Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
| Frequently Asked Forum Questions | |
|||
|
||||
|
|
|||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Thoughts Collected | |
| Posted By: Cody Miller | Date: 6/21/12 1:17 p.m. |
In Response To: Re: History (Leisandir) I will collect my arguments here so the discussion can continue. Interactive storytelling has to be evaluated as a game mechanic, not as a storytelling tool. This is one of the main points about my argument. HP will understand the differences between meaningful choices, and non meaningful ones in video games. At first glance a lot of RTS games have more choice than Brood War - more units, more maps etc. But when you get down to it, most of those choices are not meaningful. After all, why build anything but tanks in Halo wars? All those other choices aren;t meaningful because they are not effective strategy. Nearly every unit in Brood War has a place, so you have more meaningful interaction. Meaningful choices are choices that matter. If your game has 100 guns, but one is better than all the rest in every situation, then there is very little meaningful choice. If you present the player with 4 paths, and 3 lead to dead ends, you again do not have meaningful choice. The more meaningful choices the video game has, the more complex, interesting, and fun it is. Now, the choice in interactive narratives must also be meaningful, since it is simply another choice from the player by way of mechanics. As such, these choices must actually matter. If you give your player 2 story paths to choose from, but they both lead to the same place, then that is not a meaningful choice. So with interactive fiction, you've got to give the player interesting choices, and that means CHOICES WHICH ACTUALLY CHANGE THE NARRATIVE. Now you should be able to see why interactive storytelling must give up on the idea of a solid story. If you give your player meaningful choices, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WILL CHOSE OR WHAT WILL HAPPEN. This means you cannot do things like foreshadowing, payoffs, recurring themes or central motifs, etc. It means you have to give up on the idea of telling YOUR narrative. You can limit player choice as HP suggests, but then your work has less meaningful choices, and becomes much less interesting to play. You HAVE to evaluate this as a game mechanic, since this is the interaction the player will be partaking in. Just as a fighting game with tons of ineffective moves and a few good ones is bankrupt mechanically, so is a choose your own adventure where none of the choices significantly affect things. I bring up Deus Ex, because it treats player interaction as a mechanic. It's an incredible amazing game, and amazing interactive storytelling. BUT IT IS NOT GOOD STORYTELLING. The moment you give the player a meaningful choice, you give up your claim as a storyteller, and if that choice isn't meaningful, you give up your claim as a good game designer. I agree with everyone here that it can be REALLY FUN to choose how a story progresses, and some great experiences can result. All I'm saying is, we need to start saying WOW WHAT A GOOD GAME rather than WOW WHAT A GOOD STORY.
| |
|
| Replies: |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |