|
This piece will spoil a big part of inFAMOUS and even a bit of Bioshock So be warned. SPOILERS below.
The general consensus is that it’s healthy to stay away from the
notepad when hotheaded, inflamed or when in any other situation when
reason might be compromised. But for games, and storytelling, I feel
like the exact opposite may be best.
I have just finished playing through inFAMOUS and I’m ready to speak my mind - hot as it might be.
inFAMOUS is a game about freedom. The player is free to roam
the world as they please, free to kill or help civilians, free to climb
on buildings and drop from any height, free to spend experience points
as they wish and free to choose which missions to complete and in what
order. One would think, then, that inFAMOUS is a game about freedom of choice. Well, one would think wrong.
Let’s go back in time briefly and consider Bioshock for a bit, as it shares quite a bit of elements with inFAMOUS. Bioshock
required the player repeatedly to choose whether to slain or rescue
possessed little girls called Little Sisters. Killing them meant more
XP and saving them meant less XP but some gifts along the way and, more
importantly, peace of mind.
But then it all turned out to be false: the
XP vs. Time curve showed that it really did not matter whether the player saved the girls or not, as the XP gain would even out with time. Bioshock made a great job of making the player believe that their choice mattered, when it really only meant a different ending. Bioshock gave the Illusion of Choice.
Back to inFAMOUS then, where choice seems to matter a lot
more. They did what Bioshock should have done and made the difference
between good and evil behavior more evident. They even created special
reflection moments to prompt the player to really think about their
choice.
They dynamically changed the art style a bit to reflect player
choices, and restricted powers depending on player behavior. This is
all nice and pretty, and motivates the player to choose a moral path,
stick to it and be proud. But it doesn’t do much for the essence of the
game. It’s too game-mechanicky. It feels shallow. Until the unexpected
happens.
Suddenly there’s the character, the player avatar, standing between
two buildings rigged with bombs. One of the buildings holds six
hostages, all doctors; the other, the character’s girlfriend. The
player must choose: save the doctors or save the girl? I must say I
felt completely shocked by this - never has the fate of a bunch of
pixels weighted as much in my hands. I stepped toward one of the
buildings… screw the doctors, I love that girl.
I made a choice that I wasn’t entirely proud of, but it was MY choice. The game felt so much closer to me know, I had imprinted myself into it. It had let me
imprint myself into it. Except that it had not. A cut-scene explained
that I had not really saved my girlfriend, that I had been tricked
because she was among the doctors. OK, I thought, I’ll replay the mission and save those guys then, and save her in the process. Hmmm, well no, not really because this time you were not tricked, see? Basically, she was going to die either way.
And I must say that sucks. That moment right there threw every other
choice I had made into the dumpster. For a moment, it felt as if all
the small choices were in preparation for this big, truly meaningful
choice. And when that moment shattered, so did all those other, small
moments.
When I reached the ending, I had very low expectations. The ending
was surprising, tying the story in a cool, unexpected way. But again,
it was identical regardless of any choice the player had made during
the game.
In the game’s defense I will say that it could be interpreted in different ways, but the words and the imagery are the same. The only
reward, the only difference comes after the credits, when the character
makes a final statement that sums up the player’s behavior and how it
has affected the world.
Every choice made dies with the game, with the virtual world. When
we power the game off, the choices made lose all meaning, they are
turned off along with the game. We are never left to deal with the
consequences of our actions, never allowed to really care about our
choices. We are given the Illusion of Choice. And when the illusion breaks we see the game for the piece of plastic that it is, and go to bed so we may forget about it.
|
I actually thought I had misunderstood something, because I was sure I had chosen the option to save her.... and yet all of a sudden I was thrust into a scene that meant (to me anyway) that I had made the other choice.... by mistake.... or something!!
I was not playing alone, and we were all as confused by that scene as each other.
I am glad it was not just us being dense!
The rest of the game is a blast though. So overall I forgive them.
And come one, you didn't really expect your choices to matter, did you? ;)
If an event is central to the plot of the game, then action it in a way which means the player was clearly unable to intervene - via a cut-scene or an in-game event (e.g. collapsed wall blocking access, bad guy with an override, etc). Otherwise, sooner or later players will discover that they're being played for fools...
Now for the cut scene in question, I knew, as soon as I got there, that she would die no matter my choice (I think that this was what the game designers wanted) and it was a "choice" made from despair, with no choice at all.
The game let's you choose what you become when power is given to you, not what happens around you, you (as in real life) matter little for the outcome of the world, but may make the difference for some people around you.
I don't know why but this game its perhaps the first game in a while that makes me feel bad inside when I kill some innocent transients during in a fight with reapers/dust men/first sons. When a game makes me feel bad when blowing a representation of a person because I choose to be "good" in it, I must say that it has hit the bullseye.
But that's just me...
Bioshock's choice was pretty 'cosmetic', do you want to play a sterotypical 'bad guy' or a stereotypical 'good guy'? It came down to what sort of mood I was in rather than tapping into any complex psychological question.
Fallout 3 DLC 'The Pitt' presented a choice that would completely alter the third act of the game depending on what you chose. The choice itself was deliberately ambiguous in its 'good/bad' rationale and demanded some consideration in the social/political context of the world they created. In essence the choice itself was a statement by the game writer that could be summed up as: "choices of great magnitude are never black and white"; which in itself is a powerful and universal statement.
Before confronting gamers with a choice in a game, the developers may want to ask the question "what is the statement (or substance) of our choice?"
I feel another blog coming on...
One thing which has been emphasized in a large number of articles is the "morality" axis of choices. That's a bit limiting... when the morality of a choice is ambiguous, or the setting itself is an exercise in moral ambiguity, there are other axes to base the decision on. "Power now/power later", "ranged attack/melee attack", "best soloist/best with companion NPC", "loved/feared" etc... none of these need have much in the way of moral factors.
Also, let's not undervalue "mere" cosmetic differences. Choices which make your character more beautiful/more badass, steampunkish/high-fantasy or whatever do carry a lot of weight, especially if the game designer is doing their best to get the player to identify with the protagonist. People will sometimes trade DPS for "'Nando, you look mahhhhvelous".
In the other camp are games that offer choice after choice after choice and, as is so popular at the moment, being very explicit in their advertisements that these choices matter and have consequences. Infamous clearly falls into this group. What seems to be the problem with this fake choice is that it actually belongs in the other camp's games. If every bit of information relating to the game you receive is built on this theme of meaningful choice of course some people are going to be a little dejected. It doesn't fit with what you've been promised. Now I'm not saying that it is impossible to do this sort of thing just that it needs to be worked into the larger game thematically so it makes sense. It can sometimes be cool to shock and surprise your audience, but unless these "shocks" and "surprises" are setup at least a little they aren't nearly as effective.
All this talk of choices has made me think of one of my favorite ones that could be seen a strange diametric opposite to the one in Infamous.
In Deus Ex there was a certain point in the game where there are a bunch of goons outside the door, you and your brother are trapped and he elects to sacrifice himself; fighting them off as you make you escape out the window. The first time I played through it seemed obvious that my only option was to run and I left my brother to his fate, the game did a great job instilling in me the same emotions that my character felt- I had to run for my life I had no choice at all! the real Illusion was that I had no choice
My second round through the game I felt like playing around to see if I could possibly save him, though I didn't seriously believe i could. To my shock and astonishment after fighting for my life using everything I had and thinking as tactically as I could; my brother was alive, not just alive but talking to me - continuing the story fluently.
Lots of games treat choice with a brute hand, making everyone of them explicit and in your face. Always one or the other, a pause to let you decide and then with the black and white decision made the obvious ensues. But what about all the times that you don't feel that you have a choice. Often the most important decisions people make is when they are not prompted to make a choice at all. The real choice is between inaction and action. Potential energy and kinetic energy. Allowing some yourself to be pushed and guided or pushing back and making a stand.
Wow this post is kind of a mess. Sorry everyone ;)
On another side note, although I tend to play 'the good guy' or at worst the 'somewhat chaotic neutral guy' I find it interesting most games make it unrewarding or simply harder to be evil. You might gain a little extra money or items, but ultimately with everyone hunting you (ala morrowind or fable) what good is it?
The counterweight is the 'nullifying of the choice by having the exact same rewards for light/dark. You can kill the ewok or save his village... but either you'll get the 600 credits he's carrying, or he'll give you it and a reward.
Contrast it further with the games that have powers... that can only be accessed by being extremely evil/good... so screw being chaotic neutral.
And how do we usually get to chaotic neutral? Is it by making a third (or nth) choice? No... largely its because I'm forced (based on reward) to go from killing an ewok to helping a twi'lek dancer find her long lost brother, to helping a wookie find inner peace, to randomly selling 6 other wookies into slavery.
Half the time the 'evil' choice doesn't make sense even if the character is mouth frothingling evil... in Fable 2 (again)... why the heck would I jack up prices on houses for a quick buck... when it just kills the economy? Why the heck would I take the moola (which is a paltry sum if you do ANYTHING money building) When the dog is emminently more useful?
From a designer perspective... I simply want more possible outcomes.... I know thats more difficult... but can anyone think of cases where its been done? (I like that deus ex didn't hit you over the head with its choices...)
Especially since most instances of choice are staged breakpoints I do end up wondering...
In any case... I do agree to an extent with Derek.
Linearity can be underrated. But one can also like about games with choice- but is this all that there is to that?