|
Is that going to affect the world in any way for that player?
KF: Yeah, it'll affect your virtue score. As you're playing through the game, everything you're doing earns you virtue points. For example, if you bother to go off and mentor someone, you're giving up your time, so we give you sacrifice points for that. The person who's being mentored gets humility, kind of admitting that they need help. You can already see that there's a virtual circle there, a healthy relationship between two people, which is good for them; they're both leveling up their virtues, but it's also good for the game and good for the community as a whole, because this game is built around playing together and helping each other out. I think that's really exciting.
I'm curious to know whether you think positive or negative reinforcement is more effective when it comes to making people be good versus evil, or whatever, in games.
KF: Well, I don't know about good and evil...
Sure, I didn't mean for it to be so black and white -- let's say more virtuous or less virtuous.
KF: We very much go for positive. I'm interested in that pause on the keyboard when the player decides, "Do I want to be kind, or do I want to be fair?" That's a really interesting question that only you can answer about yourself. That's all I want to do; I want to make you stop, think, and go, "Huh!" and then learn about yourself, because games can do that.
Right -- I have never experienced that, but I have always thought it would be possible to have a moment where I really have to make a choice that I care about. But for me it's never occurred. I guess my brain has always just defaulted to whatever good path is offered.
I always presume that the game is created in such a way that I'm not going to be punished for a good deed; I'm not going to lose a whole bunch of stuff. I will eventually be able to beat the game anyway. So, for me, it doesn't become much of a choice. I feel like, eventually, there's got to be something; like, who do I save, my mom or my dad? [editor's note: this interview was done prior to the release of The Walking Dead, which does this kind of choice very well.] But I don't want to have to make that choice! It makes me uncomfortable. Do you have any thoughts about that kind of space?
KF: Yeah, absolutely. What we try and do when we give you a quandary is we give you three options that are equally valid. It's not up to us to judge a player; we're just there to make you think. So NPCs will come up to you and say, "Hey! What should I do in this situation?"
One of the classic situations is there's this beggar who's been beaten within an inch of his life. What do you do about that? Do you go for justice and say, "Right; I'm going to track down the people who beat this guy up, or do I sacrifice and get myself in debt in order to pay for magical healing for the guy to bring him back to life? Or do I go for compassion and go off and buy some medicine to give him a good, peaceful, painless death?" They're all equally valid, but which one do you think is the right thing?
Somewhat more complex choices like that are interesting. I think the iPad and free-to-play tend to try to address a somewhat more casual audience -- if not directly, at least they try to include them -- so I think it will be interesting to see how you can try to bring those players into the idea of these choices being something that you make.
KF: It's not that different to a personality test. Those have always been massively popular because people love finding out about themselves; we're our own favorite subject. I try and present it and think of it, if you're a more casual player, as being more like a personality test; you end up with the character you deserve or who reflects who you are.
|
Printer-Friendly Version
--
This reminds me of Heavy Rain where your character is presented with the option of murdering a bad guy to help save his son. Faced with this decision, the player invariably jumps back behind the fourth wall and starts weighing their options in terms of the game and not in terms of the morality or the emotions of the situation. Murdering the bad guy makes you feel like you would be losing the game somewhat or otherwise not playing as perfectly as you could.
Perhaps this is one of the problems with heavy handed narrative games where the player is asked to be someone else rather than to be what they want to be. It's counter intuitive perhaps that being asked to role play a character that is designed for you makes it harder to role play. You just end up trying to do things that stays true to the character. The character never really becomes an extension of yourself or an alter ego.
In other words, playing a character is not the same as role playing. I think it goes back to what Tadhg Kelly was saying in his excellent article.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/173819/on_player_characters_and_self_.php?
page=4
all 3 answers as likely as not aren't going to be a good representation of what you would like to see done in this instance, so it kills the connection to the doll or situation (the other biggy is hyperfocus on skills 99% of those being combat related). Even if you can relate in a distant manner and choose a path that "most represents what you like"
(like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator)
The problem is ~testing like this is ambivilent, I've found. And instead of testing you and your core interests, it pigeon-holes you into a typecast, of what you just ate for lunch and the last good book you read.
The best choice games are the ones that allow you to really explore the problem and allow for as much latitude in behavior as possible to direct a solution.
2 games in my mind (that I have played) have done this the best are Kotor and DE:HR, I think you can go with a more directed narrative if the goal is amiable .. like FF7 .. but you have to be very careful.
"In other words, playing a character is not the same as role playing."
I think this might be a misleading argument, I am certain you can empathize/project with a single character or even several characters and npc's at the same time. And at the same time also play characters that are not a true projection of anything of what you might really do.
eg I may greatly respect and trust Obi wan Kenobi on Tatooine, but think rightly his falling off the map was not truly trusting in the force, or doing the right thing .. but cowardly. Nonetheless I empathize with his disposition, and still whole-heartedly support his actions because he is doing "the good thing", even if it's a poor choice (and I think it's especially implicit to demonstrate this diversion from actual player prerogative) ... and there may be several characters that are likewise are varying shades of good/neutral/evil that I may recognize and truly connect with ... but I think it comes back to the base logic.
Obi wan is good because he is willing to sacrifice himself, if placed in similar situation and more forced contrivances the situation changes completely. Obi Wan is doing something because he is forced to, and has no options .. which is ludicrous because we know Obi Wan is jedi with great power at his disposal.
this can be a fun character to play, and even see to it's fruition, but when the situation logic fails eg if Obi Wan had no control over his surroundings .. the idea completely loses sense.
I think strong narrative is still however the most successful, because it directly delivers a message ... even if that message is "contrived commercial mainstream puke", it also has the opportunity to say something more than simple materialistic contrasting .. like with Minecraft, Terraria, Tetris ect.
ps. I really like Tadgh Kelly's blog, but even moreso I liked the clarification of Michael Curtiss at the bottom who I think demonstrates well the problem with Tadgh's modality argument.
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/TaekwanKim/20130206/186188/Designin g_Mechanical_N
arratives_Part_2.php#comment187933
This also touches on the problem of narrative as well. And I think this again points at making sure the logic, is actually logical.
I think also here this again becomes very problematic is with multiplayer games that are "mix and mingling" narrative ideas, especially so-called roleplaying ideas that are not just confusing narrative with social space but the narrative itself is unjustly contrived.
Whereas with AD&D you could really pick how to approach any obstacle or situation, and instead of the social space fighting that as it almost always does in mmorpg's it actually has the malleability to set the stage accordingly ~with strong narrative.
Where on the front you might play Battlefield 3, an it's a completely detached simple narrative ~ kill the other guy .. it's really putting you there through a great deal of second hand logic .. to a point where morality does in fact play a role in the distinctions you make even if all the answers are benign simply by statement of fault in materistic emphasis ... "I am doing this therefore I agree with these actions" .. a sort of unguarded backdoro to the psyche I believe.
Trying to implement mechanics and consequences like this in a multiplayer environment, though ... just from the description in this interview I see possibilities of loops an holes. Players will try to exploit every mechanic to find an optimal strategy, even if it's not "fair".
I am looking forward to see how it will be done in Ultima Forever, sign me up ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Faerie_Queene
"A letter written by Spenser to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1590[3] contains a preface for The Faerie Queene, in which Spenser describes the allegorical presentation of virtues through Arthurian knights in the mythical "Faerieland". Presented as a preface to the epic in most published editions, this letter outlines plans for 24 books: 12 based each on a different knight who exemplified one of 12 "private virtues", and a possible 12 more centered on King Arthur displaying 12 "public virtues". Spenser names Aristotle as his source for these virtues, although the influence of Thomas Aquinas can be observed as well. It is impossible to predict what the work would have looked like had Spenser lived to complete it, since the reliability of the predictions made in his letter to Raleigh is not absolute, as numerous divergences from that scheme emerged as early as 1590, in the first Faerie Queene publication.
In addition to these six virtues, the Letter to Raleigh suggests that Arthur represents the virtue of Magnificence, which ("according to Aristotle and the rest") is "the perfection of all the rest, and conteineth in it them all"; and that the Faerie Queene herself represents Glory (hence her name, Gloriana). The unfinished seventh book (the Cantos of Mutability), appears to have represented the virtue of "constancy.""