Monday, November 27, 2006
Stop the Long-Winded Intros!
Ever get stuck in a conversation with someone who at first strikes you as interesting with fascinating things to say, but who then keeps talking and talking without letting anyone else get a word in edgewise... even to say, "That's interesting?" Before long, you start making up some lame reason to excuse yourself from the conversation, like, "Oh, hey, I just remembered my wife's hair is on fire, and I promised her I'd help her put it out." And you find yourself avoiding the formerly-interesting person after that, not because you are afraid they'll ask you about how your wife's hair turned out (because they probably won't), but because you expect you'll be wanting to jab a spork into each ear to make the pain of their talking.
Maybe they were just nervous about meeting you, and went on yammering out of a self-defeating effort to make a good impression. If you stick with it long enough, maybe they'll actually prove to be fun people to know. But in the meantime, you are stuck with impression of them being someone that just won't shut up.
Too many games are like that these days.
The latest offender is Kingdom Hearts 2. My girls love Disney (especially after the trip to Disneyland earlier this year), and my oldest loves the Final Fantasy games. So I thought this would be perfect. So I rented the game for the holiday weekend, and we all gathered around the television set in some parody of the Ward Cleaver household to enjoy this game.
Fifteen minutes later, I think I'd only pressed one button (on the main menu screen), and my daughters began asking me, "Is this a game, or a movie?"
I didn't know how to respond. "I really thought it was a game when I rented it," I responded.
I usually don't just skip past these things. After all, I love a good STORY in games. I worry about missing out on clues as to what I'm actually supposed to be doing. And on top of this, Square-Enix is known for its captivating 3D work and storylines. Of course, in many previous Final Fantasy games, I'd already be up to the first level-boss of the bunny-slope dungeon by now. But I stuck it out, growing more and more irritated by the minute.
A few minutes later, I was utterly startled by actually finding myself in a segment where I could actually.... well, PLAY. What a concept! I walked around and talked to people. And then found myself in my very first combat. Nifty!
But by this point, nearly a half-hour had gone by, and as an adult I had things to do. As a GAMER, I have no problem sinking a half-hour (or even more) into a game in a single session. I frequently do. But as a grown-up, I have to always deal with the nagging concern in the back of my mind that keeps asking, "Don't you have something else you should be doing right now?" By this point, I was growing bored with the game (just as it was getting to the "good part"), and I'd been hogging up the console for a half an hour.
So I handed the controls over to my daughter and said, "There you go."
The girls were actually kind of reluctant to play at this point. They'd been watching Daddy play for the last half hour (not that I'd actually been playing most of that time - I'd been a passive viewer most of that time, too.), and it wasn't particularly exciting.
But they stuck it out. And unlike their father, they DIDN'T have better things they needed to be doing. And they played the whole weekend. Loved it. And I enjoyed popping in on them for a few minutes and watching them play. It looks like the game gets pretty fun. And I nearly bust a gut laughing when I saw them get to the Tron and Nightmare Before Christmas worlds. I mean, watching Squall from Final Fantasy VIII watch in horror as the hero, Donald Duck, and Goofy get "digitized" by the Master Control Program was priceless.
But the introduction felt like having to sit through a class before being allowed to have fun.
These are games! Interactive entertainment! If I wanted to watch a movie, I'd have rented a movie! I'm ripping on Kingdom Hearts 2, but this is a problem I'm seeing too often --- even in indie games, which don't even have the budget for a well-made introduction like the one in Kingdom Hearts. The point of a game is to play - to interact with it. While I love a good introductory cut-scene or well-told explanation, it's gotta get me into the "action" (even if the action is a little slow-paced) quickly. Othewise, it's like that bore at the party who won't quit talking.
As I said, I LIKE deep storylines and clever dialog in my games. And I don't consider myself to be that impatient of a gamer. But they have to be games, dang it!
(Vaguely) related posts:
* How to Get Me To Buy Your Indie RPG
* Why Battlefield 2 Sucks
* Rules of Combat According to FPS Games
Labels: Game Design, Mainstream Games
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 8:18 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Jay,
this is the kind of thing that gets to me to. I love good stories when they help to progress the game and add to it, but when it takes over the game, I get really frustrated.
This is why I often caution younger developers about the dangers of story in games, as it has the potential to overpower and weaken the interactive part of the game.
this is the kind of thing that gets to me to. I love good stories when they help to progress the game and add to it, but when it takes over the game, I get really frustrated.
This is why I often caution younger developers about the dangers of story in games, as it has the potential to overpower and weaken the interactive part of the game.
What if we made a minmaxable (?) game out of every dialogue?
Dialogue sequences have the potential to provide players with information and to entertain them. However, in most cases, even when they're interactive (dialogue trees), they're fluffy and offer only the illusion of choice.
In the few cases where designers have done dialogue well -- Fallout and Deus Ex come to mind -- I think it's because they use both emotional investment ("I hate this character! Keel heem!") and CRPG minmaxing ("Play my cards right, and I can get a pair of grenades out you."). Sometimes they even tie these together, and I think it's pretty interesting when we play them against each other.
In our upcoming Galaxy Rage, for example, we offer players the opportunity to help their friends find freedom, but there's moral ambiguity ("Free us? We just do what you say, and you take care of us. We're not slaves or anything!"), and a mechanical cost ("Hey, your underlings are defined as property. If you 'free' them, they'll either leave, or you'll have to pay them for their work.")
On top of this, I'd like to make the actual dialogue gameable in the same way that you would game RPG combat. In most combat situations, you're typically fighting for your life, with a sliding scale of outcomes (Complete Victory: "We stomped 'em!" Partial Victory: "We won, but we're low on mana." Defeat: "We lost! Reload from savegame, Jed.") What if conversations had stated or player-selected goals, and players were required to "fight it out" to achieve them? We've seen a tiny glimpse of this (in Fallout, high CHA/INT meant you could talk your way out of things), but how about and entire system of interpersonal skills and attributes?
Mechanically speaking, I'm thinking of a system where fireballs become clever bluffing (Red Dragon has resistance to Fire; Experienced Cop has resistance to Bluff), and your enemies' hit points are really their resistance to your line of reasoning.
Has this been done in CRPGs? (This certainly exists in limited form in tabletop RPGs. Maybe I need to look at Cute Knight?) Does it have the potential to make the game more interesting by countering this long-winded non-interactivity?
Dialogue sequences have the potential to provide players with information and to entertain them. However, in most cases, even when they're interactive (dialogue trees), they're fluffy and offer only the illusion of choice.
In the few cases where designers have done dialogue well -- Fallout and Deus Ex come to mind -- I think it's because they use both emotional investment ("I hate this character! Keel heem!") and CRPG minmaxing ("Play my cards right, and I can get a pair of grenades out you."). Sometimes they even tie these together, and I think it's pretty interesting when we play them against each other.
In our upcoming Galaxy Rage, for example, we offer players the opportunity to help their friends find freedom, but there's moral ambiguity ("Free us? We just do what you say, and you take care of us. We're not slaves or anything!"), and a mechanical cost ("Hey, your underlings are defined as property. If you 'free' them, they'll either leave, or you'll have to pay them for their work.")
On top of this, I'd like to make the actual dialogue gameable in the same way that you would game RPG combat. In most combat situations, you're typically fighting for your life, with a sliding scale of outcomes (Complete Victory: "We stomped 'em!" Partial Victory: "We won, but we're low on mana." Defeat: "We lost! Reload from savegame, Jed.") What if conversations had stated or player-selected goals, and players were required to "fight it out" to achieve them? We've seen a tiny glimpse of this (in Fallout, high CHA/INT meant you could talk your way out of things), but how about and entire system of interpersonal skills and attributes?
Mechanically speaking, I'm thinking of a system where fireballs become clever bluffing (Red Dragon has resistance to Fire; Experienced Cop has resistance to Bluff), and your enemies' hit points are really their resistance to your line of reasoning.
Has this been done in CRPGs? (This certainly exists in limited form in tabletop RPGs. Maybe I need to look at Cute Knight?) Does it have the potential to make the game more interesting by countering this long-winded non-interactivity?
Glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks about these things, Dejobaan.
I know at one company, certain folks referred to certain designers as "Miniature Spielburg Wannabes." They seemed to be wanting to make movies, not games.
The desire to tell stories is strong in game developers. And as a game player, I actually *LIKE* little cut-scenes... even the non-interactive exposition kinds. They can help tell the story, set the mood, reveal clues, whatever. But they need to be short, sweet, and to the point. In other words, EFFICIENT.
That efficiency takes skill. I'm reminded of a Mark Twain quote: "I'm sorry for writing you such a long letter, but I didn't have time to write you a short one."
I know at one company, certain folks referred to certain designers as "Miniature Spielburg Wannabes." They seemed to be wanting to make movies, not games.
The desire to tell stories is strong in game developers. And as a game player, I actually *LIKE* little cut-scenes... even the non-interactive exposition kinds. They can help tell the story, set the mood, reveal clues, whatever. But they need to be short, sweet, and to the point. In other words, EFFICIENT.
That efficiency takes skill. I'm reminded of a Mark Twain quote: "I'm sorry for writing you such a long letter, but I didn't have time to write you a short one."
Related to this are cutscenes that suddenly take control away from the player. For example, in Quake 4, there are several areas where the player walks into a room, the cutscene kicks in (giving no opportunity to reconoiter), shows nasties creeping out of the nooks and attacking, and then leaves the player right in the middle of it all! Thank you very much. If I had wanted to run into the room like a moron, screaming "Look at me! Look at me!" I would have done so! =P
Note to all you "designers" out there: STOP DOING THIS! The ONLY time cutscenes should be used is to introduce information to a player, preferably at the beginning or end of a level, where there's a lull in the gameplay already. And even then, keep it short, please!
Key point here: Whenever you take control away from the player, this is a bad thing -- the player is no longer playing, i.e. it's not a game anymore, it's become something else.
Note to all you "designers" out there: STOP DOING THIS! The ONLY time cutscenes should be used is to introduce information to a player, preferably at the beginning or end of a level, where there's a lull in the gameplay already. And even then, keep it short, please!
Key point here: Whenever you take control away from the player, this is a bad thing -- the player is no longer playing, i.e. it's not a game anymore, it's become something else.
Glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks about these things, Dejobaan.
Nuts; either I missed an episode, or I'm cribbing. :)
Nuts; either I missed an episode, or I'm cribbing. :)
Xenovore -
I agree, though I would argue that sometimes it's a necessary evil. Well, "Necessary" is arguable... too often it's lazy design (meaning: The designer didn't come up with a more creative way to cope with the limitations of the engine / medium / development scope). But even that is forgiveable if it's kept to a minimum. The Quake 4 thing (which I haven't played) sounds really obnoxious.
Dejobaan -
It serves my ego to simply assume this is another case of Great Minds Thinking Alike. :)
I agree, though I would argue that sometimes it's a necessary evil. Well, "Necessary" is arguable... too often it's lazy design (meaning: The designer didn't come up with a more creative way to cope with the limitations of the engine / medium / development scope). But even that is forgiveable if it's kept to a minimum. The Quake 4 thing (which I haven't played) sounds really obnoxious.
Dejobaan -
It serves my ego to simply assume this is another case of Great Minds Thinking Alike. :)
The Xenosaga series are notorious offenders of the long-winded intro. However, the director felt free to do so because a large part of his audience were people desperate to see the full plot of Xenogears brought to fruition. The first episode had nearly 40 minutes of cutscene prior to the first tutorial battle. The second game did much better clocking in at only around 15-20 minutes, but they changed directors and a lot other aspects of the game, which drove off a lot more people than it brought in. By the time the third episode came out, 6 planned episodes had become three, and the die-hard fanbase was all that was left. They said, "damn the torpedoes" and went back to their big story roots, which pleased a lot of people, but couldn't save the franchise.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
<< Home
