Okay, what do I mean by story based and freeform? The easiest way I can think of is to give examples. A story based game is something like Half-Life or NOLF, or any Adventure style game. Essentially, there is a plot that the character must discover or uncover throughout gameplay. Freeform is more akin to MMORPG style gaming, where the character''s freedom of choice is the basis of the game. There is no overriding plot, although it might have a theme (for example Halo having you help defend humanity on the Ring world). So, which is a more satisfying experience? I think without a doubt, it is storybased. While perhaps some of the greatest selling games have been freeform (QuakeIII, Unreal, Tribes, Everquest), the most critically acclaimed have been storybased (again, Half-Life and No One Lives Forever, or Final Fantasy games for consoles). Why is this? Isn''t the appeal of computers supposed to be it''s interaction in a game world, and the freedom to do as one pleases? Well, I think we forget that while the technology of computers allows players this freedom, what game designers should ultimately remember is that this is entertainment. And it has been mankind''s yearning for stories from the very beginning that has inspired us and made us truly reflect on the world around us. Yes, it''s nice to have a freform based game, where I''m not forced into a certain path for the sake of some plot or convention, but how can one truly create a story that really makes us go "wow". And here is the crux of the problem for free-form based games, there is no closure or direction to them. And this is a crucial key to a fulfilling experience. What do I mean by that? I''ll take two master story teller''s as examples. Neil Gaiman, the writer of the best Sandman comics, said that a story must have a beginning, a middle, and an end. The key word there is, "end". Without an ending, there can be no way of leading the viewer to a conclusion. And unfortunately, the way that TV shows and comics are portrayed, they are not formulated with a direction, they are for the most part episodic pieces without any sort of linking from one episode to the other. And this is where I bring up Master storyteller #2. J. Michael Straczinski wrote the Babylon 5 series with an ending in mind. He did this because it created a logical flow of events, which cast foreshadowing of the end at hand. This is in stark contrast to say Star Trek:TNG which just had one episode after the other with no "coming to a head". The best stories are those that DO make us follow a path, that make us go, "aha....so that was what that was all about". This simply can not be done in freeform style games. So while many seem to want a style of gameplay that offers us unlimited freedom in gameplay, to maximize the computer''s potential as an interactive tool, I don''t believe these make the most satisfying games. I think it is a human yearning for a sense of purpose, direction and closure. We want to know that things make sense, and that there is a rationale behind them. We want to know that what has happened before, will give us clues into the future. And I don''t think any of this can be done well in a freeform style of game.

Nice essay there, Dauntless

Actually, I think we need both kinds of games. As John Carmack said, he likes the style of Quake 3 because you can quickly jump into a game and have fun. That is what we do when we take a 30 minute break from work. Everybody needs that once in a while.

Then we''ve got serious games like Half-Life and the more story-driven games. If you get into playing one of those, you usually set some time aside every day for it. That is also good, but has a different purpose.

I definitely love both kinds of games. I''m pretty good at Unreal Tournament, since I use it as a stress reliever And I like the game and the freedom (and the competition that it allows. Then I also liked the old Sierra adventures (DAMMIT WHY DID THEY STOP MAKING THOSE???)

------------------------
CRAZY_DUSIK* pCrazyDuSiK;
pCrazyDuSiK->EatMicroshaft(MS_MUNCH_BILL_GATES | MS_CHEW_BILL_GATES);

Excellent points. Linearity is both a blessing and curse for computer games. When we''re in the hands of a master story teller, it''s awesome. Unfortunately, the game industry rarely puts us in the hands of master story tellers (esp. if you look at how little respect writing gets in general).

I strongly disagree with you, though, on which one is a more satisfying experience. It depends on the game and the gamer. Some of us play to escape into alternate worlds, and when we do so we really only need satisfying activities to keep us engaged. We don''t need to be lead anywhere because we can figure out how to keep ourselves entertained.

I like to think that this is a pre-school dichotomy: Directed play vs. non-directed play. When playing, some kids don''t mind having structure and direction to play; while others are happier making their own rules and experience. (No matter how old you are, if you''re a gamer I think this still subconsciously applies).

I believe that you can splice elements of the two, though, to give story gamers a sense that the experience is goign somewhere and that it will ultimately mean something. The core of the idea is to have a non-linear game where the events in the game world run along a certain vector. You''re free to interact with the story or ignore it, but it will drastically change the gameworld at large. Better yet, you can change it as you go, thus altering the story (think Civilization blended with an RPG). Whether it works or not, though, only time will tell.

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

quote: Original post by Wavinator

I believe that you can splice elements of the two, though, to give story gamers a sense that the experience is goign somewhere and that it will ultimately mean something.
--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

That''s going to be the true test I think...whether the player does have a sense stuff is going on and it really does effect what else happens. I truely believe they will, but I do fear that they may not see the connections between events. Though I do have faith they will.




A CRPG in development...

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

Very good points made here... in all posts. Good essay that, Dauntless. I agree with you 100% actually. I''m a great lover of good stories. There''s been a similar, big debate on Players making story in another thread on this board and I said this few times, but currently, free style games are so incomplete in its free form. For me, thats the prob. I''ll end up repeating all that I said in the other thread, so I''ll stop ranting here and go straight to the point.

----

Even in so called "Free style" game like EverQuest, is it truely free style? For me, it isn''t. And that incompleteness takes the fun out it. Say, if I fancy a girl in it, I can''t go through all the life stuff to get her - get a job and earn money, then take her to Hawaii beach on holiday, make love to her at night...
Those "free style" games lack what makes one''s life a drama. All it does is give you an open 3D space to walk in, and thats it. Sure you can "chat" to other people like in IRC, but thats about it. Other options are almost as limited as other single player games, except for things which are related to direct "vocal" interactions with other people.

Until the "free style" is complete, I don''t think it can truely compete against solid Story based games. Freestyles are good fun and nice change, but ultimately, don''t cut it enough in a long run.

hummm I know I''m going to repeate whats been said here alot but hange with me... I think I''m going somewher with this =)

well I like both games... but only if they''re well done... story based having good story''s that aren''t just a molseted version of an old story thats been told a 100 times before... and I like freeform... but only if there is a fair degree of freedom... I''ve seen some games that are ment to do this but fail horrably at it...

like wavinator said theres alack of good story writers out there... true but also there is alack of tech(and money) and what not to tell the story''s correctly... ok lets face it the general audince isn''t going to read through 20 screens of plain black on white text then play for 5 mins just to find another 20 pages... ok so whats the alterative? huge movie sequences... well more or less the same problem but its not as bad(would be alot better if the story went off on tangents based on what the player did and/or there was an equal level of play & movie)... the other option is a poorly explained story line... so we need more tech to story the extra movie segments or whatever way the story is told...

freeforms... I love them... anyone play dugeons & dragons as a kid? =)... like pugpenguin said that currently they don''t provided a truely free range of experiences... well again tech & money... it would require alot of proscessing power & alot of storage(depending on how you did it) well it looks like where starting to get there but where along way off... another problem is the money... it takes alot of code... your going to need alot of programmers spending alot of time working on it...

we find entertainment in both ways of playing... in the real world its like saying that reading a book is more entertaining than playing football or something...

And this is what we have in our case ("we" are small team, developing crpg):
We have a strong story, one that keeps player wanting for more until it''s finished, when he can sit back w/ a smile on his face and enjoy his triumph. Have in mind that there are several possible outcomes - at least 3 (good, neutral, evil {not bad}) of them, so depending on the player''s actions and interaction with the story you''ll get the one you want, if you do your best.

So here''s an example: say you''re a good in nature Sage Monk and so you take the Good side, doing all the Good quests and so on. The most possible outcome is the Good one. If you play greedy Merchant, you may take quests for both Good and Evil for profit - that way you could have a neutral outcome and so on.

Note that the outcome does NOT depend strictly on the player. There are numerous NPCs that have their own agendas. At some point you''ll actually find yourself competing w/ an NPC (or NPC group/fraction). Suppose the player doesn''t take any quests at all, well the story will evolve and come to an end and the outcome will depend purely on chance: which NPCs made it better.

If the player finds the main storyline unattractive and ignores it by skipping (not taking) any quests, he can still complete side-quests. Those are the ones that don''t affect the story, or at least in a direct way. The trick here is, that there''s no particular way for the player to know if the certain quest IS part of the story or not. So he has to be quite a judge and say which one is story, and which one off-story quest, OR play by heart. In both cases the Player will be satisfied.

Summary:
1) A strong story line
2) Several outcomes
3) Player can choose if he wants to get involved (which is the natural thing to do, cuz that''s what you got the game for)
4) If he alters the story actively enough - he gets his outcome, otherwise he don''t (which is a drive for replaying the game)
5) If the player chooses not to interact, he can still do side quests (which are also interesting)
6) NPCs have their goals and are determined to get there, in that way helping the player or not.
7) NPCs can finish the story by themselves (the player is just a spectator, i.e. learns the progres from the local pub or from market gossips and in the mean time doing side quests)

So, what king of game we have? Story or freeform?
Thanks for you time and excuse my english...



Boby Dimitrov
boby@azholding.com

quote: Original post by PugPenguin

Even in so called "Free style" game like EverQuest, is it truely free style? For me, it isn''t. And that incompleteness takes the fun out it. Say, if I fancy a girl in it, I can''t go through all the life stuff to get her - get a job and earn money, then take her to Hawaii beach on holiday, make love to her at night...
Those "free style" games lack what makes one''s life a drama. All it does is give you an open 3D space to walk in, and thats it. Sure you can "chat" to other people like in IRC, but thats about it. Other options are almost as limited as other single player games, except for things which are related to direct "vocal" interactions with other people.

Until the "free style" is complete, I don''t think it can truely compete against solid Story based games. Freestyles are good fun and nice change, but ultimately, don''t cut it enough in a long run.

Okay, this is good info for me, PugPenguin, because we feel the same intensity about this issue, but just have diametrically opposed opinions (which is still legal, I think ).

So, for you, one of the most important things about the play experience is that it be complete. Am I right in thinking that the completeness makes it real? Gives it a sense of authenticity or veracity that you can''t find in the free form games?

Because I turn the EverQuest section of your post around, looking at adventure or Final Fantasy type games, and say, "yeah, well, what if I don''t want to go to Hawaii?" "What if I don''t like beaches, but instead like skiing through forests? What if I don''t want to follow the path laid out for me?

I think I understand now that we''re playing to serve different needs: You need an emotionally holistic experience, while I require a wealth of decisions.

Is this accurate?



--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Yeah, thats pretty much it. I want it to be one or the other, in its complete form. So either a full blown strong story (like reading a book), or 100% freestyle game.

As for your point on EverQuest, that is also fine. If you don''t want to go to Hawaii and instead go skiing, that''s good, that''s your choice. Or go climbing mountains. Or rock climbing. Or swim down a river. So-called "free form" RPG should give you that choice. But do they really? I don''t think so. Current "free form" games are premature, most of them feel like a game which was "going to be amazing" but somehow "programmers didn''t finish it". You know that sort of feeling. I''m aware of difficulty of "free form" games, so I''m not blaming anyone for it. But I do think that High level story based RPGs are superior right now.

I feel that a lot of RPGs which are supposed to boast a good High level story are rubbish. Some come out nicely complete in its novel-like form.

If I were to use an analogy, I like both apples and oranges. But if I were to have a premature orange, I''d rather have a ripe apple. It''s not that I prefer one over the other. If the orange matured and became sweeter, I will happily give up the apple.

Again, I won''t repeat what I wrote in "The Player Makes the Story" thread. It somewhat runs parallel to this thread anyway.

BobyDimitrov''s list is rather interesting. That really makes me think. Perhaps we need to separate "Free-form" RPG and "non-linear RPG" though... I think. This differentiation is a difficult principle to swallow. I think I understand it, but I don''t know if I really understand. One feels like a 100% virtual world which is a replica of real world, while the other is huge collection of linear stories. Side quests and multiple endings don''t guarantee a "freeform" RPG, does it? That''s marely a collection of linear stories. But on the other hand, suppose even if you could pick up every item on the dinner table - spoons, knives, broccolis, napkins - that doesn''t necessarily make it a non-linear RPG.

I''m about to digress from the main theme of this thread, so I''ll stop now. But it seems like we are looking at few different types of RPG here, some more mature and complete than others.

Your game sounds nice, by the way, Boby.

Hmmm, where to begin. I think the best of both worlds exists in pen&paper RPG''s (PPRPGS). In PPRPG''s, the players are free to do whatever they please, however, the Game Master gently guides them along, quite often adlibbing scenes or trying to come up with ingenius ways to bring errant player characters on track to a plot or campaign that he has in mind. In this situation, characters are free to do as they chose, but the GM acts as a moderator to get things back on track, and weave an interactive story in the process. But really, that''s what PPRPG''s are...GM''s set the stage, and the PC''s act out the play, but the Act''s are written by both the players AND the GM.

I think that''s the trouble with MMORPG''s...there''s no intelligent hand to guide PC''s and to weave a tale among the threads of adventures. If there was a way to make a true computerized version of a PPRPG, I think this would be the best of both worlds. I think that''s what Wampire: The Masquerade had originally tried to do, but I don''t believe it was successful. Of course, the disadvantage to this is that you need not just a good GM, but good players as well.

From my RPG days, I can tell you now, how a group interacts can make or break a campaign. And here again, this is where a story based game has an advantage....sort of. It''s an advantage if it''s a well-written story, if it''s just another mindless clone of a game, then it fails to grab the player''s attention. But the point is, if a Story based game fails, it''s the fault of the designer of the game...in a freeform type of game, it''s the fault of the players, the GM, or both.