Ostriig on 13/12/2008 at 20:31

---

In games allowing multiple pathways, there's a lot of time and effort going into creating an almost equally challenging and fulfilling experience regardless of the type of approach chosen by players, and not all devs manage to get it right. In RPGs, it's character progression and specialization that gives your choices weight and significance. A certain choice should be "better suited to your playstyle", either overall or in relation to one particular situation, but not "universally better". There's a term for when that's not the case and it's "broken game mechanics".

As for "barbie lol" vs. "winning and losing", while not all videogames have to be anything more than simple electronic toys and distractions, altogether denying the importance and potential of personal expression in them is denying the medium's main claim to artistic value. Which would make you an idiot.

Papy on 13/12/2008 at 22:24

---

First, plots of most games are really, really thin. They are cliché, superficial and about the level of a young kid's book. There are a few games which reach early teen level, but that's about it. The day I'll see a real good plot, than maybe I'll see video games as more than just games, but for now, when I want a good plot, I read a book.

Of course, I do like stories and characters in a game, but that doesn't mean the game is not about winning and losing. In the case of Deus Ex, I viewed this game mostly as an RPG.

I guess I should point out that for me an RPG is not a game where I do whatever I feel like, it's a game where I put myself into someone else's shoes. It's a game where I try to succeed using whatever abilities I have at the start of the game (as the character I'm playing). I always try to know what is the best solution according to the situation and to who I pretend I am. I think an RPG is a game where I should adapt to the world, not the opposite. In the end, this means an RPG is also a game about winning (I guess succeeding is a better word) and losing.

Of course I expect every choice I have at the start of the game to be viable, but once the game is started, then my choices are exactly like choices in real life : there are good choices and bad choices. It's up to me to know which is which. For example, with a game like SS2, I expect every class to be viable, but once the game is started, once I have some ways to know what I should choose, then I don't expect the game to let me do whatever I want without some form of punishment. In fact, I expect the game to offer me bad choices.

In the case of Deus Ex, I didn't viewed it as a simple problem with well defined rules and a clear solution. I didn't viewed it as a shooting game or a sneaking game, I viewed it as a "what should I do" game. I viewed it (or rather imagined it) as a real world with lots of unknown rules. Looking at my environment and talking to characters were about finding those rules. From a gameplay point of view, talking to characters and trying to know them were a form of exploration and about putting pieces together. It was a kind of puzzle game. This feeling was heightened (not sure if this word means what I think it means) by the fact people were reacting to what I did. The fact is the story and characters were a part of the gameplay, which was about knowing how to win.

BTW, sports are not the epitome of winning and losing since you can do sports simply for the physical activity. I certainly played games were I was sure to lose or sure to win. Yet, I did find those games fun.



Up to now, I've never seen a video game I would call art, particularly not in the story department. Even Deus Ex' story, which was very elaborate compared to most other games, was simplistic and without any real "artistic" value. I'm not denying video games could one day evolved into a true art form, but that's not the case for now.

Anyway, art is a form of personal expression for an artist, not for the one who look at a piece of art. If you think PLAYING a video game is about art, if you think you are creating art when you sneak past a guard, then you're an idiot.

BlackCapedManX on 14/12/2008 at 03:55

---

See, what you just did here is say "an RPG is a game where you play a role, because of this an RPG is a game about winning and losing." Basically, what they hell are you talking about? You described a scenario where you attempt to define an experience and then enact that experience, and then you try to shove that logic through a hole where it looks like this is about winning and losing when you're done with it (and I'm used to seeing this, going to art school, where often students make a work, then try to bullshit it into a particular meaning, even though it doesn't have jack to do with that meaning.) Is "winning" (or "succeeding") to say that you've accomplished your goal of playing a particular character? That's like saying actors try to "win" the "acting game" where if they aren't enough like the character they have "lost." Which, I guess is a possible way to look at it, but it's a rather ridiculous one. Playing an RPG to fit into a role is self describing, you don't "win" at it, you just do it. That's why it's an experience.



Again, the logic you're using is unfounded, it's like you've said "once I've gotten to the end of a book, I've figured out what it's about, so I've won the book." If talking to characters was about "unsolving the puzzle of the rules of the environment" (or however the hell you'd like to describe whatever convoluted thing it is you're describing,) then why bother to replay the game? Talking to characters is about uncovering the plot, because once you've gotten all of it, it's mostly unneccessary in subsequent playthroughs, because you already know (as far as figuring out the rules, you could argue that if it wasn't necessary to talk to the characters again, then why would you read a book more than once, but books clearly aren't about winning and losing.) In a game as inclusive to your choices as DX I really don't think it's only about "how are you going to win." I think DX purposefully offers the play the choice to really be instructed by the environment of the game, by saying "here is this story, where a science project secret agent has to fight some global conspiracy, what would this look like if the agent was a pacifist? what about a sociopath? what about a computer expert? what about a well rounded individual who can sweet talk people and has deep pockets?" A lot of the choices are more specific to how you deal with hostile encounters, but even then, it's like an action story: it's not likely that you're going to lose, so it's what you do that's the point of the game, not the fact that you win in the end. Now there are ways to play where it's really the player vs. the game, such as trying to complete the game with no items or skill, or attempting to beat the game in the shortest possible time (the quickest run I'm aware of is about 45 mins,) and in these instances it is about winning (or accomplishing something, but essentially winning,) but these aren't within the native context of the game. The game designers clearly have tried to make an interactive story environment, and maybe you simplify that into a series of puzzles, but that's quite obviously not the intent behind the game so you're basically saying "my opinion is my opinion" and expecting it to be some truth about role playing games.



Sports were designed to be played to win (in most cases, major exceptions being things like skiing, which I imagine were simply to have fun and then the competetive amoung us said "hey I'm better than you are at this" to which someone else rebutted "are not" and hence scoring for those things came about.) But not everyone is good enough to win to the extent where they can claim competetive or professional stature, so they simply use it as excercise or social time or whatever, but the design of most sports has really simple standards for who is the winner and who is the loser (as compared to say, an RPG where you can "win" the game, but other than that it's about the actual playing and experience, and not who's best.) I guess this sort of shows the simplest understanding for why a game like DX isn't played "to win," in that there are no competetive DX games (for single player anyway) because no one is really a better sneaker or hacker than anyone else, because in the end it's about player experience, as opposed to player profeciency (the latter being what you see arising in games like Halo or Starcraft, both of which have been turned into sports... am I painting a clear enough picture here?)



I really don't need to say anything here because Ostriig pretty much nailed it, but this comment was so ridiculous I can't let it by. Where did you come up with the idea that anyone thinks they're making art when playing video games? No one thinks that (save for maybe the people who think playing Guitar Hero is as cool as being in a real band... or that DDR is actually like dancing, other than maybe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGcrYaZpu-U) this guy... maybe.) The argument for video games as art has always been about digital interaction as a media for the artist (in this case usually a team of game designers) expressing something to an audience. Post-Modernism has laid so much ground work for nearly anything to be art that this really isn't that objectionable (in theory anyway, that doesn't mean artists might not be offended by the idea, but a lot of artists don't know their own pedigree.)

Thirith on 15/12/2008 at 12:53

---

That's the thing: making every choice equally valid (but in different ways) is difficult to pull off well. At its worst, this results in Oblivion-style gameplay. Now, I got quite a lot of enjoyment out of Oblivion but not because of the range of choices it offers; the game makes these choices as meaningless as it can so that players won't be frustrated.

Deus Ex, while not all of the choices it offers are equally valid, does a much better job: you can play the game as a brawler/shooter-type, you can play the game as a non-violent sneaker (for the most part), you can play it as a silent assassin - and all of these are roughly as valid as each other as choices. This doesn't mean that every choice is the same - your gameplay will be considerably different, i.e. they're meaningful choices.

Note that bad execution of player freedom (as in the case of Oblivion) doesn't mean that the concept as such is flawed.

Thirith on 15/12/2008 at 13:18

---

I definitely see what you mean, although arguably these "stupid" choices are equally valid. The negative effect of the inconvenience is made up for by the positive effect of the wholly new experience or the challenge. The same can't be said for Oblivion, really. Yes, you can fuck up your character (and quite easily at that), but since the system is so counter-intuitive once you get into it you encourage meta-gaming... and at least in the case of the Elder Scrolls games there isn't much enjoyment to be had from meta-gaming. Not to mention that meta-gaming is almost the opposite of role-playing.

Papy's argument about player expression not being important or valid or worthwhile in games may work for one type of game, but it definitely doesn't work for RPGs and action RPGs. Part of the purpose of Deus Ex or System Shock 2, or games such as Baldur's Gate 2 and Planescape Torment, is to provide a range of different but equally valid experiences. This is so ingrained in the way these games are made that denying it boggles the mind. Same goes for games such as Civilization or Alpha Centauri, really, where you can play the jingoistic warmonger or the peaceful negotiator etc. etc. And ascribing this sort of gameplay to "young 'gamers'" and their need for self-expression is downright idiotic.