard for morality and choice in games. So many games that emphasize morality and choice do little beyond have those concepts function as really obvious toggles. Make "bad" choice, get "bad" powers. Make "good" choice get "good" bonus. Hell, inFamous, while fun, had the most insulting implementation of this system, where the game would pause and Cole would pontificate about how action X was EVIL and action Y was GOOD. Awful. Deus Ex did it right by making the choices almost all related to the gameplay and having them occur in real time. It's also not a completely black and white, good and evil kind of system. Why more games don't just rip it off exactly, I'll never know. Instead we get systems in which I can be a completely evil asshole, then go and donate a bunch of money to a church and become completely good in a matter of seconds. It's awful. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because it's probably really hard and time consuming to make a game with real choice. And gamers hate having to choose. They hate missing stuff, for the most part. Molyneaux always talks about how he had to cut all the consequence out of co-op Fable because testers HATED having other people fuck around with their world. (Even though might have just cut it for time constraints.)
Also, the more elaborate game presentation get, the more limiting it is to true freedom. People think Mass Effect is too restricted, and even that game has supposedly millions of dollars worth of content that most players will never see. Fallout 3 was supposed to have, like, 70 endings, and that got totally cut down. (Were they ever going to animate all of those endings?)
Warren Spector, at least, is devoted to choice, even in a Mickey Mouse game.
Anyway, I'm open to the idea of choice, but I'm usually just disappointed when devs half-ass it. While some people loved the 'freedom' of RDR, I was disappointed at how limited my possible interactions were, especially when interacting with small characters and passerby. The illusion was just broken over and over for me. I'd love to see a true world simulation that reacted to you in a believable, unpredictable way, but we're far away from that point. GTA did a good job of simulating chaos, though.
I think one of the most interesting examples of choice was Way of the Samurai, a short, replayable branching action game with TONS of possible endings. You really did create your own story. Adventure games can also focus on branching, since they don't have to worry about having much gameplay. Maniac Mansion had a certain amount of freedom. And Shadow of Destiny was a cool PS2 adventure game with tons of possible branch points. It was kind of a choose-your-own-adventure, but that's a viable path. And it's something games can do that movies and (non-choose-your-own-adventure) books can't.
Certain games that are purely mechanics-based, like River City Ransom and Shiren the Wanderer also give you a ton of choice and freedom in the gameplay, even though the story is fixed. That's probably a lot more important to me. I should feel in control and have some authority of SOME aspect of the experience. Otherwise, what's the point?
Ramble. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
∧ |
Forum main |
|
|