RPG Codex - The Role We Don't Play

[Dhruin]

RPG Codex's Role-player has written a lengthy but fascinating piece on contemporary narrative techniques in RPGs (http://www.rpgcodex.com/content.php?id=145):
Developers have been looking outside the medium and at others like cinema as a model to present immersive, "cinematic" experiences that try to tell a story - for this, they assume a game needs to emulate a movie in order to present a sense of narrative. However, including a cinematic sequence angle is akin to shoving a round peg inside a square hole; developers believe these non-interactive cutscenes played out by virtual actors are not only great simulacrums of movies, but that they are also doing a proper job of conveying characterization and plot advancement. The problem is that these cutscenes are taken out of their original context and lose the same sequential meaning they originally have in cinema; whereas a movie is composed of such segments to narrate a story, in a videogame these scenes often fail to narrate the main character’s exploits or expose the consequences of their actions and are presented in a way that actually breaks up the pace of gameplay and the flow of the story itself.
More information. (http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=4460)

[Role-Player]

The last person who called it fascinating was greeted with pantless demons dual-wielding pitchforks.

Jus' saying.


PS: It's not that good.

[Dhruin]

I don't entirely agree but I thought it was a good read. I broadly agree with the thrust but I don't think simulation is the way forward, other than as a way of making the gameworld more interesting and occasionally providing an interesting random AI interaction.

I also think many of the old classics are little more than dungeon crawlers and the move to linear narratives is not inherently worse than a crappy narrative and a whole pile of combat (assuming the linear model still has reasonable interaction).

Branching and multiple paths, such as in Fallout, is the best model to my mind. Choices are only interesting in the context of the gameworld and story, so a suitable narrative makes it much more compelling. Interactions other than combat are difficult to simulate, so too much simulation tends toward Oblivion with an open space to wander and not much more than combat to fill it. That doesn't mean that model can't be improved a long way and can't be an interesting game (or part of an overall game) but I still like some specific narrative design.

[magerette]

I agree on the overemphasis on using cinematic formulae to drive a game, to me the most disruptive "innovation" the genre has had to swallow lately. If all I'm going to get in the way of a story is a sketchy skeleton of predigested material, let it lurk in the background, not catch my character up in a tsunami of irrelevance. In a combat heavy game, often the cutscenes remind me of nothing more than a commercial break on tv--a time to pause the game and do something else.

An article with a lot of food for thought, RP.

[Squeek]

Good article. I especially liked the conclusion and agree completely with these tidbits:

"...go for a game that disregards a main overarching story at first and build a gameworld...Let story elements become secondary in face of giving the player a world he can explore and advance in, a gameworld where he can build his own narrative...."

Here's my two cents. Stories are entertaining, but only if they're good stories, and then only if they're well told. Clever simulation is often the very best part of the experience, whether it's portrayed in film, live theatre, or even when it's just read out loud (I like it when the reader makes faces and uses funny voices).

CRPGs need to strive for both pleasing simulation and a wonderful story. Those aren't things that are normally set in opposition (but it's possible to sacrifice one for the sake of the other -- don't do that). The gaming world is the key. Put it all in there and challenge the player to go out and quest for it.

[bjon045]

If you played the steaming pile that was Jade Empire you would have to agree with this. The game is over 6 gigabyte including movies and about 1 gig without them and that doesn't even take into account the "movies" that use the in-game engine.

[the_oracles_cave]

Jade Empire is a very fun game.

[doctor_kaz]

I agree that some recent RPG's have gone overboard with the story. NWN2 in particular is one that I can think of. The game has long, long cutscenes and the story isn't that good anyways. 0

[JemyM]

An interesting simulated game is a flawed philosophy that seems to go through the head of every aspiring developer before they grow more experienced and scrap the idea. Truth is; you cannot create a simulated world and make it interesting. The world you create will be just as generic and repetitive as the developers limited AI.

Best example of a simulated RPG without cutscenes would be Oblivion. A simulated gameworld that just couldnt tell a story and make things you do feel important. Every randomly created dungeon give you a "meh" feeling, since after just 2-3 days into the game, every corner looks the same, and still, Oblivion is the best RPG of that kind ever made, still it's dreadfully boring.

Cutscenes is a form of narrative, that helps to increase a sense of urgency and importance, or increase emotion. Without thoose feelings, the game gets repetitive and boring because computers can never simulate a compelling story. Neither can a such game bring forth interesting NPC's, only generic generated ones that feels as important to you as cardboard dolls.

And I enjoyed both NWN2 and Jade Empire.

[Corwin]

Are you saying that cutscenes are necessary to create interesting NPC's??? That's how I read your comment, and if so, I disagree!! Could you please clarify.

[JemyM]

To introduce interesting NPC's that seems to have their own personality and their own will, they will need to be able to take attention temporarily, showing you who they are. One way to do this is to confront you with forced dialogue. Allowing free will there so you can ignore them or ask them to shut up every time is something that would require a huge amount of developing time just for that simple feature, developing time that could have been spent elsewhere.

Cutscenes is a way to bring a NPC into spotlight temporary, showing off their skills, some specific behavior or something that is important to bring the plot forward. Without cutscenes, you are unlikely to ever see what the NPC is up to, which will make you loose a large amount of narrative options to deliver your story.

If there are alternatives to Forced Dialogue and Cutscenes that still manages to introduce an NPC's unique personality to you and make you like/love/hate them, then I do not know about it. I have never seen a game that made me like/love/hate an NPC that use neither forced dialogue and cutscenes.

I also cannot tell a single game with a good storyline that did not use cutscenes.
Max Payne, Metal Gear Solid, KOTOR, Fallout, Gothic, Deus Ex... they all use them.

[Corwin]

I'll mention but 2: BG and PS-T!!

[Brother None]

I also cannot tell a single game with a good storyline that did not use cutscenes.
Max Payne, Metal Gear Solid, KOTOR, Fallout, Gothic, Deus Ex... they all use them.

Uhm...Fallout doesn't use cutscenes. Fallout 2 had one: the tanker cutscene. And that wasn't used to introduce any NPCs.

Funny how all your examples are from the era when cutscenes are obligatory for games.

I also find it amusing how you seem to feel that the better way to introduce someone to an NPC is to force him to watch a bit of footage, rather than the engage in actual simulated conversation with him. You honestly believe a conversation in which the PC has some input and can explore facets of the NPC's personal philosophy by asking the right questions is a wasteful way of introducing NPCs.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

I think the problem lies deeper :

What do we want ?

- a role playing in a simulation of a world
- a role playing in a world that is not an simulation but instead let's say a pure dungeon (crawl) ?

I think, it's a matter of the principles used. The principles used for the player to make a world for him/her to do actual "role-playing".

And movies are just one side of the cristal.

Edit : By the way, I still love Adventure Games. ;) They are not too different from RPGs in the respect that they too want to tell a story with the gamer involved ... ;)

2nd edit : I liked that passage :

Characters must fight hordes of enemies for no good reason other than attaining a reasonable power level to challenge an enemy who will produce the next movie-like segment when vanquished.

Reminds me of Summoner. ;)

3rd edit : I liked that comment, too :
http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=348170#348170

[JemyM]

Uhm...Fallout doesn't use cutscenes. Fallout 2 had one: the tanker cutscene. And that wasn't used to introduce any NPCs.

Funny how all your examples are from the era when cutscenes are obligatory for games.

Im talking about moments in which the game play by it'self, not prerendered videos. Fallout did have quite a few cases where the game "took over".

I also find it amusing how you seem to feel that the better way to introduce someone to an NPC is to force him to watch a bit of footage, rather than the engage in actual simulated conversation with him. You honestly believe a conversation in which the PC has some input and can explore facets of the NPC's personal philosophy by asking the right questions is a wasteful way of introducing NPCs.

I think you misunderstood what I meant with "forced dialogue". Im talking about the cases in which a NPC demands a response from you, you have a number of possible answers but none of them is [end conversation]

[JemyM]

- a role playing in a simulation of a world

Got any examples of a game like that? I have yet to find a game in which simulated AI is better than prewritten guided dialogue.

I think, it's a matter of the principles used. The principles used for the player to make a world for him/her to do actual "role-playing".

I have always felt that moral conflict is an important part of roleplaying. If you are not demanded to react to something based on your opinion/morals, then you just do what gives the highest reward. Simulated sandbox games often come without consequences for your actions. At best you can have "infamy" or "faction", but characters all act upon an unified AI rather than personal opinions/agendas, so at best you get to roleplay in a world of pixelated zombies.

[bjon045]

Betrayal at Krondor made good use of cutscenes, though they have certainly been used excessively by developers in the last decade or so. I remember when the idea of having real "movies" in games first started appearing, people were blown away more by the idea than the actual content. I recall being in my college dorm room and showing of a MPEG 1 movie file running off my cd-rom drive (cd rom drives had just come out at the time) and everyone was blown away by the fact that a computer could actually show "movies". The old 2d cutscenes in Wing Commander 2 were quickly replaced by mpeg movies in Wing Commander 3, no-one seemed to notice the actual story was no better (arguably it was even worse) they were too busy drooling over the pretty "movies".

It always makes me scoff when I see reviews praising games like KotOR as literary masterpieces, some people really must not read books at all :lol: or if they do read books they probably read Robert Jordan or the Dragonlance books, quality writing there indeed :lol: I wish more actual writers would get involved with the production of games, I was reading on Raymond E Feist's mailing list a few months ago that he has been approached a few times in the past couple of years by various development companies but nothing has come of it.

[Brother None]

Im talking about moments in which the game play by it'self, not prerendered videos. Fallout did have quite a few cases where the game "took over".

No it didn't. Fallout 2 had the forced Frank Horrigan vs. the farmers "cutscene", I can't remember a single event in which the game took over in Fallout 1.

I think you misunderstood what I meant with "forced dialogue". Im talking about the cases in which a NPC demands a response from you, you have a number of possible answers but none of them is [end conversation]

Then you're just pulling it into the wider question. My preference goes out to choice and consequence, and that extends into dialogue. Your preference fits into the general predeliction we've seen in cRPGs lately to hold the player by the hand and just guide him everywhere so he won't make any stupid mistakes, like ignoring key PCs. Sorry, not my preference.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

"The moral thing" is ... okay, an essential part of role-playing (2which trap pof the three do you want to disarm ?"), but since I'm an "Explorer"-type player, I don't regard these things as too important - at least not for my own gaming style.

There are always several factions of gamers - even within a given genre. For example explorers (like me) and the dungeon crawlers.

[bjon045]

"The moral thing" is ... okay, an essential part of role-playing (2which trap pof the three do you want to disarm ?"), but since I'm an "Explorer"-type player, I don't regard these things as too important - at least not for my own gaming style.

There are always several factions of gamers - even within a given genre. For example explorers (like me) and the dungeon crawlers.

cRPG's have never been defined by the actual meaning of the words in the acronym. They are defined by their predecessors. If you followed the strict meaning of the words then every single game in the history of computing would be a "role-playing game" except for perhaps Pong. It's best just to go with your gut feeling.

To me a cRPG is something like Wizardry/Bards tale or Wasteland. Story is not essential to me although it helps if there is a bit of a story to help define what the overall goal of the game is. Games like Gothic blur the lines but ultimately each individual gamer probably has to make the decision whether a particular game is an cRPG to them or not.

[Squeek]

An interesting simulated game is a flawed philosophy that seems to go through the head of every aspiring developer before they grow more experienced and scrap the idea. Truth is; you cannot create a simulated world and make it interesting. The world you create will be just as generic and repetitive as the developers limited AI.
If it were a question of just one or the other -- if the only available choices were total simulation or no simulation at all -- then I would agree. But I don't think it is a question of that, and so I don't.

I like improved sound, graphics and AI, and I don't see why there has to be a tradeoff in order to get that. Why can't good games simulate certain things well?

[JemyM]

Your preference fits into the general predeliction we've seen in cRPGs lately to hold the player by the hand and just guide him everywhere so he won't make any stupid mistakes, like ignoring key PCs. Sorry, not my preference.

Not preference... but acceptance. It's simply the most effective way to balance personal choice with an interactive story, and still be able to finish the development on schedule.

[PatrickWeekes]

From a design perspective, I think that there are two valuable questions to ask when you're making a game. (Well, there are about a zillion, but for this discussion, I'm interested in two of them.)

1) How important is the story?

This is one of those questions that generates a ton of opinions, but for which there isn't a flat right or wrong question -- unless you gauge by the marketplace. Some players really want a sandbox in which they can play around for fifty hours without ever going after the main storyline. Some players want a movie in which they play the fight scenes, and everything else is narrated for them. Some players want a really solid and involved story from which they can deviate into minor stuff whenever they want.

Oblivion joins games like the Grand Theft Auto series in saying to the player, "There's a story if you want it. It's not the world's best story, but it's there. Really, though, this is a sandbox. Go out and have fun."

Jade Empire and Neverwinter Nights 2, on the other hand, are firmly in story-land. You can break away from the story to do subplots, but even those subplots are usually tied into the overall plot in some way, and there's little of the sandbox feeling. Those games are made with story in mind, not exploration.

Neverwinter Nights, by contrast, tries to walk the middle ground. It had a story, albeit one aimed at a multiplayer experience, but it also had a lot of exploration, and you could just wander and find a dungeon full of bad guys without a whole lot of relation to the main storyline. Rogue Galaxy does some of the same stuff -- the game is linear for the first 20 hours, but the spawn system means that you can wander around and practice fighting moves and upgrade your equipment as long as you like. The story will always be waiting for you when you're ready to move along.

2) What tools are you willing to use to convey the story?

BioWare and Obsidian both rely heavily on interactive dialogue. The player feels like there's some control over the conversation, and often there IS, but there are also a lot of conversations in which, one way or the other, the player is getting put onto the story rail to learn the next plot point.

JRPGs don't even bother with the handwaved illusion of choice. The player gets cutscenes... a lot of 'em.

Beyond conversation and cutscenes, tools I've seen used to convey story in different games include:

- Ambient lines. Some action games actually get across important plot details just by what the bad guy is shouting during the big fights.
- NPC reactions. If selling the holy elven dagger to the orc barbarians causes all the elves to attack you on sight, you don't need a long cutscene or follower explanation to explain that selling that dagger is going to make the elves hurt you. Simple AI scripting can take the place of conversations or cutscenes here.
- Art. One of the things I liked in Jade Empire was returning to the school and seeing the damage that had been wrought. I don't normally notice art, but this was a time when a picture really was worth a thousand words. (There was also a cutscene, as well as some dialogue with a follower, but the art was what stood out for me most.)

All of these are valuable tools for storytelling. The key is figuring out how to use 'em, where to use 'em, and how MUCH to use 'em. I'm not sure that choosing your tools wisely will win over a player who wanted a sandbox game when you're specifically making a story-centric game, but I DO know that choosing your tools POORLY will piss off a player who would otherwise have been on board with the game you wanted to make.

I've been in meetings on projects where cutscenes are hugely important and major and big and awesome. I've been in meetings on projects where designers have a stated goal of avoiding you-lose-camera-control cutscenes for the entirety of the game. I think that you can make good games with either strategy -- different people will like those games, of course, but that's the fun of individual tastes. It's simply a matter of figuring out the right tools for the story you want to tell, and then using those tools properly.

[Corwin]

Yes, excellent points. All I would add, is that the IMPLEMENTATION of both needs to be of the highest order as well. You can have great design features, but if they are poorly implemented, people are going to complain and the game will suffer!!

[Squeek]

Someday I’d like to play a sandbox CRPG where the player could alter the main quest, or create his own stories, and have them be as good as the ones in today’s “story-land” games. I don’t know how to make a game like that, but what fun that would be!

I’d like to play in a world with “instant karma,” a place where my every action would cause an effect, where my every association would create a link. Buy something from a merchant and establish a slight mystic connection; kiss his daughter, and that bond increases; steal from him, and who knows what effects you’ll get? You might want to consider the consequences of your actions in world like that.

Beyond just everyday behavior, I would want my character’s life to inspire the lives of other significant characters in the world (main quest characters). Their roles should change, somehow, in correspondence with mine as I play out my role my own way. The story would be different each time I played in accordance with my roles and my style as a hero, evil wizard, master thief or whatever.

[Hindukönig]

Someday I’d like to play a sandbox CRPG where the player could alter the main quest, or create his own stories, and have them be as good as the ones in today’s “story-land” games. I don’t know how to make a game like that, but what fun that would be!

You're talking 'bout pen&paper.

[JemyM]

You're talking 'bout pen&paper.

You said exactly what I was going to say lol

[Squeek]

You're talking 'bout pen&paper.
You said exactly what I was going to say lol

That's true. The thing is, I remember when the pen&paper games first came out, around 1974. Pretty much everyone thought computers would, someday, be able to improve the game along those lines. We talked about it a lot, actually. I suppose I've never stopped imagining it.

[JemyM]

That's true. The thing is, I remember when the pen&paper games first came out, around 1974. Pretty much everyone thought computers would, someday, be able to improve the game along those lines. We talked about it a lot, actually. I suppose I've never stopped imagining it.

There have been many theories in how it can be done, and it have more to do with Artificial Intelligence than Game Design. But it's far more complex than what it sounds like, since you have to simulate human behavior, both psychological behavior as well as sociological. You have to be very adept at psychology, sociology and programming to pull this off, and it needs to be very finetuned, else people will act like crazy. And im just talking about the AI's relationship with you and others now, not the graphics, their movement in a 3d world, interacting with objects etc. :-/

[Squeek]

...it's far more complex than what it sounds like, since you have to simulate human behavior, both psychological behavior as well as sociological.
We're not talking about the real world, so there's no need to think in terms of science. We're talking about something imaginary, and writers deal with those subjects in their imaginary worlds all the time. Charles Schultz, for instance, had lots of fun with them both in his Peanuts comic strip. Good thing RPGs are fiction, I suppose.

It does sound like a lot of work, though. I have a few ideas, but that's for another thread.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

I just guess that it is only a matter of time until someone licenses LucasArts' new physics engine.
Until it is too expensive, of course.