chris the cynic on 21/9/2009 at 19:49
Quote Posted by Papy
Anyway, I believe choices should come from the player's desire, not because the writers decided to make two paths for the sake of having two paths. That's where almost all games fail. I talked about "blind choices", but talking about a lack of emotion would probably be more accurate. The action of choosing a faction should come naturally from an emotional reaction. Is that the case for TNM?
Short answer: Yes.
Somewhat longer answer:
When I said that any one of the sources listed would give me enough information to make up my mind I meant I could learn all I need to make an emotional choice from any one of them.
Even if you don't pay attention to what is going on the choice that will ultimately make one side hate you and the other accept you as one of their own has a fair degree of emotional content in itself. You would have to be playing as a very conflicted character for your choice of what to do in that situation to do anything other than come naturally from an emotional reaction.
-
Of course you don't have to take my word for this. Why not play the game and see for yourself?
mgeorge on 22/9/2009 at 17:24
Quote Posted by Papy
BTW, I'd like to point out again that I didn't play TNM, so maybe the story is not as superficial as I think it is. I'm just replying to general ideas about game design.
You really should play the game before you make any assumptions.
This game is actually better than the original. And I call it a game, because it doesn't feel like a mod. I have FO3, The Witcher, ME and Dead Space on my hard drive, none of which I've finished, and I haven't played any of those games since starting TNM.
The premise of the game almost turned me off when I first started playing it, but hang in there and you won't regret it if you're a fan of the original.
I'm really surprised the game hasn't gotten more attention.
Especially here on TTLG. I mean DX is considered one of the best games ever made around here, yet it seems not many have played TNM.
I've been on these boards for a long time and always considered most members of this forum to be of above average intelligence, but this makes me start to wonder if maybe I was wrong. :rolleyes:
Papy on 22/9/2009 at 21:30
Quote Posted by chris the cynic
Of course you don't have to take my word for this. Why not play the game and see for yourself?
Because I can post a message and discuss about game design theory during a 5 minutes break, but I don't really have the time to play everything that is out there. I have to be picky about games. There's a good chance I'll try TNM when I'll be able to have one or two days off, but to be honest I didn't read anything that would appeal to me up to now.
And again, I just wanted to discuss game design theory. If that kind of discussion is not allowed here, I'll leave this thread.
Jonas Wæver on 22/9/2009 at 22:10
This sort of digressed, so I hope you don't mind if I'll back up a bit and address a couple of answers that seemed directed at me.
Quote Posted by Papy
First, about the generic adventurer, I understand and I can agree with the argument, but is there a introduction text in TNM that tells the past of this "veteran" adventurer, from childhood to present, as well as a description of the world (from his point of view) so I could know who I am? Because if I don't know the character I'm playing, then whatever his past is, he would still be generic to me.
There isn't. If your lack of complete knowledge of the player character makes you regard him as generic, then I'll have to live with that, but do you feel the same way about every protagonist in any film or book that doesn't explicitly start with an introduction text that describes his or her past from childhood to present as well as how he or she sees the world? How we handle the protagonist in TNM is more or less how most films or books handle all their characters these days: you'll learn about them as you move through the story. No film that I'm aware of is frontloaded with a complete character sheet of the protagonist right after the title screen, and neither is TNM. As much of Trestkon's personality, motivations, and world view as you'll need to know will be unravelled during the game, and more interestingly (in my opinion), it will change drastically depending on your actions throughout the game. Like in Deus Ex, if you kill a lot of people, you will find your avatar arguing for why killing them was the right choice, but if you don't kill anybody, you will find your avatar assuming the moral high ground. I think that fits the bill as far as choosing your actions go, which segues nicely into this:
Quote:
Second, about the "trust one side with all your fate", just don't force the player to make that choice, that's all ! The "choose your faction" style that all games seem to follow is just bad. It should be choose your actions, not choose your faction. It has nothing to do with a character being generic or not.
I didn't talk about trusting one faction with your fate, I talked about one faction trusting
you with the fate of the world for no plausible reason. In The Nameless Mod's plot, there's a reason your character is called upon to save the city, and that reason is that you're not just a random new guy fresh out of the Adventurer's Academy (if you'll excuse another little jab at NWN's plot), you're a person the people in charge know and trust. It'll be up to you whether to live up to that or betray their trust.
The other posters in this thread have done a good job of defending TNM's design paradigms, if you will, but they've left one thing out: the major faction choice between WorldCorp and PlanetDeusEx is
far from the only significant choice in the game. TNM has 4 different major endings with enough variations each that 9 different soundtracks exist (and several minor variations each that don't necessitate different soundtrack timing on the cutscenes). Better, as opposed to Deus Ex that always presented you with the same 3 choices at the end no matter what you'd been doing throughout the game, when you reach the end of TNM, you may have as little as 2 options to choose from, depending on how you've played your cards until then. Did anybody mention that you can kill almost every character in TNM, major and minor character alike? Well, you can - and almost all the characters you can't kill (4 in total, out of around 200 named characters and countless unnamed NPCs) have narratively consistent reasons for being invulnerable. Oh, and after the main endgame cutscene, and once the credits have rolled (or you've skipped them, because they are ridiculously long :cheeky: ), you'll get a detailed denouement sequence a'la Fallout, but focused on what further happened to each of the characters you've been involved with that weren't accounted for by your main endgame cutscene.
And of course, in addition to all that stuff, the game just accounts for a very very large amount of very small actions you might take. Just like Deus Ex - remember that guy in apartment in Hong Kong who asks you "Did they throw you into the Canals?" if you enter the building from the docks? We have loads of that.
You should play it Papy - I'm pretty sure we can win you over ;)
Papy on 23/9/2009 at 03:51
Quote Posted by Jonas Wæver
but do you feel the same way about every protagonist in any film or book that doesn't explicitly start with an introduction text that describes his or her past from childhood to present as well as how he or she sees the world?
Of course I do. But it doesn't matter because with film or books I am just a spectator. I don't view myself as the protagonist. In the case of video games like Deus Ex, JC Denton was not just a character I was looking at or a puppet I had control over... I was JC Denton! NPC were not talking to another character, they were talking to me.
The first time I played Deus Ex, the initial conversation with Paul bothered me. That character, who was supposed to be my brother, was talking about my supposed father, among other things, and it simply didn't made sense. Paul was not _my_ brother, he was the brother of JC Denton. He was not talking to me, he was talking to someone who knew his personal life. And yet, I was supposed to be JC. This is the kind of contradiction that kill immersion and that must be avoided at all cost (and if what ZylonBane said is true, then this is a mistake TNM made).
I'm not saying that the generic unknown adventurer is a better choice, but adopting the "veteran" model is a lot more difficult if one of the goal is to maintain the illusion of being the protagonist. To me, a character introduction or something like a system of flashbacks are necessary to make it work.
On another subject, talking about all the choices and endings doesn't really sway me one way or the other. I don't view video games as toys, I prefer to play against a video game than with a video game, so I don't care that much if I can play in different ways. What is important for me is the emotion I get from the game. Offering choices is a great tool to help the player feel responsibility for his actions, but it is not required and, more importantly, it is not enough by itself to create a good game. In fact, offering too many choices can destroy a lot of the emotion. A big part of the fun of a roller coaster ride is that you have no control. If choices give a sense of control, then you end up with a toy. I'm obviously not saying this is the case with TNM, I'm just explaining why I don't feel having choices is a sign of being a good game in itself.
Quote Posted by Jonas Wæver
You should play it Papy
And if I don't like it will you allow me to criticize it?
ZylonBane on 23/9/2009 at 04:42
Quote Posted by Papy
If choices give a sense of control, then you end up with a toy. I'm obviously not saying this is the case with TNM, I'm just explaining why I don't feel having choices is a sign of being a good game in itself.
Let the record show that this is the thread where Papy asserts that games should have no meaningful choice... thus finally freeing us all from ever again paying the slightest attention to his inane and interminable ramblings.
Papy on 23/9/2009 at 07:40
ZylonBane, you'll always make me laugh.
One thing is for sure, you really suck at logic. Just out of curiosity, what do you do for a living?
Manwe on 23/9/2009 at 08:51
Quote Posted by Papy
On another subject, talking about all the choices and endings doesn't really sway me one way or the other. I don't view video games as toys, I prefer to play against a video game than with a video game, so I don't care that much if I can play in different ways. What is important for me is the emotion I get from the game. Offering choices is a great tool to help the player feel responsibility for his actions, but it is not required and, more importantly, it is not enough by itself to create a good game. In fact, offering too many choices can destroy a lot of the emotion. A big part of the fun of a roller coaster ride is that you have no control. If choices give a sense of control, then you end up with a toy. I'm obviously not saying this is the case with TNM, I'm just explaining why I don't feel having choices is a sign of being a good game in itself.
I'm not sure I understand the difference you make between playing "with" and "against" a video game but I'd say the video game you play against is the one where you have to make choices which immerses you into the game. In fact in this case you don't actually play at all you're in the gameworld living the story (and you're actually emotionally involved). The game you play with is the roller coaster, that's the toy, the halos and half lives and call of duties. Sure there are some nice set pieces that make you go "wow", but you're never truly immersed or involved in these games (or never really feel any genuine emotion besides "oh shit").
And you can never have too much freedom in a game. Immersion in games comes from involving the player in the action by making him think and giving him choices, by making him an active and responsible participant of the story, and there's no real emotion without immersion. Very few games actually do that unfortunately.
ZylonBane on 23/9/2009 at 11:46
Quote Posted by Papy
ZylonBane, you'll always make me laugh.
One thing is for sure, you really suck at logic.
Based on your posting history, it's abundantly apparent that your notion of "logic" is at odds with the rest of the universe, so I can see how you might draw that conclusion. Nonetheless, not even you can deny having posted the statement "If choices give a sense of control, then you end up with a toy." A choice that gives a sense of control is what's known in game design circles as "(
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&q=%22meaningful+choice%22) meaningful choice", and this is in fact considered one of the most important aspects of good gameplay. By your reasoning, even Chess is a "toy", since it's nothing but decisions which, if well-made, give the player a sense of control.
Quote Posted by Manwe
Immersion in games comes from involving the player in the action by making him think and giving him choices, by making him an active and responsible participant of the story, and there's no real emotion without immersion. Very few games actually do that unfortunately.
You're talking as if all games are, or should be, story-driven. This is obviously false. Pac-Man doesn't need a smegging story.
Jonas Wæver on 23/9/2009 at 12:09
Quote Posted by Papy
Of course I do. But it doesn't matter because with film or books I am just a spectator.
I must admit I don't sympathise at all with this point of view. Are you really saying that you regard protagonists in old-fashioned linear fiction as no different from each other (that's pretty much what generic means) unless you're given a complete and extensive description of their character at the beginning? In that case, do you not enjoy any modern movie, or do you not require a non-generic character to enjoy a movie?
Quote:
I don't view myself as the protagonist. In the case of video games like Deus Ex, JC Denton was not just a character I was looking at or a puppet I had control over... I was JC Denton! NPC were not talking to another character, they were talking to me.
Uhm... so in your opinion, there are only two ways to approach the avatar in game design: you either try to eliminate the protagonist completely by using a blank slate character like in Myst or Half-Life, or you frontload the story with an extensive background and personality description of the main character?
In other words, Thief, for example, is terribly designed in your opinion?
Quote:
This is the kind of contradiction that kill immersion and that must be avoided at all cost (and if what ZylonBane said is true, then this is a mistake TNM made).
First of all, I would like you to define what you mean by immersion. Immersion is 10 different things to 10 different people. I vaguely gather that your idea of immersion is to feel that you are personally present inside the game world? It's not eg. flow or role-play (other aspects of immersion), but presence, correct?
Secondly, if there's something you disagree with in the design of TNM, that's fine, you are obviously entitled to dislike any of our decisions, but that doesn't automatically make them mistakes. I personally enjoy games with predefined main characters who are fleshed out through the course of the story, such as Thief or Max Payne or whatever.
Quote:
I'm not saying that the generic unknown adventurer is a better choice, but adopting the "veteran" model is a lot more difficult if one of the goal is to maintain the illusion of being the protagonist.
I believe I stated way up there in my first reply to ZylonBane that it was not a goal to create an illusion that you were the protagonist. If we wanted to create an illusion like that, we would've made a game that never leaves the 1st-person perspective, where the characters specifically talk to you instead of your character - like Myst. What we wanted to do was to create an awesome role for you to play, with enough flexibility to change to suit your actions and your play style.
Quote:
On another subject, talking about all the choices and endings doesn't really sway me one way or the other. I don't view video games as toys, I prefer to play against a video game than with a video game, so I don't care that much if I can play in different ways.
Then maybe Deus Ex is not the game for you? After all, allowing you to play in different ways is pretty much the main paradigm of the game, and by extension, the main paradigm of TNM.
Quote:
What is important for me is the emotion I get from the game. Offering choices is a great tool to help the player feel responsibility for his actions, but it is not required and, more importantly, it is not enough by itself to create a good game. In fact, offering too many choices can destroy a lot of the emotion. A big part of the fun of a roller coaster ride is that you have no control. If choices give a sense of control, then you end up with a toy. I'm obviously not saying this is the case with TNM, I'm just explaining why I don't feel having choices is a sign of being a good game in itself.
Yeah, TNM is not the game for you. But then, based on this, Deus Ex isn't either, and yet here you are.
Quote:
And if I don't like it will you allow me to criticize it?
As far as I know, you don't require my permission to criticise TNM. You can go ahead and criticise it without having played it, just don't expect me to respect or even address your criticism. So far, we're just discussing design theory, right? ;)
