Jonas Wæver on 28/9/2009 at 13:51
Papy: all right, so the core of your argument is that you don't enjoy choices in games if they're all equally valid? You want some choices to be more optimal than other choices, right?
That's fine, I understand that. Personally I don't require that from a game, I enjoy using games as a means of self-expression or experimentation without necessarily worrying (or even being able to worry) about min-maxing. However, we won't have a problem - try killing every character in TNM on your first playthrough, and you'll have a pretty hard time progressing - you'll still be able to, in almost all situations, but you'll be missing a lot of information, so you'll definitely have made it harder for yourself.
The major choices between which faction to support also aren't balanced very accurately against each other. Since the Goats have a huge area under their control and the Llamas just have their temple, the Goats will give you significantly easier missions than the Llamas. Some of WorldCorp's missions are easier than PDX's equivalent missions, others are harder - overall, I think WorldCorp is probably easier than PlanetDeusEx, but I'm fine with that, because taking the high road and fighting for the good guys should be harder, in my opinion - otherwise nobody would ever be a bad guy.
However, try not to be so dismissive of games that don't appeal to you. You can be a bit more broadminded and acknowledge that games can be well designed even if you're not the target audience.
Jonas Wæver on 28/9/2009 at 21:28
Forgive the double post, I just wanted to say that the philosophical difference between RPG systems that post challenges in themselves and RPG systems that are vehicles of self-expression is an interesting one (it's sort of a tangent or parallel to what we've been discussing here).
I tend to prefer the latter because it doesn't feel fair to me that you can gimp yourself before the game has even started, as you can in Fallout and even in Oblivion actually (try specialising in Speech and Sneak and you'll find yourself completely underpowered a few levels up). I also feel that character customisation options should be equally valid, such that you can optimise your character for the play style you prefer, and that win/lose choices should be kept in the game proper. Again, tangent to what we've been talking about.
In TNM of course, we've stuck to the DX philosophy that all play styles should be valid, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're equally easy or even fun. Stealth will be easier than assault in some situations, harder in others. Dialogue will lead to advantages in some cases, in others it'll lead nowhere. You'll have to consider not only how you wish to play the game, but also which approach is most useful in any given situation, and if you're like me and you prefer stealth to such a degree that you're willing to make the game harder for yourself by sticking to the stealthy approach, it'll be possible to do that.
Another extremely interesting tangent from this discussion that we probably shouldn't get too tangled up in here is the inherent problems with letting the player do things that are less fun than other options. Going through vents in DX, for example, is considered boring by a lot of players. The argument against this would be, you don't have to go through the vents. But going through the vents gives you a tactical advantage that most people just can't deny themselves, even if it means they have to play the game in a way they don't like. Same thing with BioShock's wrench, really.
Papy on 29/9/2009 at 04:05
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
Furthermore, by your logic, if you're playing chess against an opponent who's not as good as you, it magically transforms from a game to a toy.
Tell me, what is the difference between a game and a toy?
I remember I once played a game of ping-pong with someone who was not good at all. I knew she would be completely unable to return any of my serve. So I just played _with_ her instead of _against_ her. I didn't put effect on the ball (except once in a while to have fun looking at her trying to understand why the ball had this weird trajectory) and I often missed deliberately to give her hope. The game was not a game of ping-pong, it was a social game with someone. In this case, the table, the racket, the ball and the rules were just tools I was using for my little social game. In this case, "ping-pong" was not a game, but only a toy (at least for me).
Quote Posted by Jonas Wæver
try killing every character in TNM on your first playthrough, and you'll have a pretty hard time progressing - you'll still be able to, in almost all situations, but you'll be missing a lot of information, so you'll definitely have made it harder for yourself.
If TNM is not just a pure shooter, then wouldn't the idea of killing every character fall into the "playing _with_ the game" I was talking about? Wouldn't it be using TNM as a toy instead of playing the game as it was intended?
Anyway, challenge is a more complex subject than just having a hard time progressing. To me, dilemmas (which are "emotional challenges") are much, much more interesting than simply shooting adversaries. With Deus Ex, many times I had the choice of either killing an NSF from a distance and without risks, or try to get close to him and render him unconscious (for moral reasons), knowing that he could kill me from a single bullet if he turns around too soon. As other examples, do I help the bum who is getting mugged on the basketball court, which could be dangerous (and at the very least using my resources), or do I just go see elsewhere if I'm there? Do I attack sandra's pimp or do I just leave her with her problems? With all of those choices, there is a safe solution, and a risky solution.
Now... Imagine if the game is so easy that there is no danger in anything I do (to make sure the player can choose whatever he feels like without him thinking about "min-maxing"). Do I help Sandra or do I let her with her troubles? The truth is, if there is no challenge, if there is no gameplay consequences, I would feel disconnected from the game and, in the end, I wouldn't care at all, even if there are consequences on the story. Would you?
Quote Posted by Jonas Wæver
The major choices between which faction to support also aren't balanced very accurately against each other.
If the player can know or guess in advance that one choice can be easier than the other, then this is good design to me. If choices are completely blind (if there is nowhere any information about the consequence of those choice), then this is bad design to me.
Quote Posted by Jonas Wæver
I'm fine with that, because taking the high road and fighting for the good guys
should be harder, in my opinion - otherwise nobody would ever be a bad guy.
I completely agree with you.
Quote Posted by Jonas Wæver
In TNM of course, we've stuck to the DX philosophy that all play styles should be valid, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're equally easy or even fun. Stealth will be easier than assault in some situations, harder in others. Dialogue will lead to advantages in some cases, in others it'll lead nowhere. You'll have to consider not only how you wish to play the game, but also which approach is most useful in any given situation, and if you're like me and you prefer stealth to such a degree that you're willing to make the game harder for yourself by sticking to the stealthy approach, it'll be possible to do that.
That's what I wanted to know and that's what I love. Knowing there are a lot of choices is not enough, knowing those choices have consequences on the story is not enough, but knowing my choices will have an impact on my survivability is what I want.
ZylonBane on 29/9/2009 at 04:39
Quote Posted by Papy
Tell me, what is the difference between a game and a toy?
A game has rules, and can be won or lost. A toy, does not. There, was that so hard? Or would you understand better if I took this exact same information and spread it out over ten excruciatingly redundant paragraphs, so you could respond to each and every one individually in an increasingly incoherent and internally inconsistent fashion?
Jonas Wæver on 29/9/2009 at 09:33
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
A game has rules, and can be won or lost. A toy, does not.
I would rephrase that slightly and say a toy has affordances and limitations, a game generally has rules in addition to both of those.
Quote Posted by Papy
If TNM is not just a pure shooter, then wouldn't the idea of killing every character fall into the "playing _with_ the game" I was talking about? Wouldn't it be using TNM as a toy instead of playing the game as it was intended?
It was definitely intended that you should be able to kill everybody in TNM and still progress. You can define that however you want. There is some strategy in choosing who to kill and who to leave alive though, since some characters (such as certain vendors or mission givers) will drop useful items if you kill them, but killing them may block your access to more missions and rewards further down the line. Thus killing somebody becomes sort of a gamble.
Quote:
Now... Imagine if the game is so easy that there is no danger in anything I do (to make sure the player can choose whatever he feels like without him thinking about "min-maxing"). Do I help Sandra or do I let her with her troubles? The truth is, if there is no challenge, if there is no gameplay consequences, I would feel disconnected from the game and, in the end, I wouldn't care at all, even if there are consequences on the story. Would you?
Yes, I would. But I agree that narrative choices should ideally also impact the gameplay. In TNM, your choice open or close new missions, new areas of the levels, etc. so there is definitely gameplay consequences.
ZylonBane on 29/9/2009 at 12:56
Papy must be a wonderful human being in real life.
"Hmmm, I COULD choose to help that little old lady across the street... but there's no challenge or long-term consequences! Ehh, forget it."
Papy on 30/9/2009 at 00:23
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
A game has rules, and can be won or lost.
And if a game is so easy that it cannot be lost unless the player do it on purpose... Is it still a game?
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
Papy must be a wonderful human being in real life.
Actually, I'm probably among the nicest guys you can meet in real life. But real life has nothing to do with games.
DDL on 30/9/2009 at 14:05
Quote Posted by Papy
But real life has nothing to do with games.
....I honestly couldn't disagree more.
ZylonBane on 30/9/2009 at 15:24
Quote Posted by Jonas Wæver
I would rephrase that slightly and say a toy has affordances and limitations, a game generally has rules in addition to both of those.
Every material object in the universe has affordances and limitations.
Quote Posted by Papy
And if a game is so easy that it cannot be lost unless the player do it on purpose... Is it still a game?
Of course it is.... just not a very challenging one. The very existence of the possibility of winning or losing makes it a game by definition.
Jonas Wæver on 30/9/2009 at 18:42
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
Every material object in the universe has affordances and limitations.
And indeed every material object in the universe can be used as a toy.
