| MeechMunchie |
12-16-2011 02:46 PM |
I liked question 3. Made me realise I usually play a closet psychopath, playing the hero but also stealing all your shit.
But question 4 is a bit weird - I agreed with all of those. Maybe make multiple answers possible, or change the question to 'Which one of these statements do you most agree with?'
Also, I rambled a hell of a lot in 5-7. I may have written most of your report for you. :p
EDIT: In fact, I may as well get my time's worth out of this by posting it here.
:
5. In Bethesda Softworks games like Fallout 3 and Elder Scrolls Oblivion / Skyrim (New Vegas was developed by Obsidian Entertainment), the player is given many different ways to complete a quest. Do you feel that this gameplay mechanic works well in immersing the player within the game world?
Yes. Artificial limitations on the player, incidental or enforced, make the player more aware of the artificial nature of the game. By giving the player more paths to act naturally and play in a way that seems right to them, the contrast of intent and possible actions fades, and the distinction between the player and their representative in-game begins to blur.
That said, in games with completely freeform structure such as the Elder Scrolls (as opposed to more story-driven fare such as Dragon Age or the Witcher series), the sheer amount of options can push the player to act more extremely than they would in real life, just to see how far the boundaries of the game will bend. In this sense the game is less immersive in presenting an alternative reality, moving more into traditional 'fantasy-fulfillment' territory.
6. In games such as Spore or Black & White, the player is somewhat led along a particular alignment (good, neutral and bad). Do you feel that this is too cheesy and too limited in scope? Or do you feel that alignment alteration is a good starting point for major differences in the specialisation of game characters?
As I mentioned above, many players will always act extremely just because it brings them more entertainment from the game. These sorts of players tend to start open-ended games feeling slightly lost, wondering where the impressive content and experiences can be found.
These sorts of players (Call them 'Surfers', skimming across the calm to find the next exciting wave) will probably enjoy a morality system to give them a sense of direction and provide a lasting sense of meaning to their otherwise frequently ridiculous actions. They will also be the sort of players who will respond positively to unlocking new powers or changing appearance appropriate to their choices.
However, many also prefer to play as themselves, acting more naturally as it makes them feel more immersed in the game (Call them 'Swimmers', taking every stroke seriously and exploring the depths of the game). The issue for these people, and a flaw criticised by most gamers, is that neutrality is rarely rewarded by artificial morality systems.
Perhaps this is because neutrality could be considered its own reward. Whereas a 'Pure Good' attitude is often very difficult to keep to, and a 'Pure Evil' personality tends to make the game harder for the player, making NPCs too fearful to cooperate and usually attracting 'Good' factions in the world to try and destroy them, Neutrality makes the game somewhat easier as it gives players freedom to act how they want.
The 'Swimmer' view would probably be that whether the game is harder or easier is irrelevant, as the trouble and effort the player puts into following up their choices is as key to the immersive experience as the choices themselves.
What this ultimately means is that the people who care about limitations on who can access content (Surfers) are the people who are less likely to encounter those limitations. Conversely, the people who encounter the limitations (Swimmers) are those who are less concerned with individual scraps of content, more with the play experience as a whole.
This itself means that the common criticism that 'natural' players 'miss out' as they do not see the alignment-specific content may be more disputable than once thought. That said, most people find a balance between both play styles, so players being annoyed by the issue is still understandable.
7. Finally, in modern videogames, do you feel that the player should have more/less choice in how their actions affect the world? Should players be restricted to a particular alignment? Or should character alignment be easily changed, so that users can try out being good or bad whenever they like?
Removing such limitations as narrow dialogue trees, invisible walls and invincible NPCs will always make the artificiality of the game world less obvious, resulting in a more immersive experience for all players. I believe this is a fairly unanimous, uncontroversial view.
However, the nature of choice, the number of choices, the amount of options for each choice, how these choices affect the world, its treatment of the player, and how long these consequences remain relevant for... none of these have one single rule that can be applied to all games.
Scale: In sandbox like Spore, you can play an interstellar empire, so wiping out planets on a whim is considered an appropriate level of player impact. In a more focused, character-based game like Skyrim, blasting the entire nation of the face of Nirn would have somewhat more serious implications!
Non-Player-Induced Changes: In a freeform RPG like Oblivion, giving the player a large number of options is possible because Cyrodil itself remains constant. In Dragon Age II, the world is heaving and reshaping itself whether the player wants it to or not. Options must be tied to the main story, or keeping track of all the different influences and their effects would be impossible for both the writers and the player. When the story takes such a central role, keeping the player's choices clear and limited is arguably the only way to keep them satisfied with the apparent impact of each.
Prevalence of Story: If we're talking about the merits and drawbacks of different levels of choice, then it's worth considering games with little, if any, player choice at all. For a linear, heavily story-based game, player freedom would kill momentum. Allowing a player to wander a game when there's only one place to go to continue the story is not usually considered a sensible option. Besides, careful guidance of the player, through events of the game world, can give the player an illusion of choice, which when done effectively is as satisfying and exciting as a genuine choice.
Portal 2 is little more that one long corridor, but we don't hold that against it because everything we're asked to do seems like a reasonable response to the extreme situations we are presented with. No-one asks 'Do you want to escape from Wheatley?', because there's only one sensible answer. Wheatley's connection to the Aperture mainframe is itself a forced action, and at the time at least, probably a bad one, but we allow it anyway because we care about experiencing the story than we do about writing it. So choice is not inherently a good thing, it really does depend on the game.
The question of how fixed alignment should be is another divisive question. Some people will want to play to fit their own style and appreciate the challenge, while others, as you say, will want to try all the game has to offer in one playthrough. I could attribute this respectively to Swimmers and Surfers again, but the problem here is that the changeability of a person's personality is itself part of their personality!
Some people in real life are more fixed in their views and morals, while some act more objectively and believe that all personal rules must have exceptions, changing their mind frequently as new information comes to light. These are sometimes explored in games as 'Lawful' and 'Chaotic' elements, but are rarely fully realised or implemented.
So the reason why I couldn't just put this down to Surfing and Swimming is that a 'Lawful Swimmer' would want a fixed alignment that fit their general attitude to life, a 'Chaotic Swimmer' would want the opposite, as a flexible alignment would suit their real life personality! Surfers would be similarly divided, since either approach would bring its own assets to gameplay, each more suiting to a certain attitude to games, be it a sense of purpose in a fixed alignment for 'Lawful Surfers' or a sense of freedom in a flexible one for 'Chaotic Surfers'.
None of these questions have easy answers. The newly-christened 'Surfing vs. Swimming' debate, whether video games are primarily tools for entertainment or escapism, is a debate that has raged since gaming's inception and will likely go on for decades. The more specific 'Chaotic vs. Lawful' alignment system debate is a relatively recent one, but will probably end up being just as interesting.
Final thought: Someone once commented thus: "There's enough realism in real life." Be you Surfer or Swimmer, you enjoy games because they allow you to do things that would be impossible in real life, or at least impossible to get away with. A realistic treatment of the player's choices is often less fun than a limited one.
|
|