Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sirus]

I'm pleased by how surprisingly good Detroit: Become Human is. David Cage is still a hack, that's obvious, but the game is polished like crazy.

Yeah, I'm watching the Super Best Friends play it. Like, okay it's still full of silly QTEs and the racism allegories are pretty obvious so far, but the presentation is fantastic. I especially love the flowcharts at the end of each chapter. There's so many ways these scenes can play out it's actually rather impressive.

[hector13]

I just can’t deal with those kinds of games even if they have an amazing story.

Played through half the tutorial intro thing for Heavy Rain and couldn’t be arsed with it not letting me slash the man’s face open while shaving and smash his special plates.

Did play through all of Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy, and on a second playthrough was hugely dismayed it wouldn’t let me go off the rails of the story they set too much. Specifically in not letting the male police officer piss off his wife/girlfriend by leaving when she was in a bad mood, after she was trying to control his life.

If you’re not going to give me the option of fucking things up, why is it a game in the first place?

[Eschar]

Re-listened to Toccata and Fugue in D Minor and re-read some of GEB. (For some reason, they 'feel' similar. Probably not a coincidence.)

[Reelya]

If you’re not going to give me the option of fucking things up, why is it a game in the first place?

What they are is a whole other thing, not games. The real problem is we lump everything interactive into this big bucket called "games". But there are room for all sort of experiences within "interactive" and not all of them have to conform to some idea or other. Those games are like movie-quality Choose Your Own Adventure books, and it makes as much sense to pick on their being finite choices as to complain that CYOB only had a finite number of things you could choose from at each junction. It's just a necessary part of that medium - in both cases.

Don't play them if you don't like them, but also don't complain that they exist and that you don't like it because they're not your type of game but you want to see the story. That's no different to e.g. someone who wants to play your favorite game for the story complaining that the gameplay you like exists but gets in the way of them enjoying the work. There are works for different tastes and not all interactive works are going to be able to cater for everyone. It's something we all need to just deal with. e.g. people without much game skill are precluded from finishing most of the story-driven games in existence. It's not a big deal to make some that are more accessible than that. e.g. it's arguably a bigger deal when you get a story-based game you can't finish vs one that's too easy to finish.

As for structure vs costs, there are design trade offs:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

e.g. the most common type of game is sandbox => story bottleneck => sandbox => story bottleneck => sandbox => story bottleneck. You play in the sandbox then you're shunted through the story bottleneck when you're ready, and into the next sandbox, e.g. "gating" areas used to manage the narrative. But these games don't generally have very detailed narratives within the sandbox, they have generic mechanics/physics and rules in each sandbox, possible with some mini-stories but they will be self-contained subplots.

The fact is, the more impressive something is on the narrative front, the more "on rails" it needs to be, because those story moments are hand-crafted. The more options there are, the less any one person can see in a single playthrough, and the more money must be spent to make it, or the less money is assigned to each moment in the game.

 If you want amazing movie-like graphics as well as engrossing characters and everything to be movie-quality in the narrative, dialogue and presentation then, that's not compatible with the sandbox idea, it's compatible with the "linear story" idea. And the best that you can then do is make side-branches that weave in and out of the main story, but there still has to be one main story. That's what you're there for. If you want a different main story play a different narrative game, just like movies.

"Why can't i just lash out and do X like other games?" isn't really a cogent question, because if it was a thing you could do, then it would have been made as a traditional "sandbox" game with standard game physics and engine and you would be able to do generic slashes at the character using that as a weapon. But it would be the same effect probably as picking up anything and using it as a weapon then, not a special "slash with the razor" narrative moment.

[IcyTea31]

If you’re not going to give me the option of fucking things up, why is it a game in the first place?

The "gameplay" makes the player empathize with the characters more closely than in a fully non-interactive movie. "I did that," rather than "This character did that." This makes for a better story, as long as the interactivity isn't distracting from the scene itself (see: press F to pay respects).

[Reelya]

Interactivity icons are a fairly non-intrusive way to let people know thing can be clicked on though, but it's good to have the overt text message as well, but it only pops up after you've dicked around for a while and haven't found the thing you can click on.

[hector13]

See I’m not complaining they exist, I’m complaining the “you cannot progress unless you do this in a very specific manner” points are very common, even for the aforementioned tiny things like you are shaving the guy (if you fail, it should be he has a cut face for the game, as opposed to him grimacing and then forcing you to try again) and smashing plates (his wife gets upset with him, potentially locking certain interactions with her or affecting the story later, as opposed to her shouting “careful!” every time you put it down too hard and not damaging them) which is a bit pointless, in my opinion.

There are points in which it was done well. For example, in Indigo Prophecy/Fahrenheit, there is a point in which you are basically cleaning away the evidence of the murder your character performed the evening before, when the police come knocking. You fail to clean it all up before answering the door, you get arrested and game over.

Less so wth the other controllable character whose wife wants him to not be a police officer, and move away to another city to work in her family’s shop. You cannot leave to go to work unless you smooth things over with his wife, as opposed to him being in a bad mood for the rest of his appearance in the game, which could mean that you as a player now have to choose more aggressive options with him, or certain “sensible” options are greyed out, rather than him having a “mental break” and having to repeat things the way the devs want.

I’m not saying the games are absolutely bad and nobody should play it, I’m saying I think the games are unenjoyable and I can’t play it, because you are given these interactions as though you have the choice, but the consequences for failing relatively minor things are more often than not “nope, try again and do it the way we want you to do it” as opposed to facing up to the consequences and giving you a (slightly) different experience if you decide to play through it again.

[Reelya]

if you fail, it should be he has a cut face for the game

Possible, but then that's another set of models / textures they need to make, and if nobody actually notes his face is cut, how important is it that you can go through the game with a cut face? And it wouldn't just be "cut face / not cut" you'd have to have a blend so that the cut recedes with time. This all costs money for virtually zero narrative benefit. Also, if you add a "face is cut from shaving but it recedes with time" set of texture blends, then that's specific to that one shaving event, and people will wonder why other potential injuries don't also have the same "scarring system". And that would be because each possible scar would need to be modeled as a separate texture overlay on the model, eating up the art team's time and reducing the rendering speed in the final game.

And then remember, it's not just "cut face". That's just what you thought up. They'd have to anticipate every individual thing that everyone on Earth would have thought you "could" do at every point. Which is nonsensical. if they'd added in a "cut face" branch for just that shaving scene, then that would have just been an "on rails" pointless detail anyway. And all those details would cost a lot, and just delay shipping of the game and/or bring in countless chances for bugs or textures or models fucking up. e.g. going into that much detail on optional things would mean the project is a guaranteed failure before it's launched.

There's also the player's point of view. e.g. if an unimportant scene such as the shaving thing could cause a semi-permanent scar on the main character for the rest of the game, you'll get 1-2 people who think that's cool, for 99 other people who get pissed off and end up reloading the game from before the shaving event, until they get it first time without the scar. So, taking player psychology into account you can assume almost all people would just reload the game if that happens. So then, you design it so that it merely makes you do the shaving thing again automatically e.g. exactly what the game actually does. There's also another realism aspect here: most people don't fuck up shaving and walk around with a cut face for hours, even if they went "ow!" it's usually not an actual cut that would really be visible. So there shouldn't be e.g. a 50/50 chance of that happening to you each time you shave in the game, either. e.g. unless it's an actual plot point, then it should be less than a 1% chance, e.g. you cut yourself shaving 3 times a year. And since it's so unlikely, it just makes more narrative sense to prune the possibility down to 0%.

[Haspen]

My 3 week paid vacations have begun.

Heck yeeeeaaaaahhhh.

[hector13]

if you fail, it should be he has a cut face for the game

Possible, but then that's another set of models / textures they need to make, and if nobody actually notes his face is cut, how important is it that you can go through the game with a cut face? And it wouldn't just be "cut face / not cut" you'd have to have a blend so that the cut recedes with time. This all costs money for virtually zero narrative benefit. Also, if you add a "face is cut from shaving but it recedes with time" set of texture blends, then that's specific to that one shaving event, and people will wonder why other potential injuries don't also have the same "scarring system". And that would be because each possible scar would need to be modeled as a separate texture overlay on the model, eating up the art team's time and reducing the rendering speed in the final game.

You say this as though they have no control over the narrative of the game and could increase or decrease the incidence of having to model these things.

The narrative benefit of the player cutting the avatar's face open during the tutorial would be that their actions have consequences within the world of the game. The tutorial tells you to gently push the right stick down, whereas I smashed it down and got the character to grimace, suck in air through his teeth and then try again. It would have been a great touch for the tutorial to then go "well you messed that up, can't fix it now though" and go on. Maybe have another character comment on it later to remind me as a player that the instructions on the screen are for the optimal outcome, other things may happen if you don't follow them.

And then remember, it's not just "cut face". That's just what you thought up. They'd have to anticipate every individual thing that everyone on Earth would have thought you "could" do at every point. Which is nonsensical. if they'd added in a "cut face" branch for just that shaving scene, then that would have just been an "on rails" pointless detail anyway. And all those details would cost a lot, and just delay shipping of the game and/or bring in countless chances for bugs or textures or models fucking up. e.g. going into that much detail on optional things would mean the project is a guaranteed failure before it's launched.

In this particular example, I have to disagree. There are only so many outcomes from someone shaving (unless you want to go extreme and say he could slash his throat open and die in a fountain of arterial spray in the bathroom ) ranging from not as clean a shave as you would like, to cutting themselves. Like I said before, the devs have control of the narrative so they would be able to hash out the details of any particular situation while writing so that they can limit the amount of work that coders and artists have to do in order to portray it in the game. I don't expect every little situation to have a possible branch into something else, but I would like my curiosity to be rewarded (or even punished!) if I decide to go off the rails for a bit.

There's also the player's point of view. e.g. if an unimportant scene such as the shaving thing could cause a semi-permanent scar on the main character for the rest of the game, you'll get 1-2 people who think that's cool, for 99 other people who get pissed off and end up reloading the game from before the shaving event, until they get it first time without the scar. So, taking player psychology into account you can assume almost all people would just reload the game if that happens. So then, you design it so that it merely makes you do the shaving thing again automatically e.g. exactly what the game actually does. There's also another realism aspect here: most people don't fuck up shaving and walk around with a cut face for hours, even if they went "ow!" it's usually not an actual cut that would really be visible. So there shouldn't be e.g. a 50/50 chance of that happening to you each time you shave in the game, either. e.g. unless it's an actual plot point, then it should be less than a 1% chance, e.g. you cut yourself shaving 3 times a year. And since it's so unlikely, it just makes more narrative sense to prune the possibility down to 0%.

Now you're just being silly throwing numbers in that don't mean anything

I would imagine there are fewer players out there that would reload the tutorial to not have a blemish on the character model than would think it would be cool to be reminded that their ability to perform the QTEs has consequences for the characters they control, and the game world itself (as in if someone else commented on the consequent wound) but then I'm just arguing my perspective on gamers over your own, which is silly too.

Anyway, people like to play games differently. I used to be unable to deal with messing up in a game and would always reload for the "perfect" experience, but in recent years I've rather enjoyed messing things up and trying to recover from it. I might play through a game again for that "perfect" experience, but that would only be if I'm trying to do a particular thing, or to see what happens.

It's a bit of a dick move by a developer to say that a player needs to play a game in a particular way to get the best experience, particularly when that game is marketed as interactive drama. Not much point in the interaction if you're being told you have to interact with it in this very particular manner (on such a minor thing as shaving!) or you won't progress.

[Eschar]

If you’re not going to give me the option of fucking things up, why is it a game in the first place?

The true sign of a DF player.

[Gentlefish]

I believe it's much more a method of training the player what to expect when these options arrive at a more plot-important point than as any narrative telling of "Oh, he cut his face. neato."

You can't just have immediate long-lasting consequences in a narrative-driven game unless you're going for like, the dark-souls of narration. The player has to be eased into QTE's and to know to expect them when events get tense, and to know how to handle them when it matters.

[Reelya]

In this particular example, I have to disagree. There are only so many outcomes from someone shaving

... that wasn't the point i was going for. You wanted to cut his face shaving and smash some plates. However, every single person probably has some other thing that they would like to be able to do, at various indeterminate points throughout the game. The game devs cannot just know magically what you as an individually wanted to do that's not possible, because everyone has their own things. Maybe someone else wanted to barrel roll through a window or something, but had to take the door instead, because the game says so. It's just not practical to anticipate what each and every player, ever, worldwide will think up. So if you want a game like that, you get a game-mechanic-heavy sandbox with object physics, not a narrative-heavy game. A narrative game is reliant on a team story-boarding and planning out every choice by hand, and they have a finite budget. Adding a zillion additional consequences for every action-point in the game would just ensure that the development goes into development hell and never gets released, because they'd spend the whole entire time in preplanning trying to keep it all straight rather than building the big picture.

EDIT: BTW You're clearly not just complaining about that shaving moment, since that would be silly. So it's silly to say "There are only so many outcomes from someone shaving". What you're clearly after is for each and every small event to have long-lasting consequences in the game. Saying your just after that one shaving-related change,  and thus it would have been easy for them to add it seems disingenuous, because it would be like the world's most silly complaint ever. For them to only make that one change would imply they're mind-readers who thought up exactly what you thought up. It just doesn't work like that. They'd need to actually anticipate any change anyone could think up, ever. And the budget would blow out and the game would have failed in the planning phase and been canceled, as surely as night turns into day. BTW, Tutorials often only come together last because they need to educate you on how the rest of the game works.

[hector13]

I want every interaction with the game to be meaningful, for which I used the exemplar of shaving during the tutorial.

It is presented as a QTE. I wanted to see what would happen if I failed to follow the instructions presented on screen. The consequence for this was "no, idiot, do it the way we want you to do it" as opposed to the previously mentioned "oh look actions have consequences", which proved to be rather disappointing.

Contrasting this, I use the example of another game made by the same developer in which your character has woken up the morning following the evening after he brutally murdered someone in the bathroom of a diner - the commission of which, if I recall correctly, is the tutorial for that game. He realises he needs to clean up after himself, and is in the process of such when the police knock at his door demanding to speak to him.

What follows is an "oh shit what do I need to clean up so I can avoid arrest". While frustrating - it's not immediately obvious what the pass criteria for the event is, resulting in several failed attempts culminating in the arrest of said character and a game over - you feel deserving of progressing the story once you succeed.

[Egan_BW]

I dislike failure resulting in a hard "break" in the story, where you just get a "game over" and we pop back in time as if nothing had happened.
"I kept trying to clean up properly, but I kept failing and getting arrested until I finally got it right" might be a decent story for the player, but it doesn't actually make sense so far as the story's logic goes.