On Main Characters

[Helm]

Of course it's all opinion, OS Squinky, but would you say the opinion that a game that tries to mislead about it's qualities (fake choices, fake open-endedness) is a game that stands to be criticized? That's what I'm saying.

If this discussion deteriorates to - as it was threatened -  "that's my opinion, that's your opinion, let's agree to disagree" whereas I don't mind, it'll be a bit of a shame. Nobody is authority on what good game design is, but most people can discuss this and agree on several threads without the knee-jerk 'omg opinion!' thing having to come to play.

About people not knowing any better. A lot of people have only played console games, and those sure are based on different game design philosophy (or philosophies) than the personal computer counterparts, therefore it's safe to say that someone who has grown up on Dragon Quest/Final Fantasy series and has never played Ultima games or Magic Candle games or roguelikes is not making a very educated point when he's saying 'these are the best stories in games, ever!' Sure, it's his opinion, but it's an uninformed opinion, and I think this uninformed state encourages the market to remain mediocre.

[Kinoko]

If he says they're the best stories -ever-, I agree. But he's allowed to think they're awesome.

I agree also, this is what keeps the quality of games low. It infuriates me a lot actually, when I see someone who I know has very limited experience with games talk about how something is really great, when I know it isn't. Movies, books, anything. We're all like that, really. But sometimes I have to knock myself down off my high horse too... sometimes appreciating things regardless of an unexperienced mind can be just as good a thing as knowing a lot about a genre and having an informed opinion.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Well, the issue with consoles in general is that the devs think (often mistakenly) that they have the pulse of the public for who they are making the games, so whenever Square or one of the bigger companies releases a mediocre game, at least 5 companies follow suit with something equally trite and uninventive, further saturating the market with boring titles.  The pc market has gotten more and more like this over the years (the sheer number of average to poor first person shooters come to mind) and it's all about jumping into some niche and riding it out until the end.  Square has been doing this with rpgs for a very long time now, and I don't see them changing anytime soon, unless you consider Dirge of Cerberus to be a massive departure for them (which I don't).  I think that one thing 80's-early 90's computer game devs had over everyone else was time to really make a roleplaying game into a thing of beauty rather than mass produced drivel.  Bethesda is one of the few companies that still takes this sort of thing seriously, having spent almost five yeras on Elder Scrolls: Oblivion.  Hopefully the time will be justified, as I've only been seriously disappointed by one of their games so far (Battlespire). 

[scourge]

Well I've been roleplaying for about 5 years at most, but I have played most of the SNES, N64 and PS1 RPGs and a couple of PS2. RPGs generally goes about the story where other genres could be held together by other things, so i guess it's easy too assume some RGPs to have the best stories since that's the thing staring you in the face most of the time haha. For me Suikoden 2 had the coolest story, but I never understood the main character, a kid with sticks that's able to do so much, but i guess that's part of it. Even though the story was almost linear (only a couple of different endings) it didn't stop me from playing it 5 times over.  Xenogears is awsome.

I have no point and agree with everyone

[xenogia]

. Even though the story was almost linear (only a couple of different endings) it didn't stop me from playing it 5 times over.  Xenogears is awsome.

I love you buloght .. one day I want to try make a Xenogears point-n-click side story.  I've finished this game ten times and have the Perfect Works book which explains the history and the world that Xenogears puts itself in.

[biothlebop]

For me, the two most recent RPG games that pulled me in were the new Vampire and Arx fatalis. I didn't know much about either, and I guess that I was partly attracted to Arx for the reason that it was influenced by Ultima Underworld and I had never played it. The character in Arx starts out nameless in a cell, but the world and the detail to it pulled me still in to it. You can even bake your own apple pies in it. Vampire did the same thing, your character got bitten and the player had to learn to adapt to a new society/circumstances. The thing that is great about RPGs is that they allow you to be placed in someone else's shoes in a new world, but the japanese console ones seem to be afraid to reinvent themselves and place you in a different person in a world that functions the same as the ones that came before it.
Even Space Rangers 2, which is more like a heir of Star Control than a RPG, managed to immerse me into it better than any console rpg I've played in the last 3-4 years (also thanks to the fresh, vast and detailed world), which I believe is what RPG's should strive for.
As for design, there are rules. Some can be broken for artistic effect, but it can retract from the enjoyability of it (who actually listens to Stockhausen?).
I believe that good design should always strive to giving the player more choices and take the invisible barriers further away from sight. JRPG's and point-anc-dick adventures are so tightly scripted that the world runs more like a cause-and-effect thing related to the player's actions than a real world. This can be hidden except when the choices of the player contradict with the ficitional character's (eg. Broken Sword: Stobbard is a tourist that just decides to investigate murder and fly around Europe, yeah, right).
Some movies do this well, but they usually have the antagonist perform the contradictory/morally questionable actions and lose.
Tightly scripted characters with predefined agendas have to be something special and well thought out, some of the causes for actions cannot be 100% visible to the player, else the illusion fails. Who knows what personal tragedies/experiences have caused us to flock here, probably they are more complex than just I loved MI.
A trick for getting around the established morales and choices of the player is to place the character in a world with strictly defined rules (asylyms) or surreal/fantasy enviroments. Realistic adventure games often have more difficulties with the player identifying, agreeing and enjoying the games (me and BS).
My opinion is that movies and games are quite different, and games should give the player more options, even if the character has predefined agendas.
In fact, why hasn't anyone made a adventure game where the only npc is the main character and all other characters are only not only there to place rubber-bands and id-cards for him/her to find but also controllable? Like TIM, where the main character is the ball falling from the top and you build the maze around him/her to guide him/her to his/her goal.

[The Inquisitive Stranger]

I didn't mean to have this degenerate into a "good game design is a matter of opinion" discussion. I'm seriously curious as to what people think good game design actually is.

After all, in the industry, the prevailing mindset is that a well-designed game is one that sells well...

[CaptainBinky]

After all, in the industry, the prevailing mindset is that a well-designed game is one that sells well...

Actually it's more along the lines of "a well designed game is the one that gets you the contract". Notice that there's not much emphasis on production in that statement

[LimpingFish]

"Good" game design is hard to define. So I won't try.

I will say, though, that I was always more attracted to a game with a story. It didn't have to be a particulary strong or original tale, just one that made me want to keep playing.

I do admit that I've grown tired of the Japanese "style" of RPG, or rather the whole "Save The World" thing, to the point where I now play a lot less of them than I did when I was younger.

I will also say that people can be a bit hard on JPRG characters. These games are after all meant to be played by all ages. Giving them options and choices that we as adults take for granted may be a little heavy for younger players. A western RPG such as the Fallout series, with its characters being free to choose their own moral path, or to indulge in sex, drugs, murder and general mayhem, isn't meant to be played by younger gamers.

I see little wrong with JRPGs apart from their reliance to ape what has gone before. Design-wise, a good JRPG is just as valid as any western release. The story may be corny, but the game itself will offer everything an RPG player would want.

Hell, I'll go this far: Good Game Design = The ability to make the player want to play.

Of course this will change from person to person. Greatly.

[Goldmund]

Helm, you cannot imagine how much I disagree with your shunning of "fake options"! To the point of foaming my mouth! (calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean)

THE STORY OF A GAME IS WEAVED IN THE PLAYER'S BRAIN, NOT IN CODE!

Sure, the "why wouldn't you want to help?" is absurd - not because it's a "fake" option, just stupid.

Imagine a situation: in a game, you break up with your girlfriend. You can end a farewell phone conversation with "I just lost my time living with you, never could be what I wanted to be", or "I still love you, just need some time to sort things out", or "I got a better biatch!1". After each choice, the avatar says it and hangs the receiver. On the level of the scripting, no option is saved and no option has any influence on the way the story proceeds. Do you really think it would be better to leave the choice out of the game, just because it "pretends not to be linear"?

[Mordalles]

the only 2 jprg i've ever finished is suikoden 1 and suikoden 2, and to me they are two of my favourite games in any genre ever.

but thankfully helm has played almost every game out there, and knows everything there is to know about everything, so i'll just ask him before i waste my preciousss time on playing a stupid game. in fact, i'm gonna wait for him to make a perfect game, since he knows what he is talking about. i can't wait for the awesome story and deep deep main character.

*mordalles waits patiently*

[ManicMatt]

Actually, I've been playing xenosaga 2 recently. It is like watching a film with bits of interaction inbetween. Still, I stuck with it, and found the game open itself up and then I had lots of fun going around a few towns doing sidequests. It's this part in RPGs that i find mega addictive.

There are some great RPGs coming out this year:

Dragon Quest (Latest one)
Rogue galaxy (By Level 5, who did the sublime dark chronicle)
Kingdom hearts 2
FF12

All of these games appear to have ditched the turn based fighting in favour of real time battles. YAHOO!!

And I'm highly excited about Oblivion! The previous game in the elder scrolls series, morrowind, was long, dull and too big for its own good. But once you play it enough, you get hooked and I must have spent 200+ hours playing that game!

[The Inquisitive Stranger]

but thankfully helm has played almost every game out there, and knows everything there is to know about everything, so i'll just ask him before i waste my preciousss time on playing a stupid game. in fact, i'm gonna wait for him to make a perfect game, since he knows what he is talking about. i can't wait for the awesome story and deep deep main character.

But Helm doesn't know anything about anything! He's just throwing around meaningless words! Words are useless! Stop overrationalizing! Live in the moment, duuude.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Dragon Quest (Latest one)

If you mean Journey of the Cursed King it is turn based, and it's rather crap.  Radiata Stories (by the Enix team of Square-Enix) was far better because it takes a hilarious stab at weak japanese rpg plotlines and characters while wallowing in a cheap cliched plotline with cheaper characters.  I especially enjoy how EVERYONE wants to fight if you kick them in the ass, and a great many of them will join your party.  The characters are all over the top cliches (bitchy, scantily clad women, tough guys with swords 8x larger than they are, scrawny old men that are tougher than anyone in the game).  It's a nice change to play a game that knows how silly jap rpg plotlines have become and isn't afraid to take advantage of it.

nd I'm highly excited about Oblivion! The previous game in the elder scrolls series, morrowind, was long, dull and too big for its own good. But once you play it enough, you get hooked and I must have spent 200+ hours playing that game!

This is a contradictory statement.  If something is long, dull, and too big for its own good then why would you keep playing it?  What is there to hook you about a long, dull, and overlarge game?  And why would you look forward to the sequel?

[Kinoko]

Perhaps he means that if you play it a little, it's terrible and goes downhill, but eventually you get over that 'hump' and the meter starts going up again.

[MrColossal]

Goldmund, The problem with that is that you've brought up a brand new situation that isn't the one helm was talking about. I don't want to speak for Helm* but that's not much of a fake option. A fake option would be

"Do you want to get back together with me?"

YES/NO

YES

"Are you sure you want to get back together with me?"

YES/NO

YES

"Are you sure you want to get back together with me?"

YES/NO

YES

"Are you sure you want to get back together with me?"

YES/NO

YES

"Are you sure you want to get back together with me?"

YES/NO

NO

"That's what I thought, goodbye!"

"I still love you..."

End of conversation.

In my opinion at least.

Mordalles, someone has to be the best there ever was at something in order to have an opinion about it? How awkward, I guess we should close down the Crit Lounge then!

* Ok I'll speak for Helm a little right here "Penis penis penis penis"

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Perhaps he means that if you play it a little, it's terrible and goes downhill, but eventually you get over that 'hump' and the meter starts going up again.

Well there's a problem with that idea, Kinoko.  Have you played Morrowind?  I'm not arguing that he doesn't have the right to say the game is long, dull, and too large, but it certainly makes no sense that you'd dedicate time to a game as involved as Morrowind believing it to be long and dull when the game is essentially what it is from the start. 

Mordalles, someone has to be the best there ever was at something in order to have an opinion about it? How awkward, I guess we should close down the Crit Lounge then!

Stop picking on my lounge...It's all I've got ;(.

[Kinoko]

I haven't played it, I was just throwing the possibility out there for argument's sake.

[SmootH]

In my opinion, interactivity, and hence puzzle solving potential, subplots and extras should be dropped if they inhibit character development or slow down the narrative of the game. The game should be about telling a story in an interesting way first and then puzzles to help move the player from place to place.

A successful game, in my eyes, would be one where you can remember the characters rather than the puzzles you had to solve. ( ie you remember Sherlock Holmes for how he solved the crime and not the crime itself). Interactivityhas to stem from something aswell, everything in every room could potentially be used on something but does it help the story in anyway( ie Anyone play Max Payne 2? Then you know what I mean)? if not then you should not be able to use it in any particular way.

I think the best story driven games (not lately though) are the Zelda games. They showed that story related games could be just as sucessful as "timing" based games (Super Mario Bros. etc), pure puzzle games and sports games.

[Alun]

In my opinion, interactivity, and hence puzzle solving potential, subplots and extras should be dropped if they inhibit character development or slow down the narrative of the game. The game should be about telling a story in an interesting way first and then puzzles to help move the player from place to place.

See, that's the thing, though--if the story is the end-all and be-all, why make it a game in the first place?  Why not just a movie?

There's a popular saying in the text adventure community, by the creator of one of the most popular text adventure creation programs, that a text adventure is "a narrative at war with a crossword".  In other words, there are two elements of an adventure game (though he was talking about text adventures, I think the same principles apply to graphic adventures): the story, and the puzzles.  (I'd argue there's also a third element, actually, but that's a topic for another time...)  Those two elements aren't always in harmony, and can't both be maximized; a balance has to be struck between them.

Where that balance is struck depends on the game.  The first adventure games--Dungeon, Zork, etc.--had no story to speak of; they pretty much existed just for the puzzles.  The first graphic adventure--King's Quest--didn't have much story to it either.  One could argue that things have evolved since then, but there have been more recent games that followed similar lines.  Myst is mostly there for the puzzles--sure, there's sort of a thin story tying it all together, but it takes a back seat.  And Myst was wildly successful.  On the other hand, of course, other games have focused on story, and had easy and almost incidental puzzles.  And most games fall somewhere in between.

I don't think it's possible to say that there's any given point where the balance should be, that either element should always be emphasized in favor of the other.  It depends on the game, and what you're going for with it.  A different balance works for different games.

That being said, if you are trying to make a game with an engrossing and interesting story, then putting in a jarring puzzle that has nothing to do with the story and seems totally out of place in the gameworld is completely counterproductive, yes.

As far as the actual topic of the thread--I think an undefined character is harder to pull off in a graphic adventure because, well, you can see the character; you know what he looks like; you can see his actions.  (I suppose it would be possible to allow the player to customize his character in detail beforehand, but I don't know of any games that have done so (which isn't to say that they don't exist; I just don't know about them--and no, RLatBTAT doesn't count).)  Also, you necessarily don't have as much freedom of action, because it's not possible to create graphics for every possibility, whereas in a text adventure creating a few lines of text to account for anything that could happen isn't as big a deal.  [EDIT: Well, not anything that can happen, obviously, but still one can allow many more actions in a text adventure than would be feasible in a graphic adventure.]  So those, I think, are among the practical reasons why graphic adventures have steered toward well-defined characters.  But as far as which is better...again, I think it depends on the game, and what you're going for.  There's certainly some correlation between well-defined stories and well-defined characters, but I don't think either necessarily implies the other...and I'm rambling and I don't know if I'm really saying anything of substance, so I'll shut up now.