belford
Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 1533
I see people talking about fan-fiction, in-game story, and role-playing. These are all different topics.
But first I must toss aside (with great force) the term "role-playing game", when applied to computers -- as in "CRPG" or "MMORPG". That was a misnomer from the beginning. (The beginning being, perhaps, Wizardry. Or I guess Rogue was earlier.) Yes, those early games allowed you to *play a role* -- but so did Pac-Man, Donkey Kong, Doom, and Myst.
What is "role-playing" in a computer game, if it isn't a particular genre of game? People will answer differently, I'm sure, but I say: it's the sense that you are acting within the game world -- you are involved in what's going on. If the game hands you a choice but then forces a particular response, you're not involved; you're following a rut. If the game hands you a choice but ignores your response, you're again not involved; you are powerless. Ideally, the game should hand you choices that make a difference.
Notice that I do not specify *what* difference the choice makes. There are always some game elements that you can influence, and some game elements that you cannot.
The naive player says "I want to choose how the story comes out!" Contrariwise, the cynical player expects to have a pre-existing story pass in front of his eyes -- perhaps as cut scenes sprinkled in between meaningless (but time-consuming) fight scenes. Or in between meaningless-but-time-consuming puzzles, depending on what kind of game it is.
Both players are wrong. Or rather, both need to find better games. (And maybe the naive player needs to become a game designer.) An effective game will be built of large and small events; layers of events, really. It will offer meaningful choices in some layers, while guiding the player in others. Obviously, if the player fails to perceive the choices he has, the game will fail. But equally: if the player thinks that he has choices where he *doesn't*, the game will fail. The player will get stuck and frustrated, trying to find a path that doesn't exist.
I'll use Myst as an example. You have great freedom in walking around and looking at things. (Particularly in RealMyst.) You have very little freedom in picking things up and carrying things around -- but this is clear as soon as you encounter an object; it just plain doesn't come with you. On a higher level, you can choose which of the four Ages to explore first (second, third, fourth). But you can't choose to swim out and explore the ocean. On yet a higher plane, you can choose which of four ultimate story-endings you will reach. You can't make new ones. Making a deal with Sirrus to conquer Stoneship together is a cute idea, but it's not in the game.
Next part: what this means for Uru.
But first I must toss aside (with great force) the term "role-playing game", when applied to computers -- as in "CRPG" or "MMORPG". That was a misnomer from the beginning. (The beginning being, perhaps, Wizardry. Or I guess Rogue was earlier.) Yes, those early games allowed you to *play a role* -- but so did Pac-Man, Donkey Kong, Doom, and Myst.
What is "role-playing" in a computer game, if it isn't a particular genre of game? People will answer differently, I'm sure, but I say: it's the sense that you are acting within the game world -- you are involved in what's going on. If the game hands you a choice but then forces a particular response, you're not involved; you're following a rut. If the game hands you a choice but ignores your response, you're again not involved; you are powerless. Ideally, the game should hand you choices that make a difference.
Notice that I do not specify *what* difference the choice makes. There are always some game elements that you can influence, and some game elements that you cannot.
The naive player says "I want to choose how the story comes out!" Contrariwise, the cynical player expects to have a pre-existing story pass in front of his eyes -- perhaps as cut scenes sprinkled in between meaningless (but time-consuming) fight scenes. Or in between meaningless-but-time-consuming puzzles, depending on what kind of game it is.
Both players are wrong. Or rather, both need to find better games. (And maybe the naive player needs to become a game designer.) An effective game will be built of large and small events; layers of events, really. It will offer meaningful choices in some layers, while guiding the player in others. Obviously, if the player fails to perceive the choices he has, the game will fail. But equally: if the player thinks that he has choices where he *doesn't*, the game will fail. The player will get stuck and frustrated, trying to find a path that doesn't exist.
I'll use Myst as an example. You have great freedom in walking around and looking at things. (Particularly in RealMyst.) You have very little freedom in picking things up and carrying things around -- but this is clear as soon as you encounter an object; it just plain doesn't come with you. On a higher level, you can choose which of the four Ages to explore first (second, third, fourth). But you can't choose to swim out and explore the ocean. On yet a higher plane, you can choose which of four ultimate story-endings you will reach. You can't make new ones. Making a deal with Sirrus to conquer Stoneship together is a cute idea, but it's not in the game.
Next part: what this means for Uru.
_________________
Andrew Plotkin (KI#00188183)
Uru Newcomer's Guide and Answer Sheet
-- http://eblong.com/zarf/uru/newfaq.html


Personal blog -