| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
| Side Quest: Emergent Stories |
|
The last poll looked at stats in cRPGs, and not surprisingly for our audience, 90% of respondents liked stats in their RPGs. A little over 7% wanted them kept simple and a handful thought they were outdated - although we didn't get any clear feedback on alternative mechanisms. This week we look at the future of narrative in cRPGs (potential Fallout 2 spoiler follows).
<br>
<br>This year has seen heightened debate over the role of stories in games on many sites around the internet. While gamers have long argued about the <em>quality</em> of stories, there hasn’t been much prior debate over their <em>role</em> or whether traditional story-telling techniques even belong in games. <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2112744/" target="_blank">Slate</a> seemed to start the ball rolling, with this article railing against excessive use of cinematics. Games, they assert, should be an <em>interactive</em> medium -- and they’re right. Going further, the article goes on to hint that traditional narrative has no place in games – that the focus should be on emergent gameplay.
<br>
<br>Some of my favourite cRPG moments are story related (and by “story” I’m going to throw plot, narrative, dialogue and character development into the same pot). Planescape: Torment enthralled me with a compelling setting and fascinating characters. Sometimes while playing I would sit back and wonder for a while at characters like Trias the Betrayer or the idea of dozens? thousands? of iterations of Nameless Ones through the years. The ending of Fallout shorted synapses in my brain – brilliant.
<br>
<br>One moment in Fallout 2 (the first time I played it) stands out in my memory and illustrates the interactive nature of games. It was an insignificant part – one most gamers would think is unremarkable – but it caught me by surprise and drew me deeper into the game. Little Jonny was captive in the Slag caves and I was trying to resolve the tension between the townsfolk of Modoc and the Slags…the sort of routine quest we’ve all done a thousand times and always ends well. Somehow I screwed it up; it was like being hit with a sledgehammer when I returned to town and found they had attacked the Slags…and everyone was dead. That’s the thing about a good game – and particularly a cRPG – the player has a chance to make decisions and participate in the creation of the narrative.
<br>
<br>But only as far as the developer has scripted. As time goes on, it seems I routinely hear developers saying “we can’t include that – that would make the scripting unmanageable”. In fact, with the success of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic it seems the industry has largely embraced a “good” path and an “evil path”, which doesn’t leave a lot of room for player expression.
<br>
<br>Perhaps the next evolutionary phase in cutting-edge cRPGs is greater use of emergent gameplay through advanced NPC and faction AI – the RPG equivalent of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_generation" target="_blank">procedurally generated graphics</a>. Imagine Oblivion’s Radiant AI ratcheted up several notches and able to interact with the player in more ways. The recent <a href="http://www.elderscrolls.com/forums/index.php?s=5fa26d2c64a7a06e9e661abe1950664b&showtopic=149722" target="_blank">Oblivion fan interview</a> included this question:<blockquote><em><b>We're aware that RAI gives schedules and desires to individual NPCs, but how will RAI work on a larger, social scale? For example, how might an NPC work in a guild environment, based on both its own goals, as well as those of the guild it is a part of?</b>
<br>
<br>It doesn’t work on a grand scale like that. We give the individuals of the guild goals that match with what we know they should be doing. But since they have ownership rights and are friendly automatically with others in the guild, we do get nice behavior from guild NPCs as a group.</em></blockquote>
<br>
<br>Now imagine if it <em>did</em> work on a grand scale – if those NPCs could respond to the player’s actions and even generate quests on a bigger scale.
<br>
<br>At the end of the day, no amount of clever AI will ever replace quality writing, creative scenarios and intriguing characters – but perhaps there’s room for a combination that yields greater scope for players than two pre-determined paths.
<br>
<br>What do you think? Is the story critical or a distant consideration behind the gameplay? Are traditional storytelling techniques out of place in games? Think nothing can replace hand-crafted quests? got a comment on your favourite game story? Hit the poll and don’t forget to comment. |
Sun Aug 28, 2005 1:00 am |
|
|
Vidder
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 05 Aug 2002
Posts: 46
|
quote:
and by “story” I’m going to throw plot, narrative, dialogue and character development into the same pot
ok but where do you draw the border between story and gameplay.
story for me is something i can easily get from a book. gameplay is the interactivity between me and the world. (dialogue, char dev., reaction) |
|
Sun Aug 28, 2005 1:02 am |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
I did that to try and avoid a debate on what story "is", as opposed to its role and its future. There are pages and pages of academic debate out there on the definition of story and the different elements and I wanted to short-cut that. 
Sure, you can get a static story from a book. The advantage of stories in games is that you get to participate rather than be a passive observer and (hopefully) have input on the direction of the story. There's a group of people that say traditional story elements such as an overarching plot, scripted dialogue, cutscenes and so on have no place in games; we should entirely rely on emergent gameplay systems that "create" a narrative.
I don't agree *but* I see a role in RPGs to create adaptive systems that can create more dynamic content rather than hard-scripting two (or three or whatever) preset paths through the game.
_________________
Editor @ RPGDot |
|
Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:30 am |
|
|
Guest
|
Totally agree. One your article and your reply to the first poster here.
Without a story, an RPG is nothing more then a leveler. Sort of a glorified PC version of Pokemon. You basically level, allocate points, and boom...game over.
Fallout was a perfect example of how to recreate the tabletop RPG experience in the CRPG world. Yes yes, I know Fallout was never a PnP game (Would have been nice though), but if you've ever played tabletop, you know how hard it is to have that same level of depth, interactivity, and storytelling in digital form.
Fallout managed to recreate that same type of gameplay. The one where there wasn't always a "right" or "wrong" path, and that even if you thoguht you were progressing through a quest down one of those paths, you were often shocked by the unexpected outcomes. As if a very sneaky DM pulled the rug out from under you at the last second. That's what happened in your example (modoc and the slags) |
|
Sun Aug 28, 2005 3:03 am |
|
|
abbaon
Guest
|
| Re: Side Quest: Emergent Stories |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dhruin
At the end of the day, no amount of clever AI will ever replace quality writing, creative scenarios and intriguing characters
Yes and no. Mostly yes. Yes, because NPCs could only interact with the world, and with you, in the mundane ways that the simulation allowed. AI agents could conceivably work, eat, discuss the events of the day, fall in love, have children, clear forests for farmland, don armor to save their farms from monsters, travel to cities to trade their wares, fall in with the local thieves' guild, assume control of the city's underworld, amass an army of brigands and undead, capture the city and rule as king. And that would rock. But an AI agent won't ever strip your mortality from your body, leaving you to resolve your predicament before the shades of those who've died in your place can hunt you down and steal your memory once more.
No, because I don't think we'll ever face the choice you described. Quality writing, creative scenarios and intriguing characters are rare as hell, and I expect them to remain so. There's still only one PS:T. So, for me, a deep simulation could easily replace the plot, characters and dialog of, say, Neverwinter Nights. |
|
Sun Aug 28, 2005 7:39 am |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
For me, without a plot/story with developing characters, you have nothing but a lame FPS. Like Dhruin, PS-T and the Fallouts are standard bearers for me also. For me, the one magic moment I remember most from F1 occurs when I finally manage to get past several obstacles to meet a particular character who fawns all over me about how welcome I am and how glad he is to see me. Then, right at the end he has just one question; who am I and what do I want? Corny, perhaps, but it's stayed with me for many years!!
FATE, is a fun game, but it will never come close to rivalling the classics of the genre; it has no story. Geneforge has extremely dated graphics, simple mechanics, yet is almost a cult classic among those who appreciate great RPG's. Why? For me, what links games like PS-T, Fallout, and yes Geneforge (among others), is the word CHOICES!! In these games, you make choices and then have to live with the consequences. Many of these choices are not simply Black, or White. Some in fact are black, or blacker!! No emergent game play could match this IMO. That's not to say that great games need such choices, but the BEST do!!
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
 |
|
Sun Aug 28, 2005 8:10 am |
|
|
Lorgosin
Head Merchant
Joined: 10 Aug 2002
Posts: 69
Location: Sweden |
There has been alot of research into this subject (as would be expected). A common approach is to let the NPCs have their own agendas but make them follow a very general storyline. In other words they are there to both help the player to continue the story and to provide the story itself. So a hybrid approach with a "skeleton" story and reasonably autonomous agents is as I see it a feasible alternative. For an introduction to the field (Called Narrative Intelligence, or NI, by some) I would recommend the works of Phoebe Sengers and Michael Mateas. Their paper Narrative Intelligence provides a very general introduction to the field. Also highly recommended is Multi-Level Direction of Autonomous Creatures for Real-Time Virtual Environments by Blumberg and Galyean which looks closer at how to create agents for such a story generation architecture. Finally you may want to look at Story Games and the OPIATE System by Fairclough for a longer (doctoral thesis) text on the subject that covers much of the basics. |
|
Sun Aug 28, 2005 12:40 pm |
|
|
Lucky Day
Guest
|
quote:
..Yes yes, I know Fallout was never a PnP game...
That's not entirely true. Fallout was orginally going to be based on GURPs but Steve Jackson took his name off of it because (presumebly) of the Mature themes and of course Interplay went with their own SPECIAL. Everyone here probably already knows this-just a reminder 
That said ...
There has to be some modicum of a story to any game to make it intersting. If not its just so much mindlessness. The best games I've played on PC you discover the story and you find yourself in something much larger than you expected. That's where the interaction really becomes handy.
Adventure games, and cRPG's absolutely must have this.
Probably one of the best stories I've played was not a proper CRPG but a Tactical Game: X-COM. A simple premise, you are invaded from Mars but as you progress in technology you learned more and more what those pesky aliens were up to and a big story arch unfolded.
Diablo 2 and Morrowind are examples to me where the game failed to stay interesting. Diablo 2 the story was pointless - just something to tie it together. Morrowind lacked focus because it was so open-ended. Of course, MW did have a linear plot but you were too easily distracted from once you left the first town. |
|
Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:56 pm |
|
|
Lorgosin
Head Merchant
Joined: 10 Aug 2002
Posts: 69
Location: Sweden |
quote:
Originally posted by Lucky Day
...
There has to be some modicum of a story to any game to make it intersting. If not its just so much mindlessness. The best games I've played on PC you discover the story and you find yourself in something much larger than you expected. That's where the interaction really becomes handy.
...
Diablo 2 and Morrowind are examples to me where the game failed to stay interesting. Diablo 2 the story was pointless - just something to tie it together. Morrowind lacked focus because it was so open-ended. Of course, MW did have a linear plot but you were too easily distracted from once you left the first town.
I totally agree with you on Diablo 2. It's incredibly linear. That normally means lots of story, little interaction. Diablo 2 has no story and no interaction (if you don't count killing highly reproductive monsters).
Morrowind is another matter, and it actually makes somewhat of a contradiction of your post. I agree with you that finding out for yourself is the principal strength of game stories (correct me if I misinterpreted you), but that's exactly what the story of Morrowind is about. I've heard the argument you make from many people and when I ask them most of them say they didn't pay too much attention to conversation and above all the books. Reading the books and really talking to the characters enables you to discover completely different aspects to the story. It turns the rather pedestrian "You're the chosen one, kill the bad guy in the mountain" plot into something quite interesting. I'm not saying it's a brilliant story, only that it's very good for an RPG. So to me it's the diversions themselves that makes the game interesting. "Hiding" information in books may work out badly for gamers who wants to get on with it and kill something, but for those of us who likes to roleplay it's a great design choice. It makes the feeling of finding out much stronger (It tends to be lessend by the big red arrow at what you aught to do or hear).
There is also an assumption among many gamers that to "win" the game you must "beat" the game, and anything that doesn't get you closer to beating the game should only be a minor distraction. Becoming the Nevarine is by no means the only way of "winning" Morrowind. Part of the point is that you can choose what your goal is. You can become head of a guild or a great house and be perfectly happy with that. I think that the straight line to the goal makes a game more uninteresting and it makes my choice to save the world (or whatever I'm supposed to do) rather meaningless since it wasn't a choice in the first place. In Morrowind you have to actively persue the goal of saving the island from the blight and that makes you feel more noble for deciding to do so.
Those of you who REALLY played PS:T may remember that letting yourself be distracted was probably the best part of the game. My point is that maybe so-called distractions and unfocused plot may not always be a fault of the designers, but rather a result of gamers who are not used to making choices. |
|
Sun Aug 28, 2005 3:52 pm |
|
|
Lord_Brownie
High Emperor
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
Posts: 575
Location: Unfashionable arm of the spiral galaxy |
I think the stories in RPGs is the point in playing them. In ten minutes I can get bored with games that dont have some story going on. Even Unreal T:2004 gets boring pretty quick. A story in a game of any type keeps the game playable. After learning the basic of how to play I expect greater tactical challenges, and after learning a basic story primise I expect greater things to develop.
Not all games have to be RPGs to have a story that keeps me going. WingCommander 3, and Operation Flashpoint:1985 had stories that developed and added intensity and action to the game play. These are the same two traits that stories in traditional RPGs have to do, and games like Ultmia Underworld, and KOTR do I good job at.
Adding intensity and action (or drama if you perfer) is what many games like Diablo lacked for me. Leveling up, and finding equipment alone just arn't enough.
LB |
|
Sun Aug 28, 2005 7:46 pm |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
If a game doesn't have some sort of story, then you might as well be playing Tetris.
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=  |
|
Sun Aug 28, 2005 7:59 pm |
|
|
ikarius
Village Dweller
Joined: 22 Sep 2002
Posts: 2
Location: Redwood City, CA |
I believe that in CRPGs, you can have a good game, even an excellent game while having a poor story, and you can have an OK game while having poor gameplay (I think poor gameplay is a larger demon than a poor story)
If you have truly sublime gameplay, which immerses the player, gamers will enjoy the game as an activity, and you can get away with having a poor story.
If you have an incredible story but poor gameplay, players may want to find out what happens next enough to slog through the gameplay in order to get the complete story.
If you have an excellent story AND gameplay? WATCH OUT! That's rarified territory that makes for a truly incredible game.
Cheers
Ikarius |
|
Sun Aug 28, 2005 8:07 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
I like my stories like I like my women--dirty.
I think both fallout 1 and 2 had pretty weak stories. The overall story. The towns were great. I remember in Fallout 2 I wanted my vault to die because that stupid old man kept poping up telling me to rush things. And when you ignored him and they all died the game ended. I was a pimp damn it. Pimps don't save vault dwellers.
I agree with corwin, I would much rather have choices than stories. And mechanics are important. I played PS:T a bunch of times but since I do not like the IE games combat system i never actually finshed it. I really wanted to know how it ended though.
Personally, the biggest driver for me has always been the short term goals, such as the minor or side quests. I don't like huge dungeons either. I would say the character development (lots of choices that really impacted gameplay) and the millions of short term quests is what made the FO's fun for me. Or how what seemed like a simple side quest would turn into a huge chain or a big deal. Arcanum had a lot of that, but again, i didn't like the combat. So its seems I am picky.
But if there is no story, or no goals, the game is hard for me to get into. SS had a story, but without sentinels it just doesn't have that certain driver you need to fight battles over and over and over. Darklands was great, but was character focused for me, like i guess diablo would be.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sun Aug 28, 2005 11:55 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lorgosin
Morrowind is another matter, and it actually makes somewhat of a contradiction of your post. I agree with you that finding out for yourself is the principal strength of game stories (correct me if I misinterpreted you), but that's exactly what the story of Morrowind is about. I've heard the argument you make from many people and when I ask them most of them say they didn't pay too much attention to conversation and above all the books. Reading the books and really talking to the characters enables you to discover completely different aspects to the story. It turns the rather pedestrian "You're the chosen one, kill the bad guy in the mountain" plot into something quite interesting. I'm not saying it's a brilliant story, only that it's very good for an RPG. So to me it's the diversions themselves that makes the game interesting. "Hiding" information in books may work out badly for gamers who wants to get on with it and kill something, but for those of us who likes to roleplay it's a great design choice. It makes the feeling of finding out much stronger (It tends to be lessend by the big red arrow at what you aught to do or hear).
There is also an assumption among many gamers that to "win" the game you must "beat" the game, and anything that doesn't get you closer to beating the game should only be a minor distraction. Becoming the Nevarine is by no means the only way of "winning" Morrowind. Part of the point is that you can choose what your goal is. You can become head of a guild or a great house and be perfectly happy with that. I think that the straight line to the goal makes a game more uninteresting and it makes my choice to save the world (or whatever I'm supposed to do) rather meaningless since it wasn't a choice in the first place. In Morrowind you have to actively persue the goal of saving the island from the blight and that makes you feel more noble for deciding to do so.
Those of you who REALLY played PS:T may remember that letting yourself be distracted was probably the best part of the game. My point is that maybe so-called distractions and unfocused plot may not always be a fault of the designers, but rather a result of gamers who are not used to making choices.
Let me try to elaborate a bit on this.
PS:T's feature is the exploration of the world is coincided with the exploration of self. The main character comes across many seemingly irrelevant events, which can eventually turn out to be related to his/their other alter-egos' past. Also, by exploring the past, players may be interested in his future as well. Some key NPCs knows a part of his past and others don't know about him at all. Interaction with these key NPCs are interesting part of this game. Naturally, completing the story of this nameless existence becomes the main goal of this game.
About Morrowind, I think it is an interesting work in a different way. The main plot is rather simple and linear but the unusually complex social structure (for CRPG) colors the plot (As far as I know, this vast world and a linear plot formula will not be changed in Oblivion). And the papers (since some of them are simple scrolls or even orally passed legends) played a great role in letting players to familiarize themselves with the world history or histories since it has different versions of narrative. The more players understand/interact with the world, the more they enjoy the main story. Even if the main story remains same, depending on the play of each player, the story will have different meanings. Is your character avenging his/her past self? Or is he/she trying to save the world as a part of the responsibility for his/her faction? Or is it pure curiosity driving the character? Or may it be as a devotee for god? The main plot is already written but who is completing the story? And this who is an individual as whom player spent time in the given world.
I think these works have a good contrast. PS: T is more introversive and plot-centric while Morrowind is more extroversive and sociological. Or if I am allowed to put it more simply, PS:T's "AI" is that of interactive novels, while Morrowind's "AI" is that of Sims. I think both of them are interesting in terms of thinking the future of CRPG. |
|
Mon Aug 29, 2005 6:48 am |
|
|
Lorgosin
Head Merchant
Joined: 10 Aug 2002
Posts: 69
Location: Sweden |
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous
Let me try to elaborate a bit on this.
PS:T's feature is the exploration of the world is coincided with the exploration of self. The main character comes across many seemingly irrelevant events, which can eventually turn out to be related to his/their other alter-egos' past. Also, by exploring the past, players may be interested in his future as well. Some key NPCs knows a part of his past and others don't know about him at all. Interaction with these key NPCs are interesting part of this game. Naturally, completing the story of this nameless existence becomes the main goal of this game.
About Morrowind, I think it is an interesting work in a different way. The main plot is rather simple and linear but the unusually complex social structure (for CRPG) colors the plot (As far as I know, this vast world and a linear plot formula will not be changed in Oblivion). And the papers (since some of them are simple scrolls or even orally passed legends) played a great role in letting players to familiarize themselves with the world history or histories since it has different versions of narrative. The more players understand/interact with the world, the more they enjoy the main story. Even if the main story remains same, depending on the play of each player, the story will have different meanings. Is your character avenging his/her past self? Or is he/she trying to save the world as a part of the responsibility for his/her faction? Or is it pure curiosity driving the character? Or may it be as a devotee for god? The main plot is already written but who is completing the story? And this who is an individual as whom player spent time in the given world.
I think these works have a good contrast. PS: T is more introversive and plot-centric while Morrowind is more extroversive and sociological. Or if I am allowed to put it more simply, PS:T's "AI" is that of interactive novels, while Morrowind's "AI" is that of Sims. I think both of them are interesting in terms of thinking the future of CRPG.
I totally agree. Thanks for the eloquent elaboration. |
|
Mon Aug 29, 2005 6:13 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat Apr 20, 2019 6:36 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
