Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Quote: Original post by Way Walker Fallout II Final Fantasy VI Final Fantasy Tactics Deus Ex and in all four of those games, the objectives increased my immersion. Gotcha. I don't know about the middle two, but Fallout 2 was open-ended and allowed you to choose your goals, so I don't count it. Deus Ex actually would be more of what I had in mind, although it I think got more open-ended toward the middle of the game, so maybe its a bad example. The crucial difference is whether or not the objective is timed and whether or not you have to do it.

Ah, I think I understand a bit better now. I have a friend who doesn't enjoy playing games as he enjoys playing with games. That is, he likes to run around the game world "experimenting" and toying with maps/items/etc. with whatever tools are available (or even making basic tools). Aside from the modding aspects, that's the picture I got when I heard "no objectives". I think this view is also in part my knee jerk reaction to the "Immersion = Realism" and "More Realistic = More Better" attitude.

Quote:

Quote: I really liked Final Fantasy Tactics' graphics, but I've never put the game in to see them. Unfortunately, the real test here can't be done, and that is if you would have played bought the game, then played the game long term without them.

That is an annoying problem. I'd say I probably would have (but, then, that's a given, eh? ;) ). The reason I feel half justified (if even that far) in saying that is because I still play NES games and discover new (to me) games I enjoy. Basically, I'd like to say it wasn't the "quality" as such of the graphics, but the "style" of the graphics and how they fit with the game's style.

Quote:

Quote: But without being handed an objective, my choices start with "North, South, East, or West?" and what are the consequences of one choice over the other? What about: "Hey, I hear there's great mining in the east. But if you want some real adventure, they're having a hell of a time with the sea serpents in the southland. But whatever you do, I'd stay out of the northwoods-- too many trolls and the king's daughter hasn't been seen since last week. No, if I were you, I'd head with the caravans west and make an easy profit... if you don't mind goblins..."

I guess I'd like to know if there's some "greater objective" that I'm working toward or if it'll basically be a collection of what would be side quests in another game. Sort of like the Mario Party series. It made a game out of "side games", but they're still there to get you closer to winning. Like in Fallout II, where you often forget you're searching for the GECK, but everything you're doing is done to further that goal. The overall goal isn't just a good hook into the quests, it's also a driving force behind your questing (along with the quests being fun, but the sense of accomplishment would be much less if there weren't the overall goal).

But I really like that, reminds me a lot of Fallout I&II, or the "better" PnP RPG campaigns I've been a part of.

Quote:

Nowhere have you been handed "Mission 1: Find the King's Daughter!!!" which you can't escape from. There are simply events in the world, and you choose to react to them or not. Now, if there's a further level of detail where your actions impact the world in strategic and layered ways, you now have even more incentive to go in any one direction based on what YOU want to personally see, experience and achieve.

I guess when I play a game I like to be given some direction. Like a song, book, movie is "engineered" to produce certain feelings, thoughts, etc. in the listener, reader, viewer. I like to see the same sort of "engineering" in a game. I just don't see that happening without some overarching objective. Sure, give me a choice between "big picture" objectives, that's one tool game designers have that songwriters, authors, directors don't have. But do give me a "big picture" objective.

Basically, I'm coming to you for your story. If I wanted my story, I'd pick up a pencil and paper.

Quote:

And never do you experience any rebellion when you're presented with where to go? What if you hate that Locke or Celes person? What if you don't want to go to Jidoor? What if the Espers help you one game but not the next?

Does it bother you that not all books are "Choose Your Own Adventure"? Whether I want to go to Jidoor is beside the point. I'm being told a story, not writing one. I complete objectives to be "rewarded" with another snippet of story. If the Espers helped one game but not the next, that'd be fine so long as the difference in story were some how justified (e.g. through my actions when given control over the characters). As for hating Locke or Celes, do you mean hate them as people or as characters? If as people, that's just as well. If as characters, then I'd stop playing and find a game I enjoyed. Very similar to a book. I needn't like the protagonist or anyone else as people, but if the characters are uninteresting, the book itself is likely uninteresting, so I'll set it down and read something else.

Quote:

I guess this is the difference between sandbox players and directed players, though-- and neither is wrong, but I find not being able to choose as untenable as you may find not being given an objective. I'm playing through Freelancer right now, which constantly interrupts its open ended play with story objectives and I find myself mutter, "damn you Chris Roberts, why don't you come play the game and I'll just watch, because that's pretty much what I'm doing right now."

Not familiar with Freelancer. But what do you want to choose? I don't care if I can't choose the story in an FPS or RTS, since I don't go to that genre for a story. I don't care if I don't get to choose the story in an RPG, since I go to that genre to be told a story. I do care if the majority of the time I'm playing doesn't involve interesting choices of some sort.

Quote:

Quote: However, something happens when you reach the world of ruin. You're left with no direction but "go, find friends". Yeah, I want to find my friends, but there's no specific objective. It felt much more like "gotta catch'em all". I was pulled outside (i.e. less immersed in) the game as I considered where to explore next and explored aimlessly. I'm very curious about this experience you had. The game gave you an overarching objective, but are you saying that you wanted specifics.

Thinking about it, I'm not entirely sure it's relevant. In any case, the big problem was the story stopped. I play that sort of RPG to be rewarded with story, but that reward stopped. It may also be interesting to note that while I enjoyed Fallout II, I didn't feel any attachment to any of the characters. There was too little story of the sort that would build an emotional attachment. I'm not sure there could've been given the open format. You can't tell a love story if it's up to the listener.

Quote:

...do you view the purpose of a game in general to be to present you with episodes of challenge connected by meaningful events?

Would you misunderstand if I said "yes"? Perhaps "to connect meaningful events caused by challenges it presents" would be closer to what I mean? :/

Quote:

My natural response is "what's wrong with the game that a player doesn't want to figure out their own path, but rather wants that path clearly laid out before them?" The question is invalid, however, because people play games for different reasons.

Not only that, but the same person plays difference games for different reasons.

Quote:

Clearly when you're fighting in the game you're making your own decisions as to timing and tactics. Why would you not want to make similar decisions in the game world at large?

I love to bake bread. I find it relaxing, plus I love the smell and there's nothing like a sandwich made with bread fresh from the oven. But would you therefore find it strange to see me buy a loaf of bread from the store and make a sandwich with it?

Quote:

Original post by Way Walker Ah, I think I understand a bit better now. I have a friend who doesn't enjoy playing games as he enjoys playing with games. That is, he likes to run around the game world "experimenting" and toying with maps/items/etc. with whatever tools are available (or even making basic tools). Aside from the modding aspects, that's the picture I got when I heard "no objectives". I think this view is also in part my knee jerk reaction to the "Immersion = Realism" and "More Realistic = More Better" attitude.

Yeah, I'm coming from a 4x and flight sim background where most of the strategy is put on you to figure out. As I got into RPGs I wanted to see more of that freedom. Oftimes I feel my shoulders cramp from the tiny box I'm placed in when I'm ordered to go from one objective to another. (Again, different strokes...)

Quote:

I guess I'd like to know if there's some "greater objective" that I'm working toward or if it'll basically be a collection of what would be side quests in another game. Sort of like the Mario Party series. It made a game out of "side games", but they're still there to get you closer to winning. Like in Fallout II, where you often forget you're searching for the GECK, but everything you're doing is done to further that goal. The overall goal isn't just a good hook into the quests, it's also a driving force behind your questing (along with the quests being fun, but the sense of accomplishment would be much less if there weren't the overall goal).

Yes, here we agree, and by making the overall goal something you can work to at your own pace I think you can control what level of engagement you want to have with the game world. If you want to stop and read books and fiddle with the world because it increases your involvement, then a losely defined objective can be perfect for this.

Quote:

I guess when I play a game I like to be given some direction. Like a song, book, movie is "engineered" to produce certain feelings, thoughts, etc. in the listener, reader, viewer. I like to see the same sort of "engineering" in a game. I just don't see that happening without some overarching objective. Sure, give me a choice between "big picture" objectives, that's one tool game designers have that songwriters, authors, directors don't have. But do give me a "big picture" objective.

Personally I'd prefer to take on the objective rather than be assigned it, but I agree here.

Quote:

Basically, I'm coming to you for your story. If I wanted my story, I'd pick up a pencil and paper.

Now here's where we drastically disagree. If I wanted a story I'd pick up the medium that's best at it and read a little Robert Heinlein or Arthur C. Clarke.

Quote:

Does it bother you that not all books are "Choose Your Own Adventure"?

It would if that's what I read them for. But when I read a book I know I can't explore the universe and I'm on rails. However, the quality of prose and pacing of events as well as grand scope (talking SF which is what I mostly read) is enough to draw me in.

When I want to take action, that's when I play a game.

Quote:

Whether I want to go to Jidoor is beside the point. I'm being told a story, not writing one.

Here again, this just highlights the difference in objectives in players. I've got some stories in Morrowind which don't rival prose but as experiences are exciting to tell, and they have nothing to do with the scripted missions.

Quote:

I complete objectives to be "rewarded" with another snippet of story.

:) This reminds me of how I cheated my way through Starcraft just to see the story. For many players, interrupting story with gameplay can be akin to getting them engrossed in a book and then taking it away until they solve some tactical or logic puzzle. For others, I think they alternate between wanting to be active then passively entertained (almost as a break / relief like the stage transitions in old arcade games).

Quote:

Not familiar with Freelancer. But what do you want to choose?

The game environment is beautiful to play in and the gameplay, though overly focused on combat, is fun. But I don't want to follow the storyline, which so far involves one ambush after another or a series of mothering missions protecting sorry transports. I think to myself, "I'd never get into these lousy situations; I'd leave, go become a pirate or something." Unfortunately, unless you comply, the game world is artificially locked.

The story, however, I think exists in that game to cover for the weaknesses in content. Story games are designed to be consumed product. You don't replay them, which I guess is fine for the target audience, but anathema to players like myself used to getting hours of replay value out of 4x titles like Civilization.

Quote:

I don't care if I can't choose the story in an FPS or RTS, since I don't go to that genre for a story.

Hmmm... you know, ironically enough, of the tons of FPS games I play I don't care about choosing the story either (though it irritates me in RTS games). Most FPS games are so narrowly focused you can't expect much out of them, there's not supposed to be that much brainpower involved-- it's all twitch.

RPGs probably attract the expectation of larger choice from many like myself simply because of their scope. They present a taste of an interactive world filled with lots of possibility but often deny players because of scripted missions and events that railroad you into vulnerable situations in the name of drama. It's a tease for many of us.

Quote:

It may also be interesting to note that while I enjoyed Fallout II, I didn't feel any attachment to any of the characters. There was too little story of the sort that would build an emotional attachment. I'm not sure there could've been given the open format. You can't tell a love story if it's up to the listener.

Interesting. My experience, oddly enough, was alot of exploring, treasure hunting and tactical powermaxing. I think I forgot about the village for years! (My character went from 36 to 42 in the time I played... all that resting after combat...[grin])

Quote:

Quote: Clearly when you're fighting in the game you're making your own decisions as to timing and tactics. Why would you not want to make similar decisions in the game world at large? I love to bake bread. I find it relaxing, plus I love the smell and there's nothing like a sandwich made with bread fresh from the oven. But would you therefore find it strange to see me buy a loaf of bread from the store and make a sandwich with it?

Uh, you've completely lost me here...

What I asked was where the barrier exists for you and why. Again, I come from the 4x world where you impact the entire world in different ways each game, so that sets an expectation for me.

Is there a point at which you say, "Okay, I've made enough decisions for awhile... I want the game to chauffer me for awhile while I relax, listen to the dialog, check out the shifts in motivation and character, etc., etc."

(Keep in mind you're talking to someone who largely spaces through cutscenes and become apoplectic when you can't [grin])

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Yes, here we agree, and by making the overall goal something you can work to at your own pace I think you can control what level of engagement you want to have with the game world. If you want to stop and read books and fiddle with the world because it increases your involvement, then a losely defined objective can be perfect for this.

One of the other things that was mentioned in your crime & punishment thread, is that defined objectives give you no opportunity to reverse a decision you made earlier in the game.

For example, if given a choice to support a group of people or not early in the game, the decision you make with stay with you till the end (unless they give you the opportunity to reverse it, which is rarely the case).

By having loose objectives based on things like relationships between you and people in the game, at anytime, you may choose to change your mind, and reverse something you did earlier. Basically, you could make up with a group for something bad you did earlier. This opens up areas of character development that are rarely implimented in games. "The repentant thief". Though betraying the loyality of a group you've had a strong relationship with would have major implications in game.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Personally I'd prefer to take on the objective rather than be assigned it, but I agree here.

I don't think objectives are bad, I just think the character should define them, not the designer. The designer should lay out the world for the player, and the player should choose how they want to play in that world. This doesn't mean their isn't a story, it just means it hasn't been written yet :)

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Now here's where we drastically disagree. If I wanted a story I'd pick up the medium that's best at it and read a little Robert Heinlein or Arthur C. Clarke.

Exactly. If I want a story, I'll read a book, or watch a movie. I play games to make my own story, to be given a world that I can make my own decisions in.

Games can do something books/movies can't, put you in control of the character. With a player in control of the character, you can't ever hope of satisfying everyone with a single story.

One person may want the character to betray his king, one person may want to stay loyal, one may want to take over.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Here again, this just highlights the difference in objectives in players. I've got some stories in Morrowind which don't rival prose but as experiences are exciting to tell, and they have nothing to do with the scripted missions.

I personally play games to write my own story, and I know many other people that do. My opinion is, any story in a game should be a backstory, lay out the state of the world as it stands, then let the player choose how they want to change that world.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Is there a point at which you say, "Okay, I've made enough decisions for awhile... I want the game to chauffer me for awhile while I relax, listen to the dialog, check out the shifts in motivation and character, etc., etc."

Possibly, one downfall of removing objectives is, players may become somewhat too independent. Give someone too many options and they may choose nothing. It's sort of like the rich kid having everything and yet nothing to do.

The way I see you combating this is making sure every place has a conflict, something that needs resolved. Make sure that when a player goes out exploring and comes across a small village that their is something for them to do there.

Also make sure that events can cause chain reactions, and that sometimes NPC's miscommunicate things to you.

If you stumble across a village that asks you to rescue a villager from some bad guys out in the forest, don't tell the player the bad guys are working for the king of the area. It may seem like just any standard mission, but it could set off a chain reaction.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Yeah, I'm coming from a 4x and flight sim background where most of the strategy is put on you to figure out. As I got into RPGs I wanted to see more of that freedom. Oftimes I feel my shoulders cramp from the tiny box I'm placed in when I'm ordered to go from one objective to another. (Again, different strokes...)

Forgive me, but I'm unfamiliar with the term "4x". I think I understand what you're saying anyway, but please forgive any misunderstandings because of this.

In this case, I'm all for a "Whatever floats your boat" attitude. We don't have to enjoy the same games, nor even enjoy the same games for the same reason. This may just be different strokes.

Quote:

Yes, here we agree, and by making the overall goal something you can work to at your own pace I think you can control what level of engagement you want to have with the game world. If you want to stop and read books and fiddle with the world because it increases your involvement, then a losely defined objective can be perfect for this.

Yeah, I'd rather not feel rushed to reach the overall goal. I don't think this requires a loosely defined goal, but maybe we're defining "loosely defined" differently?

Quote:

Personally I'd prefer to take on the objective rather than be assigned it, but I agree here.

I guess I see "playing the game" as "taking on the objective". If the objective doesn't interest me, I'm less inclined to play the game in the first place.

Quote:

Quote: Basically, I'm coming to you for your story. If I wanted my story, I'd pick up a pencil and paper. Now here's where we drastically disagree. If I wanted a story I'd pick up the medium that's best at it and read a little Robert Heinlein or Arthur C. Clarke.

I wouldn't say games aren't good at story telling. I would say they haven't been used to their full potential. A game is interactive, which can add to your immersion in the world and your attachment to the characters. And, no, I don't think this contradicts what I've said elsewhere. I don't require every piece of the game world to be fully interactive for me to feel immersed in it. In fact, I think the "only some parts interactive" can increase immersion in the characters and story by focusing your attention.

(by the way, I disagree that books are the "best" medium for story telling. I think they're as good as cinema, theatre, etc. And for what it's worth, I love Clarke but can't stand Heinlein :) )

Quote:

Quote: Does it bother you that not all books are "Choose Your Own Adventure"? It would if that's what I read them for. But when I read a book I know I can't explore the universe and I'm on rails. However, the quality of prose and pacing of events as well as grand scope (talking SF which is what I mostly read) is enough to draw me in. When I want to take action, that's when I play a game.

It doesn't bother me that I can't make decisions in battle when I play Civ II because that's not why I play that game. It would bother me if I couldn't make those decisions in Final Fantasy Tactics. Like I said, different games for different reasons. What I guess I didn't say was "and only choices that are appropriate to that reason". I would actually not like it if Civ II made me make tactical decisions because that would distract from the reason I play it. (More accurately, if Civ II made me make such decisions and if I still played it, I would be playing it for different reasons.)

Quote:

Quote: Whether I want to go to Jidoor is beside the point. I'm being told a story, not writing one. Here again, this just highlights the difference in objectives in players. I've got some stories in Morrowind which don't rival prose but as experiences are exciting to tell, and they have nothing to do with the scripted missions.

I don't doubt this. What I do doubt is that, in general, objectives decrease immersion. In fact, I believe they can increase immersion. Is this the case in Morrowind? I can't say for sure since I haven't played it, but I get the impression that forcing objectives down one's throat in Morrowind would hurt immersion. However, I find the opposite true in the Final Fantasy series. The difference would be that the stories in Final Fantasy would have some relation to the current objective, if only that the story occurs while working toward that objective.

Quote:

:) This reminds me of how I cheated my way through Starcraft just to see the story.

*tsk* *tsk* ;)

Quote:

For many players, interrupting story with gameplay can be akin to getting them engrossed in a book and then taking it away until they solve some tactical or logic puzzle. For others, I think they alternate between wanting to be active then passively entertained (almost as a break / relief like the stage transitions in old arcade games).

For me, whichever style suits my mood. I will admit, I had trouble starting Final Fantasy IX a second time because it was so slow to start and there was very little gameplay at the start, because I wanted to get to the bits of story and the sort of gameplay you find later in the game.

In any case, I think if what one wants uninterrupted story, one should switch to a genre or medium where that's to be expected. Expecting that from a Final Fantasy game would be silly, expecting it from Fallout (where story and action are one and the same) would be appropriate, expecting it from a movie would be appropriate. But I find it likely that objectives in those style of games would increase immersion so long as the objectives are related to the story.

Quote:

The game environment is beautiful to play in and the gameplay, though overly focused on combat, is fun. But I don't want to follow the storyline, which so far involves one ambush after another or a series of mothering missions protecting sorry transports. I think to myself, "I'd never get into these lousy situations; I'd leave, go become a pirate or something." Unfortunately, unless you comply, the game world is artificially locked.

Assuming the story line is part of the reason I would play the game, I'd take one of two positions. I'd either see it as "Being presented the story of this guy who doesn't always make the choices I'd make" or "Playing the role of this guy who would doesn't always make the choices I'd make". Maybe mix in a bit of "suspension of disbelief" as well.

Quote:

The story, however, I think exists in that game to cover for the weaknesses in content. Story games are designed to be consumed product. You don't replay them, which I guess is fine for the target audience, but anathema to players like myself used to getting hours of replay value out of 4x titles like Civilization.

I read books more than once, I see no reason not to play a story game more than once. I only buy games I expect to get many hours of replay value out of. Not worth my money otherwise (especially on my budget).

Quote:

RPGs probably attract the expectation of larger choice from many like myself simply because of their scope. They present a taste of an interactive world filled with lots of possibility but often deny players because of scripted missions and events that railroad you into vulnerable situations in the name of drama. It's a tease for many of us.

And what a tease it is! You mentioned your read Arthur C Clarke's works, I assume you've read "Rendevous with Rama"? How about his short story "The Sentinel"? Such a tease (Cliff Hanger if you prefer) at the end of each. Something of a shame he went on to "complete" them. Reading "The Lord of the Rings" it's obvious there's much more to the world, of which you get a taste here and there. Sure there're other books, but "The Lord of the Rings" can stand alone. The little tastes increase your immersion in the world.

Quote:

Quote: Quote: Clearly when you're fighting in the game you're making your own decisions as to timing and tactics. Why would you not want to make similar decisions in the game world at large? I love to bake bread. I find it relaxing, plus I love the smell and there's nothing like a sandwich made with bread fresh from the oven. But would you therefore find it strange to see me buy a loaf of bread from the store and make a sandwich with it? Uh, you've completely lost me here... What I asked was where the barrier exists for you and why. Again, I come from the 4x world where you impact the entire world in different ways each game, so that sets an expectation for me.

For me, the barrier exists where the game designer placed it. When I want the barrier there, I play that game. When I want it somewhere else, I'll play another. I don't expect all games to be alike. I could just as well say I expected a scripted story in Civ II because that's what I found in Final Fantasy VI.

Quote:

Is there a point at which you say, "Okay, I've made enough decisions for awhile... I want the game to chauffer me for awhile while I relax, listen to the dialog, check out the shifts in motivation and character, etc., etc."

When I complete an objective, I want the reward I expected from that objective. If that's a continuation of the story, it's time for me to sit back and enjoy the reward. If that's the BFG9000, it's time for me to blow stuff up.

Quote:

(Keep in mind you're talking to someone who largely spaces through cutscenes and become apoplectic when you can't [grin])

Aye, nothing more annoying than a cut scene you don't want to watch but can't skip.

I just wanted to interrupt this to say that I also played Freelancer but I had the same problem as Wavinator. So, I simply run the Server program with 1 player - me :) The problem is that, altough it's fun exploring and stuff, without the story it lost interest for me because I realized I was just getting more levels, weapons, and that's it - like playing in a MMORPG just to level up, aka the level grind. This line is hard to draw, but if you leave it up to the player so that he can chose to be railroaded through the game or explore and pursue his own objectives whenever he feels like it, your game will be played by 2 groups that usually chose just one type of game or the other ;)