I was just thinking: It seems that a lot of stories (books/movies) tend to revolve around the protagonist making a change in some way. The character is not the same at the end of the story as he/she is at the beginning. Usually the character grows but maybe not always in a positive way. In a story-based game, the main character is controlled by the unpredictable player. We, as game writers/designers, cannot force the player to grow or change throughout the game. I am usually all for the interactivity side, but this is quite a problem for writing for a game. I'm not sure of a solution right now, but I just thought I'd bring up the situation. ""You see... I'm not crazy... you see?!? Nazrix believes me!" --Wavinator "All you touch and all you see, is all your life will ever be." -Pink Floyd Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself. Edited by - Nazrix on 10/24/00 3:53:57 AM

Having just been playing Diablo II, I was thinking about this myself. You cannot just force the player to go out killing everything because eventually that gets boring. I think to remove this kind of problem you need to have more choice of different actions to partake. You may not be able to ensure that they cannot grow, but they may grow bored trying to find such a way...

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
          

Yes, that''s true. It would be fun trying to confront the player w/ moral choices that have major consequences in the game. You could even use your approach, dwarfsoft, and use the sterotypes against the player. That would sort of be like the protagonist growing by realizing that he/she was wrong about a certain sterotype all along.

I am starting to realize why LF used to freak out about the loss of control through interactivity. One of the most powerful tools a writer has in telling a story is through the main character which is the player...which the writer has little control over.

Story-based games just aren''t books, are they?


""You see... I'm not crazy... you see?!? Nazrix believes me!" --Wavinator

"All you touch and all you see, is all your life will ever be." -Pink Floyd

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

Exactly, the whole problem I see is that if you give the player too much freedom and or interactivity, then you lose strength in your story.

The way that I see you can have strength in both is by looking at the story as a glass window that is shattering. The split starts in the middle and branches out like a spider web, it crosses on itself in places and continues to the finish.

If you had such a setup for your story then you don''t necessarily have to have the character grow in any aspect in the game. All they need to do is make decisions that affect the outcome of the story. This way you can also have fortune tellers that can give some reasonable accounting of the future.

It wont solve the problem, but it would make growing less of a problem and choice more available

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
          

mmhh...
The way I solve this problem was by asking the player to make moral choices

And to make sure everything goes the way I wish, I divide the game into chapter having each an ending that will change the next chapters.
This may look incredible or amazing but in fact is easy, trust my almost 10 years experience writing sotries and being a GM

-* So many things to do, so little time to spend. *-

quote: Original post by Nazrix

I am starting to realize why LF used to freak out about the loss of control through interactivity. One of the most powerful tools a writer has in telling a story is through the main character which is the player...which the writer has little control over.

But don''t be afraid of it, embrace it...
Interactivity is what sets this medium apart. People are still trying to tell stories using this medium, while it is NOT suited to games. You should allow people to CREATE stories. This is different. You will not be there to hold the players hand. You won''t be able to say "Don''t go there, we didn''t really plan for you to go there!".

It takes a shift of thinking, but it can be pulled off. Think of actions/reactions, and how you can weave a story around it...


People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~

quote: Original post by MadKeithV

Original post by Nazrix

I am starting to realize why LF used to freak out about the loss of control through interactivity. One of the most powerful tools a writer has in telling a story is through the main character which is the player…which the writer has little control over.


But don't be afraid of it, embrace it…
Interactivity is what sets this medium apart. People are still trying to tell stories using this medium, while it is NOT suited to games. You should allow people to CREATE stories. This is different. You will not be there to hold the players hand. You won't be able to say "Don't go there, we didn't really plan for you to go there!".

It takes a shift of thinking, but it can be pulled off. Think of actions/reactions, and how you can weave a story around it…

Unfortunately it also takes more programmer-hours, and therefore more $, to try for real interactivity. Ways around this? I've been contemplating the idea of putting the interactivity right into a reusable engine, as per the 36 plots thread we had a few months ago. The difficulty would be to do it realistically without using gigs of data. Any ideas?

Edited by - sunandshadow on October 24, 2000 9:35:32 PM

Yes. Goblin.


( Well we''re trying, slowly but surely, to build a framework that will allow this, EVENTUALLY )

Another comment to make:
it may take more programmer hours, but much, MUCH less designer/storyboarder hours, since they will be able to work in parallel doing small interesting tidbits of story.


People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~

Well, the reason why I am sticking with a story in mine? I intend to write a book. I am already on the right track and I think that literature is a great medium. I just want to marry Games and Literature together. I am beginning to see that Games are less of a story medium though. With interactivity would there need to be a defined ending? If not then it would not be a game. Does interactivity mean ''Here is what you are to achieve, now figure out how to achieve it!''? I think this concept is rather mind-warping. If it can be done then I don''t think anybody is near it yet

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
          

A lot of games that we would consider the sort that are win/lose like Quake for instance don't have a real solid ending, do they? It's pretty much that there are just no more levels. The final level usually isn't all that much more different than the first. The ending is really not much of a satisfying resoultion.

quote: by dwarfsoft
'Here is what you are to achieve, now figure out how to achieve it!'?

I think that is a decent way of using interactivity. I don't really think the game as a whole should be like that. I think that approach could be used in side-quests perhaps.

The way I think it can be done is the player is given a limited way of interacting w/ the world. Then the creativity comes in as to how the player uses these methods of interacting. This is also where the creativity comes in on the part of the writers/designers as to how they allow the player to use diverse ways to reach a goal.

Like if the player must find out info from an NPC...The player could threaten the NPC, befriend the NPC, try to break into his house to go through the NPC's possessions to perhaps find out something. The possibilities are endless, but the catch is that you embrace the limitation of having only so many ways to interact w/ the world...then use those ways as creatively as possible. You can also make some nice twists in the plot. The player may think that he can use a certain method to achieve the goal, but something totally unexpected may result.


""You see... I'm not crazy... you see?!? Nazrix believes me!" --Wavinator

"All you touch and all you see, is all your life will ever be." -Pink Floyd

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.



Edited by - Nazrix on October 24, 2000 7:11:08 PM