02.23.07
Getting Railroaded
This came up as a Google Quote of the Day a couple days ago:
Technology adds nothing to art. Two thousand years ago, I could tell you a story, and at any point during the story I could stop, and ask, Now do you want the hero to be kidnapped, or not? But that would, of course, have ruined the story. Part of the experience of being entertained is sitting back and plugging into someone else's vision.
--Penn Jillette
Aside from the wisdom of it being, well, Penn Jillette, he raises an interesting point. Having control over a story does sort of ruin the story, as you’re basically dictating to the storyteller how you think he should proceed. There is a difference, however, between dictating to the storyteller and having the storyteller adapt to the listener’s wishes.
Let’s take two quick and dirty examples, Final Fantasy VII and Wing Commander. Yeah, disparate genres and different games, I know; but the fact is, both do the storyline thing in different ways. FF7’s story is rigid and inflexible. Cloud always hands over the Black Materia, Aeris always runs off to the Temple of the Ancients, Sephiroth always manages to summon Meteor. Nothing the player does can alter this progression. The player is still ‘turning pages’– that is, the level grind and dungeon completions push the story along– but ultimately it’s still a book with one plot and one ending. In Wing Commander, the player’s ability alters the storyline to an extent that there could be several different outcomes. If a specific capital ship isn’t destroyed, for example, it could turn the tide for the enemy and branch the storyline away, ultimately resulting in the war being won by the Kilrathi instead of the Terrans. This creates confusion in the inevitable event of a sequel, because then you have to dictate to the player which of the endings was the “real” one, possibly alienating the player who worked hard to get a difficult, yet non-canonical, ending.
Which is better? It’s hard to say. Certainly Japanese RPGs have taken the first approach, with multiple endings being relegated to how quickly the player decides to defeat the final boss (Chrono series) or how much of the storyline they uncovered before the game ends (Dead Rising). Western games take the second approach by and large, allowing the player to side with the enemy (Jedi Academy) or to take an unconventional route to completing the main challenge (Maniac Mansion). Nobody can actually say which one has sold better because there are always other factors involved, and using sales as a measure of success isn’t always reliable (particularly when trying to analyze games as art). Both approaches have merits and flaws.
If I were to make a game (which isn’t entirely unlikely– shhh, you didn’t hear that), I would probably try to blend the two approaches. Certainly a game has to have a set progression common to all iterations of its storyline (ie a core set of levels/events that build up to the final conflict). I would probably have the player branch the storyline without actually knowing that he or she is doing so, and gently rein the player in if he or she is straying too far from the core story. Let’s say that a situation comes up where the player has three ways to complete a task, and has a party member strongly opposed to one of those ways. The player is free to choose any of those ways he or she sees fit, but if the path is chosen that the party member does not like, the party member may abandon the player– or, more dramatically, sabotage the player’s attempt to accomplish the task that way, revealing more of the story and putting the player on the ‘right track’ without being heavy-handed. Naturally, if the player arrives at that juncture with a different party member who has no qualms about that particular path, then the player can pursue that option, but possibly not another one which the original party member would have approved of.
It’s all very theoretical and nebulous, of course, but it is something that might be worth looking into if I were to script a game.
Inconsequential Update: 80,000 words with 15 scenes left to go. One more to hit my goal, but like I said, I’m taking this wave of creativity as far as it can go. Of course, the fact that I managed a good deal on a slightly used MacBook (read: as a gift, it never left the box as the recipient already has an MB Pro, so he sold it to me) means that a) I’ll likely be on such a binge of writing that I’ll get a lot more done this weekend, as opposed to relaxing and watching a movie as was my original plan, and b) I have an equal chance of just slacking off and staring at Dashboard widgets for the next 48 hours. Ah well.
Ismail Saeed said,
02.23.07 at 1:55 pm
Firstly, how long ago did Jillette say that? He may have been unable to conceive of the computer narratives we have right now.
Secondly, I would argue that Maniac Mansion is little different from FF7. The overall story progression of Maniac Mansion still results in Dr. Fred being helped and Sandy being rescued, with just permutations in what you do on the way. The same ultimate result occurs in FF7, with permutations on what you did up to that point.
I would argue that Chrono Trigger is much more flexible. In terms of WHO you meet, WHAT you do with those people, and WHAT result comes out of it all. Does Marle mend things with her father or screw things with her father? You probably won’t have the idyllic “marriage” ending in any permutation where she’s screwed up with her dad, am I right? Anyway, it’s not just “time” - it’s what you do and what story events you effect in what ways that influence the ending you get. Metroid 1-3’s endings are “just time.”
The kind of permutations you describe in behavior… with characters complaining about things or mandating certain approaches… I think some of that already happens at least in some games, and it’s usually unofficial but you can USUALLY detect the mechanical nature of the switch as you play (whether a character says “Talk to everyone in town first” and finally says “Let’s go” after you talk to a specific person, for example). Not that I want to discourage you from coming up with game stuff ;).
Grey said,
02.23.07 at 11:47 pm
Heh, I’m slightly amused that you point out that FF7 always has the one same ending - shows you’re missing out on another factor games can use for story, which is interpreting events in different ways. This gives the player a different angle of “control” over the story, in that a suitably vague game can have numerous interpretations. Imagine a video game version of the movie Lost Highway for instance - something with a twisted and strange plot that simply refuses to be interpreted in an easy way. Of course, I haven’t seen a game yet daring enough to try something like that out…
Ismail Saeed said,
02.24.07 at 6:33 pm
I’m not “missing” anything. I do interpretation of literature :P. When I say “one” ending I’m not talking about how you VIEW the ending, but the actual number of distinct endings there are to HAVE a view of.
How you interpret an ending is different from what the ending IS. You can talk about the ending of ANY book or movie as much as you like, and come away with it with different interpretations. That’s fine. However, what words are being used in the last pages of the book or what video and audio is being played in the last few minutes of the movie doesn’t change. It’s there, fixed. It’s capable of being interpreted different ways, though.
FF7 has one fixed ending that was programmed into it. Anything prior to the ending (which characters you took, etc.) are the permutations in the game prior to the ending. The ending itself is a fixed sequence of stuff. The same actions are taken and the same words spoken and all that. How you interpret those actions and words is a separate personal matter that doesn’t magically change the FMV file on the CD.
Chrono Trigger’s different endings are *different* endings with measurably different things happening, ranging from “But the future refused to change” to some nice stuff to lots of nice stuff like Chrono and Marle tying the knot, etc. etc.
However, FF7 has ONE fixed ending sequence it goes through, just as the last pages of a book never change. You can interpret it in multiple ways if you like, but FF7’s ending is one ending just as a book’s ending is one ending.
Having one ending isn’t a knock against FF7. It’s just a fact. Most games just have one ending. King’s Quest 6 has multiple endings, but King’s Quest 1-5 did not. King’s Quest 7 only did in the sense of having a good ending and a bad ending. Space Quest 1 had two endings but Space Quest 2 and 3 both had only one. Every Legend of Zelda game I’ve played (which, granted, isn’t all of them) had just a single ending also.
I haven’t seen Lost Highway, but WHAT exists in the video and audio of the movie IS unchanging… which way you interpret it is a separate issue.
Ismail Saeed said,
02.24.07 at 6:37 pm
Note: I just reread my words in my first comment and for the record, what I mean is that, whatever you view that ending like, it’s one ending to be interpreted multiple ways, not multiple endings.
At the end of Maniac Mansion you get the Purple Tentacle to leave, and then you watch a sequence that doesn’t otherwise depend on what you did in the game… you may have killed the hamster and you may not have, you may have taken Razor and Bernard and you may have taken completely different people, etc. That’s sort of what I mean.