[The E]

This is a rather insightful article about storytelling in games, and how difficult it is to reconcile player actions and the intended narrative.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6625747/view/full/la-noire

[IronBeer]

"Harder than [you] think"? Oh, I certainly believe that storytelling in an open world is indeed difficult, if not impossible, to properly pull off. That indeed was a very, very good article- very relevant, and it pretty much underscored the factors that make video games such a rather difficult medium for story and action integration.

Perhaps the big thing that I took away from the article, at least with regards to a solution, is that to mesh a narrative with the player's actions would essentially require a dynamic, maybe even procedural, story itself. Pretty much like "multiple endings" but taken to the nth degree. The article talked about the author's playthrough of Uncharted 2, where his character killed about 800 people- imagine if that were actually worked into the story itself. Your character is no longer a "likable treasure-hunting rogue", but a feared and murderous warlord. I have no idea how such a solution could be reached with modern technologies and paradigms, but the integration of "player-story" and "intended story" makes for a compelling, if vexing, conundrum.

[StarSlayer]

Pretty cool article, I liked one of his points about subconsciously forcing yourself to do actions in the game that make zero sense gameplay wise for the sake of realism.  Especially in RPGs, I can't count how many times in Mass Effect or Kotor I forced myself to walk at a measured pace in public areas because "sprinting around the Presidium isn't very Commander Shepard like."  Heck I remember playing Twilight Princess and Red Dead Redemption and carefully relegating the pace I kept my horse because realistically the animal can only maintain a canter or gallop for  a short period.

[NGTM-1R]

Tell me things I didn't learn playing tabletop RPGs in 1992.

[Mongoose]

Heh, I've done that same thing with horses in a few games too.  I'm currently replaying Alan Wake on the 360 (great game), and I usually make it a point to not run around all over the place when I'm inside a building, since it doesn't feel right.  The fun thing is, that game sort of limits the "sprint everywhere" thing by default, since you do run out of breath after a fairly short period of constant sprinting...you're playing an author wearing a tweed jacket, though, so it fits.

The article was a good read, though.  Partly because of some of the points it raises, I've never been much for sandbox-esque games myself...I mean, I can see how tooling around in an open world would be amusing for a while, but there comes a point where I'd stop and ask, "Why am I doing this?"  I'd probably have more fun with it if I viewed myself in the role of creator, but when I buy a game, I want to be the consumer of someone else's content, someone far better at the creative arts than myself.  I'd much rather have a gaming experience like FreeSpace, something that's completely linear but tightly-crafted and engaging.

[Mikes]

The sad part (in my eyes) is that some developers don't even try (or at least not very hard) so often you are left with a beautiful world filled with boring unmemorable characters and some sad excuse of a forgettable plot: See Elders Scrolls.

The author mentiones reader collaboration when enjoying a piece of literature...   in that sense games too require a certain amount of collaboration from the player to offer a truly immersive experience: I.e. In a roleplaying game... a player who is simply going off on his own doing whatever, ignoring the plot, or actively trying to break it...  kinda missed the point of roleplaying: Which always revolves making decisions "within your characters role".

I.e. in my eyes... stealing a garbage truck and running over pedestrians in LA noire while going to the crime scene is just as idiotic as annoying your friends during a movie, constantly asking "wouldn't it be cool if that cop ran over pedestrians in a garbage truck". Well, nope, it wouldn't be, it's idiotic. - which can be fun in its own right of course ...  but...I do think that developers who worry too much about keeping idiocy in check are fighting a futile battle.

If a player does not want to roleplay no amount of "masking" will get him immersed. I don't think that's anyones fault but the players however.
Of course you can ruin a gaming experience by doing stupid things - just like you can ruin a movie by constantly asking stupid questions, but.... so what?

You can't force people to allow themselves to get immersed LOL.

On the other hand... you can certainly fault developers who don't even try to offer an immersive experience - not even to players actively looking for one.

[Satellight]

I remember a friend of mine who enjoyed just shooting people or mad-driving in GTA 3. This game is the state of the art of sandboxes. But, in which purpose ? I asked my friend, and he responded "It's just FUN".

That is all. FUN. He takes pleasure while playing crazy, while I try to follow the story carefully (especially in RPGs). In fact, I have the opposite problem : I desesperatly try to help everyone, even if I KNOW there will be NO CONSEQUENCES in real life due to my actions in the game, I like to finish every quest, to satisfy every NPC demands, I like to feel INVOLVED in the game's story.

Two ways to play, for only one purpose : Gaming pleasure.

[mxlm]

The article talked about the author's playthrough of Uncharted 2, where his character killed about 800 people- imagine if that were actually worked into the story itself. Your character is no longer a "likable treasure-hunting rogue", but a feared and murderous warlord.

That would be trivial; Uncharted is railed enough that the developers can probably count exactly how many enemies the typical player will wtfpwn in a playthrough, and design the story accordingly. Gameplay and story segregation is much harder to tackle in open world games than in railed games. It's just that most developers have zero interest in doing so, no matter what sort of game they're making.

[MR_T3D]

Goddam, this made me think of Far Cry 2, and how it was pretty close to achieving that, if only they gave you some freedom at the end.

[Luis Dias]

That's one of the best articles I've read in this year about games. Scratch that, the best. Thanks for that.

[TrashMan]

Storytelling in a sandbox should be focused on a more larger scale...instead of focusing on individuals, you focus on large events...the nations/factions are effectively your characters.
This kind of non-linear storytelling is very hard to achieve, but it can be done. X-Com or SoTS might be good examples of it.

[Liberator]

I rather enjoyed the way Just Cause 2 handled it.

[Mikes]

Storytelling in a sandbox should be focused on a more larger scale...instead of focusing on individuals, you focus on large events...the nations/factions are effectively your characters.
This kind of non-linear storytelling is very hard to achieve, but it can be done. X-Com or SoTS might be good examples of it.

GalCiv2... that game really inspires. Just google for some of the stories that people write up based on their games.

[CP5670]

Nice review. I like both types of games discussed here and appreciate deep and immersive plots, but I'm also the kind of person that actively looks for ways to glitch the game and cause unintended effects. This particular game sounds quite interesting as well, but it looks like it's not on the PC.

Especially in RPGs, I can't count how many times in Mass Effect or Kotor I forced myself to walk at a measured pace in public areas because "sprinting around the Presidium isn't very Commander Shepard like."

I find it easy to switch my mindset between having a gameplay or story focus, whatever is appropriate for the current situation. So I turn up the game speed when moving around in the Citadel and zoom around at triple speed, and then immerse myself in the story again when I talk to someone.

[Flipside]

Always reminds me of Oblivion, where Martin kept running in front of me during a fight. He hated me, except when the plot required otherwise :/

[-Sara-]

In my opinion the sandbox genre in the long run (to stay increasingly sandboxy) should have more or less an AI which by itself can patch together a story, interaction, reaction and outcome without the need for many pre-written or scripted scenarios. Perhaps by being entirely capable of making a derivation of excisting scripts and outcomes monitored, through having players upload their progress to a server, which is accessed by your personal 'gamemaster/dungeonmaster' AI, while being capable to some extent read the player's intention (do I run from trouble when threatened, do I face threats and trouble, do I provoke trouble through threatening others) to create a desirable outcome. Things like giving characters a personality and psychological profile would make for odds or such on how they'd react.

Right now MMO's are very carefully experimenting with storytelling mechanisms where some players write the quests and then other players have to play it with the storytelling players keeping an eye on events, to intervene where needed. I hope to see that unwrap further. Star Wars Galaxies and Star Trek Online play around with that. Vampire the Masquerade tried long ago also.

I'll read the review more thoroughly tomorrow. Tonight I'm rather tired.

[Luis Dias]

Yes, same thoughts occurred to me a week ago, Sara, only to remember its obvious conclusion: The Holodeck.

[-Sara-]

Yes, same thoughts occurred to me a week ago, Sara, only to remember its obvious conclusion: The Holodeck.

I don't think holodecks will happen. We'll probably experience games in a semi-catatonic trance, having data and experiences happen inside our brain as if we're undergoing controlled dreaming. That seems far more likely to occur before the invention perfected touchable, lifelike holograms.

The holodeck is to videogames as cybernetic prosthesis are to the problem of limb loss: a step we'll skip entirely by the time we techonologically get there. Rather than making cybernetic prosthesises which work as well as our own limbs, we'll probably just clone limbs decades before we can work out proper cybernetics.

But I don't want to get off topic too much. 'Polishing' gameplay details can for a while also fool the player with immersion. What if we, in the previously mentioned KotOR or ME examples choose to run and not walk, and suddenly the civilian NPC's act disturbed? Or a police guard tells us to not run in the promenade and when we later wish to convince that same guard to let us pass into a room, the guard looks negatively at us and refuses us in! We just lost a chance to visit an area peacefully. Action and consequence.

[Luis Dias]

Yes, you're right Sara, the techical issues are unimportant though, what matters is the end result: an artificial environment filled with AIs that adapt their own reactions to our actions, but nevertheless are bound to the narratives that are programmed into them in the first place. ST showcased this holodeck as a means of gaming, or pleasure, or just philosophical bantering, but also as a storytelling medium ("author author" in ST: Voyager as a great example) or even as a "mod" engine that can be toyed with by everyone.

What if we, in the previously mentioned KotOR or ME examples choose to run and not walk, and suddenly the civilian NPC's act disturbed? Or a police guard tells us to not run in the promenade and when we later wish to convince that same guard to let us pass into a room, the guard looks negatively at us and refuses us in! We just lost a chance to visit an area peacefully. Action and consequence.

This article is amazingly good at describing precisely this point. Please read it, you'll find yourself at home, and I agree with the author in its entirety on it.

[CP5670]

If a game did something like that, it would make sense in the game's universe but would irritate players. Even as it is, many people like me found the running in ME to be intolerably slow and used the speed commands to make the game more fun and less tedious.