On Story in CRPG Design

[M. J. Young]

I followed a link earlier today to an article in Slate entitled http://slate.msn.com/id/2112744/?GT1=5987">Oughtta Stay Out of Pictures: Why video games shouldn't be like the movies.. Clive Thompson was complaining about modern CRPG design efforts to include extensive cut scene footage in the games.

He makes at least two cogent objections.

One is that the inclusion of such video footage interrupts the flow of gameplay. That is, you might be busily having a grand time stealing cars in Grand Theft Auto, and suddenly you're interrupted by a film which gives you the layout of the house. You're not playing for that time; you're watching. You're waiting for the movie to end so you can get back to the game, which is what you want to do.

The other is that such footage obfuscates the fact that any particular game is not really anything different from a lot of other games. He observes that there are a lot of first person shooters. You kill demons, or terrorists, or gangsters, because they captured your sister, or you work for the government, or the house is overrun by them--but in the end, these games are all functionally the same glossed to look different by changing the story reasons for what you're doing. This hides from the player the fact that he's played this game before in a different skin, and that the game company really doesn't have any good ideas for a really different video game.

My son Kyler thinks that this writer is just a hardcore gamist who wants to play the game and get rid of the story, and I'll admit that I had much the same feeling from the tone of the article. On the other hand, it could well be that this is a reaction to failed and even misguided efforts to create narrativist play in a computer game--I don't really see such footage as enabling players to be involved in story so much as creating context for the game action (not an entirely bad idea, until it tries to become theme, perhaps).

I'm interested in thoughts, particularly from those rare Forge participants who work on computer games, concerning this. Do these thoughts represent a faction among computer gamers, or the mainstream of the hobby? Do these cut scenes serve a real purpose in game play, or are they merely color? Is there a way to make the story matter in play without creating something overly linear?

Thanks for your thoughts.

--M. J. Young

[inky]

I don't play many graphical games myself, but there's a thread on grand text auto about this article which has some discussion on the topic from people more in the industry.

[Marco]

If you want to use GNS language (which I think is a mistake) GTA gives you more freedom to do GNS-type (for every CA) things than many human-run tabletop games. In fact, IMO, it's notably amazing on that score. I think this is a serious case of the guy having a certain opinon and a certian point of view and not much else.

-Marco

[shlo]

The gameplay in video game is far more limited than in any TTRPG. In video games there is no "generic systems" as in RPG. You define a rule set and some elements to interact with. If the game is about running, aiming and shooting things, then anything else is out of the gameplay's limits. Developers use to make some exceptions for very simple interactions like "use" and "talk", with predefined actions and speech, and sometimes more complexe interactions like driving. With so few abilities it's difficult to tell a story, to have a movie experience. The addition of movies sequences is the exit door to escape the gameplay constraints and do whatever you want in term of story, special effects, experience, showy and tutorial. Moreover it's a very good way to hit a larger audience. Oh and also, video games are railroaded and movies are a nice way to take the PC from A to B.

In the GTA example given previously, the cinematic certainly comes to give some information. Most of the time this kind of event is added after the designer has noticed during test sessions that the players didn't find the information by themselves.

It's an awful lot of work and limitations to do a game like Half Life (1 & 2) which has no movie nor cinematic, trying to tell the whole story from the same point of view. But imagining all games using the same (insane) technique is like imagining all the theater movies being like The Blair Witch Project: a severe genre restriction. And maybe you know that Half Life 1 & 2 took a VERY long time to achieve. If more in game movies means more games, then I'm okay with in game movies.


About the second objection, I would say that we have to separate the mechanic of gameplay from the story. Yes, many games would be similar with only the gameplay, as would be many TTRPG or theater movies with only their core elements -- and I'm afraid the core element of most TTRPG is fighting, as in video games. Because we, as animals, share the same instincts, we have the same basic pleasures, and a good gameplay is nothing more than the smallest thing that brings a basic pleasure (*). Then comes the production, whose task is to make this work unique. The in game movies are part of this production.

Last but not least, designing a new kind of gameplay is not only difficult but risky, because most of players prefer a well known gameplay, or a mix of well known gameplays -- like Battle Field 1942 or Half Life again -- wathever they say. Games are expensive and few players will give money to discover a new gameplay, as few player are giving money to try another TTRPG than AD&D.

Shlo.


(*) A list of "basic pleasures", by Marc LeBlanc:
http://www.jesperjuul.dk/ludologist/index.php?p=34

[contracycle]

Last but not least, designing a new kind of gameplay is not only difficult but risky, because most of players prefer a well known gameplay, or a mix of well known gameplays -- like Battle Field 1942 or Half Life again -- wathever they say. Games are expensive and few players will give money to discover a new gameplay, as few player are giving money to try another TTRPG than AD&D.

Well yes, but neither of these are good things.  And there are similarities, in that both computer games and RPG's are very difficult to assess from out side.  It is indeed a risk; I picked up the game Soldner the other day only to find that it has eliminated all traces of plot and/or story whatsoever - you spawn in map, take a mission so bland it would make Elite blush, and thats it.  It's not so much a game as merely an engine.

Therein, IMO, lies the majore failing of the computer games industry: the conviction that the only improvement is to do what has always been done, only better.  There seems to be very little thinking into the actual experience of play generally.  There is also almost no feedback, and so games are often necessarily bought blind, and the audiences dissatisfaction cannot be recognised.

We now have 3 or 4, maybe more, pefectly serviceable FPS engines.  And yet further development of the engine appear5s to be the only area of significant research.  This is actually arse-backwards - we should now be looking at GAME designs that use those engines, not considering the engine to be the game.

IMOthis is seen in the few occassions in which a game does pioneer an actual new game.  It immediately becomes the best thing since sliced bread and the model for a whole new genre of games that then do it by the numbers.

[shlo]

There seems to be very little thinking into the actual experience of play generally. There is also almost no feedback, and so games are often necessarily bought blind, and the audiences dissatisfaction cannot be recognised.

The audiences dissatisfaction can be recognised with sequels: it's easy to go on the forum devoted to the previous episode and to read magazines, and then pick up the main complaints in order to improve the next episode. Professionnals do this.

We now have 3 or 4, maybe more, pefectly serviceable FPS engines. And yet further development of the engine appears to be the only area of significant research.

Yes, this is especially true for the PC because the technical improvements are very frequent. Console games can focus more on gameplay when the console is old enough, like one year old. But competition leads the industry and the first thing seen is graphism, and better graphism frequently means improved engine.

This is actually arse-backwards - we should now be looking at GAME designs that use those engines, not considering the engine to be the game. IMO this is seen in the few occassions in which a game does pioneer an actual new game. It immediately becomes the best thing since sliced bread and the model for a whole new genre of games that then do it by the numbers.

True. But as I said this is very risky: many video game firms went in bankrupt in an attempt to do something different. A wise video game pioneer will first make mainstream games, to accumulate money and experience, then he'll try something new without risking his own life. The problem is: 10% of the game published take 90% of the market. Really. If your game isn't in those 10% you loose money, or you earn just enough to try a new mainstream game, and so on. After a while those who have games in those 10% DO try some new gameplays, each big company has its R&D department, but most of the time the audience never see it because the project is killed early, since doing something new and safe is so difficult.
When a new gameplay—or mix of gameplays— proves to be successful... well, for each successful pioneer there's a new gold rush.  All the game designers I know wish to be pioneers, but for that they need a strong company behind them, experience, talent and credibility. Also one must know that nowadays a successful game is made by dozens, undred of people, within one year, two or more, so it's almost impossible for a bunch of passionate designers to create a new game in their garage. There's a solution with MODs, Counter Strike was born like this, but as far as I know it is the only successful one.

[Wysardry]

I got the impression that the writer was not just complaining about movies interupting the gameplay and forcing passivity, but that they're also indicative of a linear storyline and lack of replayability. If the player truly had complete freedom to do whatever (s)he wanted, it would be almost impossible to provide movies to cover all situations.

Also, the time spent on creating these movies could have been used to make the game itself bigger, better or more detailed.

I'm not sure whether these thoughts represent a faction among computer gamers, as it depends on your definition of "faction", but I would say that they aren't shared by the "mainstream" as that generally means those under 25. Younger players are less likely to have experienced games without cut scene movies, and more likely to want to finish a game quickly so they can move on to the next.

Gamers that have playing experience on the older computer and console systems are more likely to share this view to some extent, and they aren't necessarily a minority. The problem is that most commercial game designers tend to cater to those who prefer eye candy to game depth, duration or freedom.

These cut scenes do serve a purpose of sorts: they indicate to the player that they have done something that is "right" and/or progresses the story.

It is possible to make the story matter in non-linear games, but only if the story is flexible enough and problems have multiple solutions. However, most games designers can't seem to come up with more than 3 (non-fatal) endings to a story.

It seems like the best hope for fans of longer and/or non-linear games is indie developers, but unfortunately a high percentage of their projects are never completed.

[Callan S.]

On the other hand, it could well be that this is a reaction to failed and even misguided efforts to create narrativist play in a computer game

I'm wondering if that's it. The story he mentions is about the protagonists sister and her relationship. You have absolutely no effect on this story. But he mentions that the ninja gaiden story scenes were done well. I haven't played ninja gaiden, but I wonder if the protagonist is far more tied up with the story presented (I'm guessing he is, since it's not a sandbox game. Most linear mission games I've played tie you into the story more). If so; Sure, you might not be able to choose what happens in those cut scenes...but you can choose to play harder because of events in them. It's a vague narrativist choice...how hard do I fight after the events shown?

[NN]

I think that Narrative CRPGS will develop out of Sim type games, rather first person action games.

[Callan S.]

Not really. Deus Ex continually pitched the 'Do I kill everybody, or take the difficult route and knock them out, which is more human.'. It encouraged it with the guards talking to each other and other things that made them human and not just blips.