A UK computer magazine (Edge) has published a series of specials looking at the state of the various computer / console platforms. In the PC edition, there's an article on the fetishism for "realism" amongst developers: it's specifically concerned with "realistic violence," i.e. damage modelling and "bloody" graphics, but branches into little sub-discussions of "emergent behaviour" from AI and physics modelling.

They go on to say that this sort of "realistic violence" appeals more to the casual gamer (lulled in by quick thrills) than the "hardcore," typified by online deathmatch gamers who turn down graphic thrills to maximize framerate...

You can guess what I'm thinking now, right?

They say "hardcore," I say "gamist." The pursuit of "realism" is ony rarely divorced from a perception that better physics modelling, or more detailed charcter modelling, makes for a de facto better game. Edge are struggling for a vocabulary to adapt to express this...

We're making it right here.

Time for another letter to a serious computer games magazine pointing out that PnP rpg's started engaging a problem some time ago that computer games analysts are only just becoming aware of...

Yeah I agree, I have been thinking more and more recently that the asnalysis prompted by RPG is indeed applivable to big chunks of non-RPG gaming. A friend of mine recently commmented that he enjpoyed GTA becuase of his discovery of "Cool! they did X, and then Y", i.e. they were actually allowing exploration of things one might desire to explore. Thats how I interpreted his remark anyway. I do think GNS can be applied to a much broader set of entretainment activities than just RPG, and I suspect the only reason RPG has received so much analysis is becuase of its self-authored nature which required consideration of these problems.

The main problem atm with attempting a wholesale application is the ditinct lack of Nar: it tends to be a distinct Gam vs Sim dichotomy, with honourable exceptions lurking around the corners of interactive fiction, etc.

Pete,

I think Narrativism is present in CRPGs, just less obviously. In my experience Planescape: Torment and Zone of the Enders both evidence a strong thematic bent, and immerse the player in the conflict over the theme. This, to me, is clearly Narrativist, and I know people who (while they can't explain why) enjoy these games because of their focus on themes.

Interaction doesn't seem to be correlated with a particular mode, so there's no reason a single player CRPG cannot achieve any mode quite efficiently, the only problem is that there is less expectation of some modes versus others.

-Mendel S.

IMO narratavism per se probably does not exist becuase there are few opportunities to author the story yourself. They are more akin to conventional media in which the artist is removed from the appreciation of the work; they can have theme, but not on that is player generated.

contracycle,

Perhaps I am confused on the subject, but themes do not need to be authored by the player to qualify as Narrativism, rather the themes merely need to be actively explored. In the games I mention player choices certainly have influence over the narrative, and the way these choices are developed accentuates the exploration of particular themes. This is how a CRPG can support Narrativism.

-Mendel S.

pete_darby wrote: Time for another letter to a serious computer games magazine pointing out that PnP rpg's started engaging a problem some time ago that computer games analysts are only just becoming aware of...

Just after a skim of these, most of which I've looked at before, I got a bit depressed that none of them really cover the central questions that the Forge attempts to answer:

1) Why do people play games? What is it about games that they enjoy?

(Actually, absence of this question in games design in general is kind of depressing)

2) Given that there are a number of answers to the first question, how can games be designed to satisfy these desires?

Nearly all the computer games analysis pages have the attitude that developing a theory of games is a dialogue between designers and academics, with the players being relegated to an annonymous mass of potential data points. It's like The Impossible Thing and illusionism taken to their ultimate extremes, with the designer taking the place of the GM.

The reason for that difference in computer game theory is that, no matter how much they'd like to add player creativity into the mix, it's extrememly difficult to program if not impossible. So, for the most part, they simply avoid the issue. They're aware of it, but it does little good to talk about trying to implement something that's technically impossible. So instead they wait until the technology improves to allow it before looking at the ramifications, and in the interrim focus on what they can improve.

Walt had some really good links to some articles which discussed the precise problem as it pertains to Interactive Fiction. Can anyone here speak more authoritatively on the subject? Marcus Pregent (he's in computer game design, IIRC)? Jared Sorensen or John Wick (both have been playtesters)?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: The reason for that difference in computer game theory is that, no matter how much they'd like to add player creativity into the mix, it's extrememly difficult to program if not impossible. So, for the most part, they simply avoid the issue. They're aware of it, but it does little good to talk about trying to implement something that's technically impossible. So instead they wait until the technology improves to allow it before looking at the ramifications, and in the interrim focus on what they can improve.