Quote:

Original post by Inmate2993 Surely, taking away your wife, 50% of your resources, and your two kids is a shitty situation that everyone will try to dodge if there was a game element for it. However, it seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to say that fiction has no place in gaming just because a few bad situations were written before.

Maybe I'm being too harsh. But as you write it, isn't the situation to be avoided? If so, that's exactly my point.

Quote:

Also, it ignores all of the absolutely great situations that have occured.

Examples?

Quote:

Original post by Iron Chef Carnage I think that the player is disinclined to suffer the consequences of somebody else's poor judgement or performance, even if it's their character who's at fault. I'm always disappointed when my character gets captured in a cutscene and all my guns get taken away. I was hoarding that shotgun ammo all through the last level, and now some miniboss just took it away from me? I didn't screw up, so you shouldn't mess with my achievements. If, on the other hand, I botch my extraction rendezvous, trigger an alarm, and get mobbed by top security forces, then I'm rightly boned. If I could surrender then, rather than dying, Iid be willing to tolerate the loss of some equipment if it meant a chance at surviving and/or infiltrating the base via a clever jailbreak.

You still consider this a loss, though, right? Something that, for instance, you might replay to avoid? See, if the game puts you in this situation, even if it's all due to your gameplay, can't you curse the designer for foisting this on you (and I mean even in a freeform universe)?

Quote:

If my son joins a gang and my wife gets addicted to opium, then it's either a game problem or a story problem. If it's a game problem, then it's my fault and I can try to fix it.

Let's assume it's a gameplay problem. What happens if it's so far down the road that you can't do anything but consider it a lost cause and rebuild? The game doesn't kill you, but because of inattention, you can't mend it.

Alternately, there's the philosophy that says that you should be able to recover no matter what.

Quote:

Original post by Drew_Benton I have a short and sweet post. I would have to say it depends! With the Sims, I played it only once, and on my first time, the wife was cooking in the kitchen, the stove caught on fire and then she burned up. The husband and child were mourning. That was pretty freaking depressing for me. I was like *blah* and haven't played since. This is probabally some weird 'exception' to your otherwise correct statements, but I would have to say it all really does depends on the user. We can't tell who will connect with who.

Would you say you quit playing because, basically death is depressing, or because the game didn't allow you to do anything about it that would raise the depressing loss? (For instance, you could take the New Orleans funeral approach and celebrate a person's life, which would be a difference in philosophy and therefore the game's underlying social / psychological model)

Quote:

Original post by Way Walker Basically, if I came up to you and told you "You love Anna very much. She died yesterday." you probably wouldn't care. However, if I came up to you and told you "I love Anna very much. She died yesterday." you'd probably feel sorry for me.

I love this example because it strikes right to the heart. This, along with the Wing Commander examples, really show how important it is to get the player in the right mood.

That, btw, presents a pretty nasty problem for a freeform game like The Sims because you can't guarantee what mood the player will be in. Even if you set a timer that said "no tragedy until X minutes in the game" you'd need some way of detecting emotional attachment (like a mouse with a galvanic skin response unit!)

Quote:

Original post by Taolung Okay, so my point of all this is just that this was an in-game tragedy that affected me emotionally, as a player, yet made perfect sense within the context of the game. The rest of the game I had an even deeper hatred of the Kilrathi, and every ship I destroyed was accompanied with the thought, "That one's for Maniac, you bastards!" I associated with the in-game tradedy, and I thought it was great - but it wasn't part of the "story" of the game. It wasn't a scripted event. That battle could have gone entirely differently.

Okay, I should have made an exception for combat tragedy. Good point.

I can't really explain it right, but what I'm trying to get at involves more mundane tragedy. A combat death is embued with honor, nobility and even dignity in our culture.

Imagine, OTOH, that you have an in-game spouse that's away on a scientific mission that's lost. For some time, you don't know if she's dead. Then you get confirmation, and your character goes from worry to grief.

You can't avenge an accident or fate. Even if the story (stealing from Babylon 5) later reveals that this was all part of a plot, which you CAN avenge, it's a tough sell in the interrim.

In general, this ties in with an idea I've posted about before, that it's VERY hard to make setbacks palatable. I keep exploring this idea because I'm curious about the limits of drama, and this looks like a high barrier.

I think that the kind of game you are playing makes a difference as well. Its kind of hard to be affected emotionally when a Sim dies in a fire. The game is too rediculous anyway to really care about the characters. But more important is the overall game itself - you are not playing as a character, you are kind of like a god. The UI takes you out of the game somewhat - this doesn't just take you out of the characters, it kind of removes you from the whole of the game. I'm not suggesting an alternative (I like the Sims), but different strokes...

If you wanted to make a game that would really connect with the player, you have to, as has been said, really immerse them in the game. In an RPG, this is difficult because its the little things that add up. In Wing Commander, the insults and chatter make you picture the other characters more and increase the immersiveness of the game. But in an RPG, esp. games like Morrowind, and Fable, some things can really detract from the immersiveness. If you have actions that you would like to take during the game, like build a campfire and roast a hunk of meat, and you can't because its built into the game, its another reminder that this isn't real. Also, menus, dialog boxes and LOADING SCREENS are a jarring interruption to the flow of the game. Reading the postmortem on Black and White gives a good example. When they made Dungeon Keeper, the large toolbar really took you out of the game. When they created Black and White, they managed to avoid almost any obviously out-of-game objects such as menus and toolboxes. This really helped me immerse myself in the game.

I'll stop now.

I think part of the problem is the games we're so used to playing. For example, playing FFX, I "know" that Yuna isn't going to die at the end, at least not simply by summoning the final aeon, etc. So there's no emotional issue there because I simply don't believe it can happen. It's just not real. But when Tidus finds out about it, I feel bad, because I can relate to what it's like to have not know all along and I cringe looking back at how awkward some of the things he said were. Simply put, it's believable, and I can relate. And I think that's the key, is not to make the situations overly dramatic, just to make them believable. When your sim dies by catching on fire while cooking, that's just a little ridiculous.

Also, I think the most powerful gameplay moment I can remember is when Aeris dies in FF7. Why? Because they killed a main character. Somebody I actually used significantly, somebody that had a real effect on the story, just died. It's just like it real life, the closer you are to a person, the more their death affects you, and in game terms, controling a character defines closeness in a way. And it was messy. All the time you may have put into training her, just wasted. I feel like I've invested something in her, some personal touch and effort, and that's what makes it important.

So I guess that's the two things I would say matter. First, the situation has to be absolutely believable within the game universe. Secondly, I have to have developed a closeness of some kind. Really, these are the same things required of a fiction writer. I think you have to realize that not everyone will get into the game in the same way, and otherwise write good fiction.

tj963

Quote:

Original post by silverphyre673 I think that the kind of game you are playing makes a difference as well. Its kind of hard to be affected emotionally when a Sim dies in a fire. The game is too rediculous anyway to really care about the characters.

Would it be fair to say that because the game doesn't start off dramatically, you don't really have a cause to expect drama? Sims aren't in any sort of epic story. Would that make a difference, do you think?

Quote:

But more important is the overall game itself - you are not playing as a character, you are kind of like a god. The UI takes you out of the game somewhat - this doesn't just take you out of the characters, it kind of removes you from the whole of the game. I'm not suggesting an alternative (I like the Sims), but different strokes...

It's interesting to contrast this with RPGs. In many, you have a god's like control scheme and you get the same effect, in my book. You lose some character identification if you don't always see and directly control your character.

Quote:

If you wanted to make a game that would really connect with the player, you have to, as has been said, really immerse them in the game. In an RPG, this is difficult because its the little things that add up. In Wing Commander, the insults and chatter make you picture the other characters more and increase the immersiveness of the game. But in an RPG, esp. games like Morrowind, and Fable, some things can really detract from the immersiveness. If you have actions that you would like to take during the game, like build a campfire and roast a hunk of meat, and you can't because its built into the game, its another reminder that this isn't real. Also, menus, dialog boxes and LOADING SCREENS are a jarring interruption to the flow of the game. Reading the postmortem on Black and White gives a good example. When they made Dungeon Keeper, the large toolbar really took you out of the game. When they created Black and White, they managed to avoid almost any obviously out-of-game objects such as menus and toolboxes. This really helped me immerse myself in the game.

Some interesting points. I think that at some level, even if you can't do lots of little things, like chop down trees or dig a ditch, gamers push that aside and accept that they're within a limited universe. But the point about not reminding them of this, either with restricted gameplay or visuals, is a good one.

Quote:

I'll stop now.

No, please continue! I'm obsessing about this idea... [lol]

Quote:

Original post by tj963 Simply put, it's believable, and I can relate. And I think that's the key, is not to make the situations overly dramatic, just to make them believable. When your sim dies by catching on fire while cooking, that's just a little ridiculous.

Hmmm... actually, that's a good point that kind of refocuses the discussion. I've been thinking about the combat deaths in Wing Commander mentioned above, and it's true that they were believable due to the setting. OTOH, The Sims is actually supposed to be ridiculous because humor's a big selling point.

Quote:

Secondly, I have to have developed a closeness of some kind. Really, these are the same things required of a fiction writer. I think you have to realize that not everyone will get into the game in the same way, and otherwise write good fiction.

Can you get this closeness, do you think, just by leveling up a generic character that you customize (speech, clothes, habits, quirks)?

Hmm... I keep hearing "immersion" and I'm not entirely sure what that means. It seems to mean something like "forgetting you're playing a game". That can be good, but I don't think that's what's needed here. I think "immersion" as "immersed in these peoples' lives" is more to the point. When I'm immersed in a book or movie, I don't necessarily forget I'm reading or watching. I am totally interested in what's happening to these people.

I think the Wing Commander example is great. Why? Because, between missions, you weren't playing the game. What were you doing? BSing with your "friends". You got to know them "outside" of the game. Thus, when they die, you don't just lose a "wing mate", you lose "that cocky SOB" and miss his antics. Basically, the biggest part of the loss is not game play related.

Now that I think about it, I think Wing Commander had a good formula. Well defined periods of down time between the action where you get to know the people you're fighting alongside. And I think that could transfer well to other game types if you're a little sneaky about it.

Another method that could help would be to define the barrier between "character" and "player" a little more distinctly. Make it feel a bit more like those Lone Wolf books I used to read. You controlled his actions, but they were still his actions and it was still a story about him. Maybe an episodic game would do well for this?