Papy on 17/8/2009 at 05:43
Quote Posted by Chade
the whole idea of the immersive sim is that you are in this environment where you can make your own strategies, explore at your own pace and direction, etc ...
Obviously, we have a different definition of "immersive". To me, immersive means : not viewing the character I control and the world around it as a simple set of rules I must play with, but rather viewing the character as myself and the world as something "real" around me. It's when I have the feeling of being in the game instead of simply playing a game. Being able to do whatever I want doesn't necessarily make something immersive by itself. With several RPGs I had a lot of freedom, and yet I wouldn't qualify them as immersive.
Quote Posted by Chade
I like the selection of themes, characters, factions, etc ... Overall I prefer DX2 to DX in this regard. None of the characters are anywhere near as interesting as they could be, but this could be remedied without changing the overall story much. In general, I support the concepts behind each character, but find they haven't been fleshed out much.
Theme and factions (I hate that word when used in the context of a video game) are pretty much what I called the "setting". So yes, the setting had potential. But, to me, a story is not the description of a setting, it is first and foremost about characters, what happens to them, how they feel, what they do and how they change. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think characters in IW were not "fleshed out" on purpose. I'm guessing the designers wanted the player to be what the story was about. NPCs were not flesh out because the story was not about them.
Quote Posted by Chade
Player expression has always been a large part of DX. You are fooling yourself if you think it's not.
It depends on what you mean with "player expression". There is a difference between giving the player some room to allow him to be himself (to some extent) and allowing him to use the game in order to create his own story.
When it comes to "immersive sims", allowing the player to be himself is a good thing as it helps the player identify to his character, but allowing the player to use the game in order to create is own story is a bad idea as it makes the player some kind of puppet master.
Yakoob on 17/8/2009 at 07:58
Quote Posted by D'Juhn Keep
What a bizarre interlude. Kindly let the symmetry end it!
YOU FOOL! YOU FORGOT "WOULD YOU...!"
While we're at it: BIOSHOCK WAS BETTER THAN SYSTEM SHOCK 2!
*waits*
Pardoner on 17/8/2009 at 12:44
Sorry, what exactly were you waiting for? Were you aiming for another "And now you're dick ridin' him!"?
Quote:
But there was also less "hook" in the story. Blessing Sheldon Pacotti for his talents as a writer, the game wasn't really written for dialogue, it "spoke" like a novel.
Alexander Brandon's post was literally the most tolerable part of this article. Even though it wasn't actually part of the article. But it's interesting to see how different his perspective was on the narrative vs. player expression debate that has been I.W.'s only legacy.
gunsmoke on 18/8/2009 at 15:11
Quote Posted by Papy
One thing I wanted to have in IW was a portable light I could attach to a wall
What, you're too good for flares?
Chade on 18/8/2009 at 21:45
Quote Posted by Papy
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think characters in IW were not "fleshed out" on purpose. I'm guessing the designers wanted the player to be what the story was about. NPCs were not flesh out because the story was not about them.
That sounds a bit fishy to me (IMO fleshing out the npc's would give more meaning to the player's interactions with them, helping the player roleplay), but who knows ...
Quote Posted by Papy
To me, immersive means : not viewing the character I control and the world around it as a simple set of rules I must play with, but rather viewing the character as myself and the world as something "real" around me ... With several RPGs I had a lot of freedom, and yet I wouldn't qualify them as immersive.
No, rpg's are often not immersive, and there are a whole bunch of reasons for that. But being able to take ownership of your actions is not one of them. Which leads me to ...
Quote Posted by Papy
When it comes to "immersive sims", allowing the player to be himself is a good thing as it helps the player identify to his character, but allowing the player to use the game in order to create is own story is a bad idea as it makes the player some kind of puppet master.
I'm not sure how you are differentiating between allowing the player to "be himself" and allowing the player to "create his own story". It's the same concept. The issue you seem to be worried about, making the player feel like "some kind of puppet master", seems to be more about distancing the player emotionally from the action on screen, rather then about how much control the player has.
Papy on 18/8/2009 at 23:37
Quote Posted by gunsmoke
What, you're too good for flares?
Snarky comments are always fun, but they are also dangerous as they might show to the world that you don't have a clue about what you are discussing. Flares last for about 10 seconds and they don't cast shadows.
Quote Posted by Chade
That sounds a bit fishy to me
Maybe, but it's either that or the writers of IW had about as much talent as a bunch of not very bright 12 years old. Ok, there's also the possibility they kept characters at the simplistic level to make sure an 8 years old playing the game could get it... but that would be seriously idiotic considering the game was rated 17+. Apart from those, can you think of other explanations for characters being so ridiculous?
Quote Posted by Chade
I'm not sure how you are differentiating between allowing the player to "be himself" and allowing the player to "create his own story".
The difference is how you design the game world. If you start with creating a believable world and then try to think in advance of the several ways a player might respond to this world, then you are allowing the player to be himself. If you begin with thinking about what a player could want to do in a video game and then try to create a world which allows whatever the player might feel like, then you are allowing him to create his own story. In other words, it's about who is adapting to who. It is about whether the player has to be conscious of the world around him and has to choose what to do depending on the situation, or if he can be confident that he can do whatever he feels like because the world will never hinder his desires and imagination. It is about who's the subject of the game : is it the world or the player? The first is a competitive game, the second is what I call a Barbie game or a toy.
rachel on 19/8/2009 at 09:12
The bad thing about doing whatever you want in IW is that NOBODY FUCKING CARES. The "friendly" factions are mindless entities that will kiss your ass all along until the last level, no matter the amount of shit you throw at them. Why bother?
I'm all for free roam but there should be consequences.
Chade on 19/8/2009 at 21:58
Quote Posted by Papy
Apart from those, can you think of other explanations for characters being so ridiculous?
You can say that about a lot of the elements in IW though. It was obviously a pretty fucked up development process, so I don't know if you can conclude that the poorly developed characters were deliberate. But if we're looking for explanations, I would say lack of contact is a pretty good explanation. I'm pretty sure, just of the top of my head, that you had a lot less contact with the characters in IW then you had in DX.
Quote Posted by Papy
If you begin with thinking about what a player could want to do in a video game and then try to create a world which allows whatever the player might feel like, then you are allowing him to create his own story.
This is what thief and deus ex have been trying to do all along, using highly connected mechanics.
Quote Posted by Randy Smith and Harvey Smith
What do you hope for emergence to contribute to your game?
Deus Ex = Empower many emergent solutions
Thief = Creating the occasional sublimely tense moment of emergent challenge
GTA3 = Simulate a dynamic, responsive, living world; Enable emergent mayhem
All three =
Authoring your own experience (emergent narrative)((
http://www.roningamedeveloper.com/Materials/RandySmithAndHarveySmith_GDC_2004.ppt) Source)
Quote Posted by raph
The bad thing about doing whatever you want in IW is that NOBODY FUCKING CARES. The "friendly" factions are mindless entities that will kiss your ass all along until the last level, no matter the amount of shit you throw at them. Why bother?
As opposed to DX ... how?
Ostriig on 19/8/2009 at 23:09
Quote Posted by Chade
As opposed to DX ... how?
I think what raph was getting at is that unlike DX, which features a mostly linear structure from a narrative perspective, IW presents you with a set of plot choices that ultimately do not have narrative consequences that extend past their limited and artificial arc. Even though some hints are dropped to your previous actions, all factions are still (and sometimes rather irrationally) open to working with you up until close to the end. Something that IW has been criticised for quite a few times, actually.
Both IW and DX approach storytelling through a "foldback" model, where the story itself progresses through a set of fixed chokepoints. This worked well for DX, which offered you a lot of freedom with regards to tactical gameplay decisions and sidequests with limited reach, and even the occasional long-lasting implications (Gunther), but the game ultimately offers no choices regarding the unfolding of the main plot line, nor does it try to give that impression. IW, however, attempts to at least give you the feeling that you're in control of the main plot, as would be well served by a branching storyline, but ends up pulling you back at certain narrative chokepoints and offering you all choices again, faithful to the foldback model. The issue here is that, in doing so, the player eventually realises that their seemingly important choices have not had appropriately serious consequences, narrative consistency suffers, and with it so does immersion. IW applied the foldback model to the main plot and did so poorly, since its writing seems to be far more appropriate for a branching narrative model.
Chade on 19/8/2009 at 23:21
So it's ok if you illogically constrain the player to a linear narrative like every other game, but as soon as you even take baby steps to open that up, you'll get pounced on for not running before you can crawl?
I understand the criticism, I just think it's hopelessly unfair, and regressive to boot.
