Consequences are a vital part of role-playing. Without them, the choices we make don't carry a great deal of weight. There are so many games wherein the player is given choices, and neither one has any effect on what then happens. A lot of players feel cheated by this, and don't see why the choice is given in the first place if you can't stop something from happening.
It's a difficult subject. In The Art of Games Design, the concept of multiple endings is discussed, and argued to be particularly fallible because of the unecessary time and effort for features that may not even be seen, and the confusion it can cause. However I don't believe that 'choices' or 'consequences' are obsolute in games. In fact, it's of paramount importance to discover how this idea can work truly successful in games. The player needs to feel like they are in control, and giving them choices aids this.
Of course, it comes down to the discussion of 'indirect control. Perhaps a different approach is needed regarding the consequences in a game. If the consequences are large enough to affect the entire ending of a game, for example, this can cause players to replay the game not for the engagement value, but just to find out what happens. This breaks the illusion that they are within the world they are playing and they cease to role-play anymore. On the other hand, giving them choices which make no difference to the gameworld at all makes players feel cheated.
So how could we possibly go about this?
My theory is that choices and consequences can and should affect the journey, and not the destination. In other words, a decision someone makes might have certain effects on the way someone might interact with you as a character. E.g. Imagine that you had the choice to go and seek out a rare weapon, or to help someone in need. You choose to find that weapon instead of help, and that person resents you for it. That person could have been a boon in your quest, and your task is made more difficult by the fact they refuse to ally with you.
That's just a hypothetical example. It's something that would be caused by your decision, and would force the player into the shoes of their character to decide which is more beneficial, as the character they are playing, therefore encouraging role-playing. If there is no consequence, the player wouldn't feel the need to role-play and would just likely go for the weapon for statistical reasons.
Well, that's my theory at the moment, which I am exploring as I create my final project. I want viewers to be able to form their own interpretation of the character whose point of view my project will revolve, and to make their own minds up about becoming that character or not.
If this doesn't make much sense yet, I'll be explaining it shortly as I summarize the process of my final project.
It's a difficult subject. In The Art of Games Design, the concept of multiple endings is discussed, and argued to be particularly fallible because of the unecessary time and effort for features that may not even be seen, and the confusion it can cause. However I don't believe that 'choices' or 'consequences' are obsolute in games. In fact, it's of paramount importance to discover how this idea can work truly successful in games. The player needs to feel like they are in control, and giving them choices aids this.
Of course, it comes down to the discussion of 'indirect control. Perhaps a different approach is needed regarding the consequences in a game. If the consequences are large enough to affect the entire ending of a game, for example, this can cause players to replay the game not for the engagement value, but just to find out what happens. This breaks the illusion that they are within the world they are playing and they cease to role-play anymore. On the other hand, giving them choices which make no difference to the gameworld at all makes players feel cheated.
So how could we possibly go about this?
My theory is that choices and consequences can and should affect the journey, and not the destination. In other words, a decision someone makes might have certain effects on the way someone might interact with you as a character. E.g. Imagine that you had the choice to go and seek out a rare weapon, or to help someone in need. You choose to find that weapon instead of help, and that person resents you for it. That person could have been a boon in your quest, and your task is made more difficult by the fact they refuse to ally with you.
That's just a hypothetical example. It's something that would be caused by your decision, and would force the player into the shoes of their character to decide which is more beneficial, as the character they are playing, therefore encouraging role-playing. If there is no consequence, the player wouldn't feel the need to role-play and would just likely go for the weapon for statistical reasons.
Well, that's my theory at the moment, which I am exploring as I create my final project. I want viewers to be able to form their own interpretation of the character whose point of view my project will revolve, and to make their own minds up about becoming that character or not.
If this doesn't make much sense yet, I'll be explaining it shortly as I summarize the process of my final project.
0 comments:
Post a Comment