Mature games and "Hard" questions

[ReverseEngineered]

I agree that it's not necessary to pose the question as one requiring a player's decision and resulting in consequences; instead, I was merely extolling the virtues of such a possibility -- a possibility that we're not normally able to persue in the real world.

Certainly a game can, like a movie, give a narrative that focuses (or perhaps skirts around) controversial or morally-challenging questions, independent of the player's involvement.

Likewise, I certainly don't purport that a game can only afford player's projecting their thoughts onto avatars through player-specified dialog; as you say, players will always project their thoughts indepedant of that. However, as with the possibility of a player making decisions which result in consequences, the ability for a players to form their own dialog gives something that film and literature can't provide. It's not a necessity, but as with any technology, the interest in a technology isn't in what qualities it can emulate from other technologies, but in what qualities are unique from other technologies.

This is where I feel that allowing a player to make conscious decisions in both dialog and actions with direct effects on the entailing storyline is a unique quality of videogames that should be exploited. Of course, I don't argue that it's the only option -- pre-defined character dialog and storyline progression, as is common in other media, is still a viable and useful option; it just doesn't take advantage of a new possibility offered with interactive media.

Incidentally, I do have one argument against player decisions in video games. As with any book or movie with a strongly-engaging narrative, that engagement is lost when the media is interrupted. Having to put down a book or pause a video for even a few minutes can break the thoughts and emotions that make up the viewer's experience. I find this same interruption happens with interactive dialog in video games. During the time where you must decide your character's response, your focus sharply changes from watching and feeling the dialog to considering your choices and their effects. I find this breaks the otherwise flowing narrative between the characters. Perhaps a middle-ground, where the player made only one or two choices throughout the dialog, would take the focus off of the decision making and allow the dialog to flow more naturally.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

it's more important that the player is made to think about the question being asked rather than the game reflect what the player may decide. Your premise implies that players need to be given the power to answer a "hard" question within the game itself. This is of course false, one could quite easily make a game that deals with a "hard" question that progreses in an entirely linear fashion with a single outcome.

What you are thinking when confronted with the "hard" question is the issue here not what happens with respect to the game world based on your answer to the "hard" question as the avatar on screen. The weight of the question itself is not nessecarily determined by the consequences or lack thereof inside a game. Therefore there is no reason to force the player to accept anything in order for a game to ask a "hard" question.

*edit*

Alright, alright. That deleted bit was getting testy and I'm sorry. I just have a bug up my ass on this issue. I see your point and I'm behind you 100%, lets make the damn things more complex and worry about the game design later. I just...I think we both want games to push this into new areas and we have different ideas about how to do it.

*original post minus me being aggro*

A linear story does not do anything more than a film in terms of questioning conduct. Nor does a silent protagonist. The player has no control over the choices of the characters, so there is no choice being made. There's simply watching the plot unfold and not utilizing interaction in the slightest.

You're saying a game should feature a "hard" question just for the sake of having it, irregardless of what comes of it in the game. I'm saying no one is going to care if the question doesn't do anything. So no one is going to think anything more of it than they do shooting someone in an FPS for bonus points.

If you're going to have a tough question, you might as well make it interactive. That's what games are unique for, isn't it?

 

[vede]

I would love a game that was brutally realistic and limited saves per character. I've always wanted a game that accurately depicted what life would be like in wherever the game takes place. If it's in a warzone, I want to have to really try to avoid being caught in the crossfire. That should weigh in very heavily in what I decide to do next. I would want to see heavy choices, the 'hard' questions. If I have to kill a companion to avoid being caught and possibly killed, that's how it rolls. That's why I tend towards pen-and-paper games, they can be as fantastic or as gritty as you want them to be.

Even though computers are only capable of cold calculations, people are still capable of giving those calculations meaning to the person reading them.

Games are meant to be fun, but fun is a matter of opinion. Maybe some people (like me) prefer those 'hard' questions to be in games. We find it fun to have our minds probed by really heavy, important decisions and not to have to worry about real-life consequences.

 

[supergood15]

I agree with you guys completely. Two years ago i bought Jade Empire for the xbox. I played through the whole game to get the good ending and when I was finished I did the evil ending and I thought it was the most immersive game ever. Then I bought Mass Effect and I wanted to play the game exactly as I would if "I" were commander sheppard. But I essentially ended up doing the same thing as jade empire. I was completely bummed. I want a game where I can be myself inside the game and still get everything I could. So i turned to mmorpg's which turned out to be a bunch of dudes calling me names endlessly because i didn't understand the complex controls. So finally I went to online fps's which wasn't a much better alternative. I would like for my games to have the depth of a book because, unlike movies there is no strain for time so why cant we have basically a choose your own ending story book but with more moral issues like the abortion case you guys keep speaking of. i think it would make a great addition to a story and does allow for more mature themes than modern gamings (cough gears cough) juvenile attempt at gritty realism. Is it too much to ask, is the gaming industry really that scared of Jack Thompson? i hope not a korean movie can involve a man tricking another man to have sex with his daughter as revenge for the man seeing him have sex with his sister, but a game cant show a left buttcheek without the media exploding? i find that strange

 

[shadow skill]

L.B. You seem to be conflating the idea of a question with a choice. The two do not walk hand in hand because a question need not be of the "what would you do" variety. The player does not need to be given control over the answer to the question in order for the player to think about the question being posed to him or her. The point of the question could simply be introspection or a question of "How do you feel?" or "What does this mean?" If you stipulate that a "hard" question cannot carry weight unless it is based around choices made by the player (Is transformed into a "hard" choice rather than a question. Or accompanied by a "hard" choice.) you lock yourself into a reward and punishment system that will probably end up killing whatever it is you are trying to do if you are not careful.

I could make a game that asks "What makes a detective different from a serial killer?" I might have you open the game as the killer in the processs of killing someone. (It would be an excellent opprotunity to make use of first person view and quick time events.) Then have you clean up the crime scene, at which point you switch to the role of detective trying to catch the killer. The goal of a game like this, the "answer" to the question, is what you as the person in the role of both criminal and officer of the law was actually feeling while you were in either role. It's not what the creator has done in order to create good characters out of the killer and detective. That is simply an exercise in narrative. A game like the example I gave demands that the player see as the killer and detective see, feel as the killer or detective (might) feel, and does as the killer or detective does. In this example the emotions of the player avatars would serve to ensure plot cohesion while the question posed may be answered within the course of the narrative by the hero the question is really directed at the player him or herself.

His or her own answer is not dictated by that of the avatars on screen, it's dictated by what he or she was feeling while playin various parts of the game itself. The question is a subtext of the game directed at the player not a game mechanic as a choice would be.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

L.B. You seem to be conflating the idea of a question with a choice. The two do not walk hand in hand because a question need not be of the "what would you do" variety. The player does not need to be given control over the answer to the question in order for the player to think about the question being posed to him or her. The point of the question could simply be introspection or a question of "How do you feel?" or "What does this mean?" If you stipulate that a "hard" question cannot carry weight unless it is based around choices made by the player (Is transformed into a "hard" choice rather than a question. Or accompanied by a "hard" choice.) you lock yourself into a reward and punishment system that will probably end up killing whatever it is you are trying to do if you are not careful.

And you, my loquacious friend, seem to think that naming the chess pieces after famous philosophers will make that chess game a philosophical debate.

No amount of subtext in an FPS is going to change the fact that you just run around shooting crap the whole game. If you don't change the game design, you don't change the meaning.

 

[Mr. Jims]

It's an interesting argument, and I do wish games would try to make a legitimate philosophical point more often. Well, maybe not in terms of philosophy itself, but you get what I mean.

Of course, these difficult questions shouldn't bog down the gameplay itself or ruin the vibe of certain games and genres. I mean, who's to say that Mario is in the right in destroying thousands of Goombas? That's practically a genocide. We sometimes forget that Goombas often enlist in Bowser's armies to support their families financially, and to keep food on the table. They're simply victims of society. So, who's the real monster in this scenario?

Joking aside, video games are primarily about the gameplay itself and wanton destruction. If the game gets too muddled up with tough questions, it might not make the game as fun anymore. It would certainly be more interesting and artistic, but not necessarily as fun.

I dunno. It seems to rest on whether you tend to go to the movies for sheer entertainment or to witness a thought-provoking argument. People tend to see both, depending on their mood, but I tend to gravitate toward simple entertainment when it comes to video games.

 

[shadow skill]

So something that is not a gameplay design decision requires changes to gameplay design in order to create meaning within games? Do you have any idea what you just said? "Hard" questions are about narrative direction not game play direction. It's quite possible to illicit emotional response without doing anything particularly novel with a gameplay design. Now it is also possible to use game design decisions to illicit emotional response without relying on the narrative to tell the player how to feel about something. This is something seperate from the concept of "hard" questions, as it speaks more to the capacity of games as an interactive medium. The issue of maturity in games is an issue of subject matter not a technical issue of how a game works. It is an issue of what, not nessecarily how. The meaning of a book or movie or painting is not predicated on the substlye used to create the work.

It would be like suggesting that a book's meaning will inherently change if you write one version in first person and another in the third person even with the content being all but identical save for the change in written perspective. The message an author may try to deliver in a book is not going to change because of a technical design deciscion with respect to perspective. What would change the message delivered is an alteration of the plot itself not how it is expoused.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

So something that is not a gameplay design decision requires changes to gameplay design in order to create meaning within games? Do you have any idea what you just said? "Hard" questions are about narrative direction not game play direction. It's quite possible to illicit emotional response without doing anything particularly novel with a gameplay design. Now it is also possible to use game design decisions to illicit emotional response without relying on the narrative to tell the player how to feel about something. This is something seperate from the concept of "hard" questions. The issue of maturity in games is an issue of subject matter not a technical issue of how a game works. It is an issue of what, not nessecarily how. The meaning of a book or movie or painting is not predicated on the substlye used to create the work.

It would be like suggesting that a book's meaning will inherently change if you write one version in first person and another in the third person even with the content being all but identical save for the change in written perspective. The message an author may try to deliver in a book is not going to change because of a technical design deciscion with respect to perspective. What would change the message delivered is an alteration of the plot itself not how it is expoused.

And you are straw-maning my argument, which you seem to do a lot. I make no claims about books, though that argument is idiotic. 'Lolita' in the third person would not make Humbert nearly as sympathetic as he is in the First.

Nor is this issue separate. You claim interactivity is important, then you tell me "hard" (this is getting phallic) questions come from narrative or subtext. So I'm just supposed to sit back and watch during a cutscene, then go back to shooting people in an FPS? An NPC runs in crying about me shooting her husband, then a room full of guards runs in? What am I supposed to do? Not shoot them because an NPC will cry about it? Let them kill me? Turn off the game? You call that an emotional response? Oh man, what I'm doing is wrong. I should let them shoot me.

Player Input. That's what makes them games. So when you insert "hard" questions into a game, you have to ask what the player response is going to be.

It's still a shooting game. The player still spends the entire time killing stuff. Or in an adventure game where I spend the whole time solving dungeons. You have to change the bloody game design.

You're the one who claimed none of us "got the greater point". I'm starting to wonder if you had one at all.

 

[ZacQuickSilver]

I think that games are missing a critical component that is necisary to have the "Hard Questions" present:

Sentience.



Sentience is the awareness of oneself as an entity separate from the universe, that there are other beings in a similar state, and that they are likely to act simiralr to oneself in the same situation.

Without sentience, there is no ability to comunicate ideas: only what is so. If you look at animal behaviour, only a few animals have the capacity to act based on predictions of how others will act: humans, several primates, crows, several varieties of parrots, dolphins, etc.

However, Game Avatars are not on this list by and large.

If anyone can name a game to me in which you are required, at any point in time, to act based on how others are going to act, with the only ability you have to predict their actions is previous actions, I will be very surprised. I can name a few that feature occasional hints of this (deception/scams in MMOs), and only hints. There are no games out there that do a good job of this.

Worst of all are games where quicksaving is easy. While quicksaving makes for a great shooter game, where death can come at any time, it makes for a poor game that is tring for any semblance of sentience because you are no longer guessing how they will act based on how you will act: you guess how they will act based on how they acted last time you plaed through this segment.

I'm not sure how to introduce Sentience into a game. The only suggestion I have is a nethack approach, where dying means the savefile is dead too: perhaps allowing a savefile to only be loaded once (or twice). However, I am currently getting ready to embark on the path to a Bachelor's degree (or more) trying to answer that question (among others, but that's high on the list of questions to answer).


Once sentience is present, then you can begin to ask hard questions. Books, movies, and the like can ask hard questions because we can suspend disbelief and believe that the characters in a book or movie are real, sentient beings.

However, in most games, even if the character is being played by a human, it is hard to suspend disbelief because they do not act sentient: Bots are not recognised because they do not act sentient, they are recognised because they do not follow animal cycles of inactivity, which human players (sentient or otherwise) do.

And beings have a hard time asking hard questions about non-sentient beings: few people care if a chicken dies. The chicken isn't sentient (animal rights included: they just care if it suffers). People who choose to be vegetarian often like some form of "awareness" (sentience) to the animal killed. Extend this to the world of gaming, and it holds: we don't care if non-senitent beings (our own character included) dies: they simply aren't sentient. Thet don't matter.


If you want to ask the hard questions, first make it mean something to the characters. Not the players, the characters. And make it real.

Real like Aeris' death in FF7.

 

[shadow skill]

What I have been saying is that games CAN leverage the fact that they are interactive to avoid tell me aspects of plot progression I never said that they had to do so in order to actually ask a "hard" question.

It seems that most of the replies have missed something important about games, the one thing that sets it apart from every other art form...Games are interactive by nature therefore they do not nessecarily require that the player be told how to feel about anything that might be going on in a game.

What I was trying to point out is that games being an interactive medium does not prevent "hard" questions from being asked by the narrative. I never told you interactivity is a must have I told you that it could be used to illicit emotion from the player. You were the one who invented this idea, not me. Nowhere did I say you couldn't ask "hard" questions inside of a conventional game, you did that. My whole point is about the content (and context) of games. Notice I said that the meaning of a book does not nessecarily change just because one version is first person and the other is third person; that is not the same as a character becoming more or less sympathetic as a result of the delivery.

Where did I say none of the people who replied got the greater point please tell me?

 

[LisaB1138]

It seems to me that it will never be what you want it to be.

By even asking these "hard questions" (whatever they may be) in a medium like a game, you automatically reduce them to "easy questions." The medium belittles the concept, reducing what, in other media or RL, would be a moment of crisis to nothing more than entertainment. The game environment in and of itself is manipulative; people will always look at the question with their "eyes on the prize" so to speak. What answer will get me what ending? What scenario do I still need to get 100%? What happens if I . . .? Don't like it? Reload and do something else.

What makes this interesting is that answering these "questions" in a game environment probably leads to more thought than answering them in RL. How long would Cloud angst in RL before sleeping with Aeris? How far down the consequence road would his mind travel in RL? Not as far as a gamer would take it surely. The reason teen pregnancy is so rampant is because few teens actually consider consequences.

The problem is just consciously knowing you're affecting the game with your decisions. When I first played Silent Hill 2, I knew there were different endings, but not how to get specific endings. When I reading about things that influence what ending you got, I was pleased to discover they were an odd batch of unconscious choices I'd made during the game, like checking on Maria while I explored the sanitarium.

 

[Alex_P]

L.B. You seem to be conflating the idea of a question with a choice. The two do not walk hand in hand because a question need not be of the "what would you do" variety. The player does not need to be given control over the answer to the question in order for the player to think about the question being posed to him or her. The point of the question could simply be introspection or a question of "How do you feel?" or "What does this mean?" If you stipulate that a "hard" question cannot carry weight unless it is based around choices made by the player (Is transformed into a "hard" choice rather than a question. Or accompanied by a "hard" choice.) you lock yourself into a reward and punishment system that will probably end up killing whatever it is you are trying to do if you are not careful.

The thematic centerpiece of a story (well, most stories) involves an issue, an answer, and an outcome. Typically: introduce a dynamic situation; the protagonist makes a choice; we see the consequences of that choice. Here [http://www.lumpley.com/creatingtheme.html]'s a little essay about it from back when pen-and-paper RPG people were talking about this stuff a lot.

If you take it for granted that the player-character in a game is the protagonist, then it is very important to actually let the player dictate the protagonist's "answer." Otherwise the whole experiences end up, well... deprotagonizing. The developers are taking away your opportunity to contribute to the story.

(I think it's possible to make the player NOT the protagonist, but this'll suck woefully unless you do it very intentionally and have already really, really mastered the more conventional style. So, in essence, it's best not to worry about this technique any time soon. In contrast, the standard formula of "pilot the main character through battle and then sit through some talking cutscenes" basically leaves you with no protagonist whatsoever.)

Sure, this "premise" stuff is remedial. But that's where most games are right now. Without that strong central core, the extra little details -- the smaller "hard questions" you don't have to answer -- mean fairly little.

-- Alex

 

[Alex_P]

What happens if I . . .? Don't like it? Reload and do something else.

The narrative flow of a movie is distinct from the chronological ordering of its events, right? If I put a flashback near the end of a film, for example, it's very different from what I'd get if I put that same scene near the beginning. That's something that makes no difference in the characters' contexts, but greatly affects the way the audience perceives things.

In a video game, the narrative of play incorporates saving/reloading/&c. "I tried A and then reloaded and tried B" gives you the same progression of in-game events as "I tried B," but the player's experience is different. That's very important -- and not necessarily a bad thing, right?

-- Alex

 

[OurGloriousLeader]

I think it's already happening. Think of the games that have advertised themselves as 'having the player choose', but are then lambasted because the choice is essentially 'good/evil'. As the technology advances, we're going to see games becoming more grey in their morality, just as films and literature have. Games will take it that one step further because the player is making the choices and seeing the reactions. They are answering the 'hard' questions.

So, yes, don't worry. It's happening.

 

[Alex_P]

I think it's already happening. Think of the games that have advertised themselves as 'having the player choose', but are then lambasted because the choice is essentially 'good/evil'. As the technology advances, we're going to see games becoming more grey in their morality, just as films and literature have. Games will take it that one step further because the player is making the choices and seeing the reactions. They are answering the 'hard' questions.

So, yes, don't worry. It's happening.

Bioware is the king of the "good/evil" choice game.

It's important to look at how their games aren't about the conventional "good/evil" storyline.

Using the simplistic model of "theme" I mentioned above...
Setup: Blah blah you have to make a choice between good and evil while you play.
Answer: You choose one.
Outcome: Success! Victory! The game gives you a high-five and a pretty cutscene, with a different flavor depending on which side you picked.

This is empowering because the game reinforces your choices. Choosing the path of the Dark Side / Closed Fist / stabbing peasants at random doesn't lead to a punishment for picking the "wrong" choice. The evil ending still feels evil -- totalitarian empires, red sky, whatever -- but it's a victory.

This kind of "protagonist is always right" storytelling is shallow, but it's head and shoulders above the "I made this game to punish you into playing everything my way" style of game storytelling.

Note also that, despite the good/evil meter, the "choice" is really a single story event that you're building up to (in Jade Empire: the dragon scene; in KOTOR: the dialogue choices when facing Bastila). That's what makes the stories worthwhile. Without that bit -- if it was just "follow the meter and that tells you what ending you get" -- the games would be far, far worse.


There's nothing wrong with "(Blank) vs. (blank)?" as your whole thematic issue, either. Most stories are like that -- love vs. duty, sacrifice vs. safety, pride vs. need, whatever. It's how you set up the conflict and how thorough and nuanced your look at the consequences of the choice is that matters. The biggest problem with Bioware's storytelling is simply this: every game is the same story, the same choice, dressed up in different clothes.


-- Alex

 

[MJ12 Commando]

The Witcher was a game that introduced such mature "hard" moral choices.(and was slandered by reviews on this board of having "a character that does not choose his allegiance between good and evil but insists on behaving a shades of gray"). Depending on your choices you would get different rewards(or on award at all if you mess up) and the appreciation of different NPCs. It all fit the fantasy setting quite well but also touched modern problems(racism, terrorism, sex slavery). Excample: Letting an elven commando take supplies from a depot you are hired in. You know they will starve without the food but you also know that it would be arming a terrorist militia with weapon they can use against civilians. In the end I decided to let them have the crates to avoid confrontation with the elves. I went on confident of choosing the right thing until later in the next act the elves use the weapons from the depot to murder one of my NPC contacts. I got a short cutscene that showed me that this was the consequence of my decision and that I must try to maintain "neutrality" in my decisions. This is one of many quests like this in the game(which our mental guru Yhatzee failed to mention in his ramblings).

Another game which tried this was the fabled Deus Ex. It offered no reward for your decision so you could play a raving lunatic if you felt like it(see the Anti-walkthrough). Usually i would guess your first play through would represent your real decisions adequately.

 

[shadow skill]

The Witcher was a game that introduced such mature "hard" moral choices.(and was slandered by reviews on this board of having "a character that does not choose his allegiance between good and evil but insists on behaving a shades of gray"). Depending on your choices you would get different rewards(or on award at all if you mess up) and the appreciation of different NPCs. It all fit the fantasy setting quite well but also touched modern problems(racism, terrorism, sex slavery). Excample: Letting an elven commando take supplies from a depot you are hired in. You know they will starve without the food but you also know that it would be arming a terrorist militia with weapon they can use against civilians. In the end I decided to let them have the crates to avoid confrontation with the elves. I went on confident of choosing the right thing until later in the next act the elves use the weapons from the depot to murder one of my NPC contacts. I got a short cutscene that showed me that this was the consequence of my decision and that I must try to maintain "neutrality" in my decisions. This is one of many quests like this in the game(which our mental guru Yhatzee failed to mention in his ramblings).

Another game which tried this was the fabled Deus Ex. It offered no reward for your decision so you could play a raving lunatic if you felt like it(see the Anti-walkthrough). Usually i would guess your first play through would represent your real decisions adequately.

I've not finished The Witcher the only machine that I have that an play it is broken but I do remember the choice you had to make in the first village in particular. The way The Witcher handled the act of making choices given what I have played is probably the example that other games that want to do the moral choice thing should emulate. As I said before I have not played Deus Ex so I can't comment on it.

Let me repeat myself a question does not require a choice on the part of the player. Making choices meaningful isn't the same as asking a question. It's a seperate problem, (Well it isn't really a problem, if you play a ame more than once to see different outcomes the game did something right.) if a game was made that dealt with the idea of people being driven towards war because of how they must act; there is not nessecarily a need for the player to make any choices about whether war will occur or not.

Take a premise like the one used by X-men. If people with those kind of powers actually appeared on Earth in real life a war between the people with the powers and those without is all but a certainty simply because the side without the powers is going to know unconsciously that their time is over and they will not go quietly into the night. The actions the "normal" humans take will ensure that there is an equal response by those with powers etc. Perhaps one might ask "Is war really a product of stupidity or is it something else?" using this premise as a vehicle. The type of game you create isn't important because there is no reason why most game types that currently exist could not incorporate such a narrative premise. A game isn't always about the gameplay, Metal Gear is a stealth game that is about the characters dealings with the Patriots. Being stealthy is what you do to get through the game not the point of the narrative which is there to keep you playing the game.

 

[Alex_P]

Let me repeat myself a question does not require a choice on the part of the player. Making choices meaningful isn't the same as asking a question. It's a seperate problem, (Well it isn't really a problem, if you play a ame more than once to see different outcomes the game did something right.)

It's hardly that simple. Narratively meaningful choices are distinct from meaningful-in-the-sense-of-gameplay choices (consequently, not every game token is a protagonist). Likewise, a game with a branching "storyline" but a weak, simplistic, or nonexistent premise is still a bad story.

-- Alex

 

[Alex_P]

We do have a lot of games with quality narrative, good characterization, adult subject matter already, and a nuanced exploration of issues.

Deus Ex covered all this territory excellently eight years ago. Its unfairly-derided sequel did a pretty good job, too. Both the big stuff and small stuff, central premise and supporting details, capably executed.

Vampire: Bloodlines, Troika's bug-tastic last gasp, did a good job -- despite being the quintessence of trenchcoats-and-katanas-style "Vampire" play brought to the PC.

Torment, now almost ten years old, had some really beautifully nuanced bits. It's a great character-focused story.

There's probably a lot of IF we could dig up. I'm not a big fan of the platform, though, so all I can recommend off the cuff is "Voices".

-- Alex