Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Moral Decisions and RPGs
Last week, Rock Paper Shotgun had an outstanding piece on Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines entitled "Educating Heather." It's a very neat slice of the game - specifically, dealing with the optional subplot involving the ghoul, Heather. And even more specifically - the psychology and emotional reaction to this aspect of the game.
This was something I really, really liked about Bloodlines. They captured the setting, the "feel" of the license, perfectly. The setting and situation was just so immersive that you couldn't just "play yourself." You were thrust into a world of shades of dark gray, and you were made a blood-sucking creature of the night. Almost every character in the game "has it coming" in one way or another. And there were far nastier things out there that went bump in the night than you. It yanked you out of your comfort zone. And they filled it with disturbing and non-trivial moral decisions.
And they also filled it with lame first-person-shooter filler material, which sucked. But at least it let you beat a man to death with a severed arm. That's always a plus in a game.
You have the option of getting rid of Heather during the game. If you don't - she comes to a bad end. This was, in its way, more emotionally charged than the death of Alagnar in Ultima VII, or Aeris's death in Final FantasyVII, because you realize (too late) that it was preventable. Either way, she's out of the picture at a certain point in the game - so from a mechanics perspective it is a non-issue.
But the context is compelling. There's way more story there than "kill ten rats and bring me their tails for 1 gold piece."
Ultimately, it works because the game is about people. Very scary, often undead people, but still people. The puzzles and challenges aren't just about manipulating the environment, but manipulating people. And they did a good enough job on the characters and voice-acting that many players came to really care about them. Theresa and Jeanette, encountered early in the game as both play you against each other, stand out as two of the most interesting NPCs I've ever seen in a computer RPG. The ending of that particular plotline was not a big surprise to me, but it was still unforgettable.
Freakin' Malks.
We get used to thinking of RPGs in the oldest-old-school sense - the straightforward dungeon-crawling and nameless monster bashing. When you hear modern designers talking about evolution in RPGs, they usually talk about more realistic graphics and streamlining the interface and getting rid of all those "boring" numbers.
Bloodlines is perhaps not the best example to use as a counterpoint to convince the industry to change. After all, it was seriously flawed, and didn't sell well enough to save its creators from going under. But it seems to me that there is a ton of mileage you can get out of a single, compelling NPC - even if they don't speak of word of dialog. I mean, look at the Companion Cube!
(Vaguely) related jumbled thoughts:
* What Makes a Great RPG? The World
* What Makes a Great RPG? The Story
* Who Are the Best Game Villains?
.
Labels: Game Design, Roleplaying Games
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 8:11 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Ultimately, it works because the game is about people.
A most excellent point, if I do say so myself.
A most excellent point, if I do say so myself.
Yeah, it got a little out of hand. I've just been reading so much stuff about games, art, and storytelling recently, it's tough to put it all down without rambling on and on. There's an incredible amount of material out there. I just wish we were making larger strides in that respect.
Baldur's Gate II made a ton of money, and I suspect a large part of that was due to the deep (by comparison to a standard RPG) characterization.
At the same time, Bioware's on record as saying they'll never try anything on that scale again, because it was so draining.
I think the problem is the same as that we see with TV series or movies.
A movie ticket is always about the same price, regardless of the movie playing. TV stations get their advertising money as long as people are watching, regardless of how much they enjoy the show.
There's only so many 'tiers' of video game pricing right now, as well.
So... often, a really good, critically acclaimed, very popular TV show with memorable characters ( Dead Like Me) that *sells* DVDs like crazy will be canceled in favor of an inane, boring show (Fat Actress) that no one really likes... BUT that no one really *dis*likes.
Let's say it costs $1 million to make an episode of Dead Like Me, and $100,000 to make an episode of Fat Actress.
As long as viewers of the station marginally prefer Fat Actress to either not watching TV at all, or watching (probably also lousy) shows on other stations, the TV station will make *the same revenue* from either show.
Thus, in the short term, it makes a lot more sense to can the popular, expensive show and shovel out the cheap, boring one.
I believe it's the same deal with video games. It may cost $10 million and 5 years to make another BG II, while a generic licensed RTS costs only $2 million and one year. In the end, if they both end up selling for $49.99 (and then $39.99, etc.) it makes a lot more financial sense to make the RTS, *even if everyone knows folk prefer BG II*.
Sure, BG II KEEPS selling years later... but business types tend to have extremely short planning horizons for profit maximization. This is a problem in and of its own, but there you go...
That's PART of why the indie scene is so valuable. Indie developers tend to go for polished games people will WANT to play, and LOVE, instead of games that people will be just indifferent to paying a standard price for. The tradeoff is usually much smaller budgets for graphics/sound/etc., of course, and the knowledge that many consumers will dismiss the game out of hand because of that. Not to mention that many potential consumers will never hear about the game to begin with due to lack of marketing.
Which is why compelling blogs on indie games with regular updates on what devs are doing, such as this one, are so important. :) I've made a few purchases and installed a bunch of demos based on what I've read here - and even if I don't end up buying a game, I usually talk about it to friends of mine who I think would enjoy it.
At the same time, Bioware's on record as saying they'll never try anything on that scale again, because it was so draining.
I think the problem is the same as that we see with TV series or movies.
A movie ticket is always about the same price, regardless of the movie playing. TV stations get their advertising money as long as people are watching, regardless of how much they enjoy the show.
There's only so many 'tiers' of video game pricing right now, as well.
So... often, a really good, critically acclaimed, very popular TV show with memorable characters ( Dead Like Me) that *sells* DVDs like crazy will be canceled in favor of an inane, boring show (Fat Actress) that no one really likes... BUT that no one really *dis*likes.
Let's say it costs $1 million to make an episode of Dead Like Me, and $100,000 to make an episode of Fat Actress.
As long as viewers of the station marginally prefer Fat Actress to either not watching TV at all, or watching (probably also lousy) shows on other stations, the TV station will make *the same revenue* from either show.
Thus, in the short term, it makes a lot more sense to can the popular, expensive show and shovel out the cheap, boring one.
I believe it's the same deal with video games. It may cost $10 million and 5 years to make another BG II, while a generic licensed RTS costs only $2 million and one year. In the end, if they both end up selling for $49.99 (and then $39.99, etc.) it makes a lot more financial sense to make the RTS, *even if everyone knows folk prefer BG II*.
Sure, BG II KEEPS selling years later... but business types tend to have extremely short planning horizons for profit maximization. This is a problem in and of its own, but there you go...
That's PART of why the indie scene is so valuable. Indie developers tend to go for polished games people will WANT to play, and LOVE, instead of games that people will be just indifferent to paying a standard price for. The tradeoff is usually much smaller budgets for graphics/sound/etc., of course, and the knowledge that many consumers will dismiss the game out of hand because of that. Not to mention that many potential consumers will never hear about the game to begin with due to lack of marketing.
Which is why compelling blogs on indie games with regular updates on what devs are doing, such as this one, are so important. :) I've made a few purchases and installed a bunch of demos based on what I've read here - and even if I don't end up buying a game, I usually talk about it to friends of mine who I think would enjoy it.
Interesting thought about the "tiers" - and I think you are quite correct. It's been true with indie games too: In the past, people have asked, "Why am I working my butt off on this RPG when I can create a Bejeweled clone in 1/4th of the time and make 3x the money."
In fact, I think Amanda Fitch has gone on record saying something approximately that. She still makes the RPGs because she loves them, but she alternates them with casual games so that she can afford to keep making them.
In fact, I think Amanda Fitch has gone on record saying something approximately that. She still makes the RPGs because she loves them, but she alternates them with casual games so that she can afford to keep making them.
The tier problem can be solved through bundling, creative pricing and the use of earlier games as marketing tools.
I think totalgaming.net has the right idea... You can buy individual games there, but they have a tempting scheme whereby you can buy ten $9.99 'tokens' at a discount on their face value.
This system makes it tempting to try out indie games. Maybe you've spent 7 tokens on Gal Civ II and its expansions, already saving money, and now you have three tokens left.
You could buy another top game for three tokens... or you could buy three cheap indie ones, such as Gumboy or Aveyond.
Given that the consumer already feels they've gotten their money's worth, they're likely to think of these remaining tokens as 'free' and be willing to try new things with them.
I know that's what I did, ending up with (among others) Astral Masters, a game I now love but would never have picked up otherwise.
Discounting earlier games in a series can also help. Togalgaming charges one token for Space Rangers I, but two for Space Rangers II.
Token-holders may impulse-buy Space Rangers I, love it, and then decide to buy the more expensive sequel.
A more blatant example is Gods: Lands of Infinity for one token, and the 'Special Edition', which feels like a patched version with a few graphical changes, for two tokens.
Bundling also helps. The other week I bought Sacred on Strategy First's web site for what I considered a fair price. At the checkout, to my surprise, they tossed in Darkstar One for free. Previous to this, I had no intention of ever playing Darkstar One - it had received horrible reviews, and no one I knew liked it. Since I got it for free, I figured I may as well try it, and ended up loving it.
If there had been a sequel, I would have bought it. There wasn't. However, I did fire up the Void War demo again, and bought X3.
This has possibilities. Maybe the developer of Aveyond could bundle Aveyond 1 for free with purchases of, say, three or more casual games at once. Consumers of the casual games feel they may as well play it since they got it for free, end up hooked, and then pay full price for Aveyond 2.
Meanwhile, consumers who would buy Aveyond 1 anyway may decide to buy some casual games as well, and get Aveyond 1 that way.
Bundling is also a good way to get more visibility for a game. You're proud of Void War but no one is buying it or playing it? Give it free to people who buy two or more games from Rampant Games, but make sure you only give them one code each for multiplayer (or however it is Void War checks identity). If the game is as good as you believe it to be, the folk who get it for free will be hooked, and may urge their friends to buy it.
Or they may do what I did with my brother. As soon as I noticed that Strategy First was giving away Darkstar One with Sacred (or the other way around, if you like), I rang him up and told him to take advantage of the great deal.
The irony being that without this promotion he would never have considered buying either Sacred, OR Darkstar One.
Both those games earned an extra player, and the company earned extra revenue.
I think totalgaming.net has the right idea... You can buy individual games there, but they have a tempting scheme whereby you can buy ten $9.99 'tokens' at a discount on their face value.
This system makes it tempting to try out indie games. Maybe you've spent 7 tokens on Gal Civ II and its expansions, already saving money, and now you have three tokens left.
You could buy another top game for three tokens... or you could buy three cheap indie ones, such as Gumboy or Aveyond.
Given that the consumer already feels they've gotten their money's worth, they're likely to think of these remaining tokens as 'free' and be willing to try new things with them.
I know that's what I did, ending up with (among others) Astral Masters, a game I now love but would never have picked up otherwise.
Discounting earlier games in a series can also help. Togalgaming charges one token for Space Rangers I, but two for Space Rangers II.
Token-holders may impulse-buy Space Rangers I, love it, and then decide to buy the more expensive sequel.
A more blatant example is Gods: Lands of Infinity for one token, and the 'Special Edition', which feels like a patched version with a few graphical changes, for two tokens.
Bundling also helps. The other week I bought Sacred on Strategy First's web site for what I considered a fair price. At the checkout, to my surprise, they tossed in Darkstar One for free. Previous to this, I had no intention of ever playing Darkstar One - it had received horrible reviews, and no one I knew liked it. Since I got it for free, I figured I may as well try it, and ended up loving it.
If there had been a sequel, I would have bought it. There wasn't. However, I did fire up the Void War demo again, and bought X3.
This has possibilities. Maybe the developer of Aveyond could bundle Aveyond 1 for free with purchases of, say, three or more casual games at once. Consumers of the casual games feel they may as well play it since they got it for free, end up hooked, and then pay full price for Aveyond 2.
Meanwhile, consumers who would buy Aveyond 1 anyway may decide to buy some casual games as well, and get Aveyond 1 that way.
Bundling is also a good way to get more visibility for a game. You're proud of Void War but no one is buying it or playing it? Give it free to people who buy two or more games from Rampant Games, but make sure you only give them one code each for multiplayer (or however it is Void War checks identity). If the game is as good as you believe it to be, the folk who get it for free will be hooked, and may urge their friends to buy it.
Or they may do what I did with my brother. As soon as I noticed that Strategy First was giving away Darkstar One with Sacred (or the other way around, if you like), I rang him up and told him to take advantage of the great deal.
The irony being that without this promotion he would never have considered buying either Sacred, OR Darkstar One.
Both those games earned an extra player, and the company earned extra revenue.
The trick there is that the points of sale need to have freedom to do this, but that's really in the control of the copyright-holder. The affiliate systems most shareware / indie game developers use today doesn't allow that kind of control... yet.
But that could be how things might work in the future. If affiliate sites are the digital analog of retailers, it would make sense.
Post a Comment
But that could be how things might work in the future. If affiliate sites are the digital analog of retailers, it would make sense.
Links to this post:
<< Home
