Jashin on 21/1/2010 at 07:39
I think difficulty of a singleplayer game in general is just construct of the overall design. Difficult + trial/error design = grind. Difficult + open-ended design = enjoyment.
I'd rather talk about games that employ the player to use his own imagination to expand the scope of the simulation. The old looking glass tenet says allude to complicated actions via notes. But there's more. Instead of just imagining events which take place elsewhere, player actions are able to create its own fiction given that the simulation is deep enough.
Say Deus Ex, I tend to stash bodies out of sight, or cover them with objects, or whatever environment allows. This is different from hiding bodies in Thief cus 1. instead of universal disdain for all of Thief's NPCs, in Deus Ex I tend to sympathize with many NPCs who happen to be hostile, and 2. in Deus Ex the level of simulation is even deeper - there's gibbing for corpses, there's drowning, there's being stunned, etc. Hence I tend to create my own brand of fiction by, if I were to do a KO, stashing righteous npcs in safe places.
Another, different example: In Witcher there's a place with a bunch of elves who are fugitive guerrillas, holed up in a cave and starving. They've rejected charity from kind humans. Their leader gives you a side quest of buying bread for them, but when you turn in the bread the quest notes (and frankly common sense) make it clear that a few loaves are not gonna do it. But since the witcher has a history with their leader, each individual elf would accept food from Geralt. Each nameless elf would also provide the same knowledge of herb, the same reward, so there's no justifiable gain from feeding all of them. And they would only accept a certain kind of food! Anyway, I kept each one fed, every day that I was there, cus by doing this I've added my own details to the fiction as well as gameplay.
By supplying a fictitious world with enough details, both technical and narrative, player would then create his own meaning within that narrative plural space, to augment the limited simulation and truly bring the actions to life. I'd regard that kind of "toolset" as the true genius of emergent games in general, as well as a few non-emergent games specifically.
gunsmoke on 21/1/2010 at 09:33
For me, having an active imagination is a huge part of the game experience. I would think it would be rather bland otherwise. I role-play as much as the games allow.
I try to put myself into my characters in 'blank slate' games like Gothic 1&2. Like what would I do if magically transported into the shoes of Nameless One. In games with a developed, carefully written character, I try to think like they might, and react accordingly.
For example, I don't just blindly walk around accepting every quest. If it sounds petty and just there to keep me busy, I'll probably ignore it. If it is a damsel in distress or a dude down on his luck that needs some help, I'll probably jump to it. If it is some rich snob who has some self-serving quest that will fuck people around for his benefit, I'll probably kill him.
Thirith on 21/1/2010 at 09:42
To some extent, gameplay and imagination aren't all that connected for me. My imagination is activated by writing, art direction and anything that adds to a game's atmosphere as much as by a game world that offers lots of freedom and nooks and crannies to explore: for instance, the world of Grim Fandango is as much a living world to me as the world of Thief or Grand Theft Auto.
Fragony on 21/1/2010 at 11:19
Must be believable and consistent, there is no bigger immersion breaker then a dialogue option that shouldn't be there as the character can't know it about it yet. Small things like that get to me and pull me out of the experience.
Malf on 21/1/2010 at 11:44
My current favourite game?
Dwarf Fortress.
Yeah, imagination is hugely important to me.
gunsmoke on 21/1/2010 at 13:19
Quote Posted by Fragony
believable and consistent.
Amen, brother. This is
vital for me to stay 'in' the game. Especially in an original setting. i,e. other world/ fantasy/ sci-fi/ alternate history and/or dimension.
The problem is, a lot of games have such a fantastical, rich universe they have created, that it gets extremely tough to stay consistent through an 80 hour, dialogue heavy RPG with lots of readables and backstory, for example. Since there is SO much written content and the scripts are simply massive, there can be several writers involved and sometimes the different styles are noticeably different and can even be jarring.
Thirith on 21/1/2010 at 15:49
Quote Posted by Wormrat
When the player has to start pretending, that's the
end of simulation. It doesn't make any sense to talk about a game "employing" the player. The game has no agenda; it doesn't use you or talk to you. The only way a game can encourage certain behaviors is to actually react to them, in which they case that reaction would already be part of the simulation, and no pretending is needed.
I do understand that some players do this kind of thing on purpose, so the question is not absurd--but it's really just asking whether players like to pretend or not. It's entirely about playing preferences and not about the games themselves. You can't praise a game for things that aren't part of the game.
I think that's too simple. Games, just like anything else that creates a fiction for an audience to interact with, do a mix of two things: they provide concrete elements (virtual world, characters, story, visuals, music etc.) to stimulate our imagination, and they give us space to project onto. It's how we engage with fictions, but also how we engage with the world - there are always gaps in our knowledge and understanding of things, and the more we fill this gaps with our own thoughts, guesses, musings, the more we tend to become intellectually and emotionally engaged.
IMO in a game we always pretend to some extent; some games expect more pretense from us, others less, some games facilitate this 'roleplaying' more than others.
Thirith on 21/1/2010 at 17:45
Quote Posted by Wormrat
Jashin says that the depth of the simulation is a big factor for him, which is an understandable characteristic that has intuitive appeal. But even in that case, why not just praise the depth of the simulation and leave it at that? And wouldn't it be much better if the game actually tracked how many "righteous" NPCs you non-lethally stashed away, or actually expanded on the reactions from the elves? Similarly, for games that are heavy on "lore," isn't it really just the lore itself that we should be praising, and not our willingness to imagine even further?
How do we judge the quality of the lore, though? It's not enough if there's lots of it (although I'd say that gamers still tend to mistake quantity for quality) - it has to be consistent, interesting, evocative. If it doesn't resonate with us and our imagination to some extent, it's dead on the page/screen.
You'll find evidence to say that certain games are better at getting the audience's imagination going, and other games are worse at it or simply don't try it. To use your terminology, some games make it easier for the player to "pretend" than others. Yes, you'll find some pretty weird people who roleplay Mario, but that's the exception rather than the rule.
Jashin on 21/1/2010 at 18:53
Quote Posted by Wormrat
When the player has to start pretending, that's the
end of simulation. It doesn't make any sense to talk about a game "employing" the player. The game has no agenda; it doesn't use you or talk to you. The only way a game can encourage certain behaviors is to actually react to them, in which they case that reaction would already be part of the simulation, and no pretending is needed.
I do understand that some players do this kind of thing on purpose, so the question is not absurd--but it's really just asking whether players like to pretend or not. It's entirely about playing preferences and not about the games themselves. You can't praise a game for things that aren't part of the game.
tl;dr: If you like pretending, then have I got the game for you!
(
http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Roleplaying)
Roleplaying from complete imagination is totally opposite of what I've discussed here. I dropped mad hints and keywords like plural space, toolset, so on. This is adding details by using the interactive nature of in-game assets, not creating totally absent fabrication out of nothing.
Emergent gameplay, my friend, know thy meaning.
And If you like patronizing, I got the salute for you!
Inline Image:
http://www.teamliquid.net/mirror/smilies/fuckyou2.gif Pointing out a completely shallow game to me, which's one of my most hated, fuuuuuuuck that!!!
Jashin on 21/1/2010 at 19:11
Emergent gameplay is 100% user-oriented.
You better start talking like a TTLGer soon and know your basics or I'mma dine on your corpse tonight.
