Escapist discusses being evil in games

[Spaff]

Almost touching on something I've been banging on about for years - generally, being evil in games, is actually just being a wanker to people, saying stupid shit and being an annoying twat. Whereas I want to plot and scheme and play people off one another and stuff.... and be a wanker.

David Gaider, Lead Writer of Bioware's upcoming Dragon Age, is applying his theories to his game. "What most players seem to demand is not just to be evil but to be intelligent evil ... which is the sort of thing that requires long-term plans rather than short-term actions, which is very hard to telegraph to the player without using outright exposition." That's a very hard thing to design without the entire game being about playing an evil character.

anyways

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_114/1475-Are-You-Evil.5

[Roderick]

Dungeon Keeper was more along those lines; the whole campaign serving to corrupt the land. But I think you mean more along the lines of dynamic intelligent evil; abusing micro systems in the gaming world.

[Wrestlevania]

But I think you mean more along the lines of dynamic intelligent evil; abusing micro systems in the gaming world.

Dungeon Keeper had a linear, narrative-driven path that cast you as an aspiring evil-doer from the start. You had no choice in the matter (other than not buying the game, you goody-two-shoes).

So you're right; this is different. But I'd rather we didn't start flinging terms like "intelligent design" around the place with gay abandon--we'll have more Googling nutters in here before you can say "Creationism".

On a more serious note, this is game design theory I've been working on for many months now. ThunderPeel2001 and I discussed it briefly before, with regards to Fable, but my expanded theory was world scale.

I may finally divulge the details on my blog because of this.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Yep indeedy. I had some thoughts myself on how to make it practical, but they never got further than an email. What's your plan WV?

[Wrestlevania]

Flirt with the idea a bit more, then neglect to do anything with it (more than likely).

You should expand our discussion on characters, which you went into with impressive detail in our last email exchange - to which I may have neglected to reply (many apologies).

[DanJW]

Divulge you secrets here, go on.

Spaff and I have been talking about a possible evil-themed game for a while as well. It was that which spawned my associated ideas about procedurally controlled social systems... which I'm not ready to discuss fully yet

[Wrestlevania]

procedurally controlled social systems

Making a rather large assumption, this sounds very similar to what I've been ponderating - on and off - for most of this year.

Maybe it's an impending developmental jump? Interesting...

I should probably get writing--before some famous developer trumps me!

[ThunderPeel2001]

Well I'm glad to hear you weren't just uninterested in what I was writing about (which is how I took it when you failed to reply)! Funnily enough the same idea drifted through my head again the other day and I still feel pretty strongly about it. I suppose it would be fun to get some ideas down on paper and make it more "real" than theoretical.

Here are my "secrets" for all to see:

I, too, have had interest inside me ignited by this thing. I’d love to keep discussing it. There’s been a few things going around in my head since this whole thing started:

Quite simply, there are lots of things that do not work in Fable, IMO, although I think the original ideas and intentions are fabulous. For starters, I can’t think of a single game which has had its story-telling enhanced by giving the player a “non-character” to control. In Fable you play a “non-character”, the idea being that the user steps up to the plate and fills the gap between their imagination and the in-game world, through freedom. But, despite what Jack Thompson would like us all to believe, I seriously have difficulty making that leap: I NEVER feel as though I’m “there”. I NEVER feel as though I’M talking to “real” people. In fact, we, as players, don’t want that to be the case; if it was, we’d all become horribly disturbed every time we “killed” a NPC.

In other words, having a central character, with dialogue, personality and emotions, actually helps bridge that gap between the user and the game-world, and not, as many seem to believe, divide it.

There’s other examples I can give you, if you’re still not sure. In Fable, when your “sister” enters the story, you’re supposed to be shocked. When you’re forced to fight your “friend” in the Arena, you’re supposed to feel conflicted. The story REQUIRES that you do for it to be successful, but (and I don’t know about you), I certainly didn’t feel those things. A NPC is a NPC to the user… That’s not MY sister. That’s not MY friend (I never even felt anything for the character), it’s just another NPC. But to an in-game character, they can mean anything, and so you can feel their pain, shock, conflict, whatever.

As Tolkien put it: “Does it matter if the reader knows how the story will end? Not really, so long as the reader feels what the characters feel as they get there.” (paraphrase)

I got more involved in the storylines to Monkey Island, Deus Ex, Final Fantasy VII, even Knights of the Old Republic (which almost had no lead character), than I did with Half-Life, Fable etc. If you want to get a player involved, you simply need a lead NPC with a personality – even if the player has control over some aspects of that (which, for this type of game, I’d say is important).

Not having any sort of character there creates what feels like a “hollow” experience to me.

The only game I think of were the story was told successfully without a lead is System Shock 2, and that’s only probably because there wasn’t anyone to talk to, so you didn’t notice!

Another thing in Fable which seemed completely pointless to me was the changing from day to night. Technically impressive, yes, but it didn't immerse me in the game or story any further. It’s never bothered me, for example, that other games didn’t change to nighttime “on the fly”. It didn’t spoil the story of Monkey Island, Deus Ex, Final Fantasy, KOTOR etc. It didn’t take me out of the moment at all. So what does it actually add? Well imagine if it happened in real real time, then the player couldn’t progress with their story if they arrived in a town at 3am – all the shopkeepers, all the NPCs, would be in bed. “I guess I’d better wait around for another four hours before everyone gets up *sigh*” Even in Fable, where the nights are shorter than the days, and only last minutes, it’s annoying when you can’t talk to the NPC you want to. In my opinion it adds nothing to the story or immersion or enjoyability of the game.

Another thing that didn’t work in Fable was the idea that the player could buy a house. WHY???? (Sorry, this one REALLY baffles me.) “We’ll give the user total freedom, they can even buy ingame property.” Yes, but what, besides renting it out, does this property actually do for you? Player walks into their new home: “Ahhh, home sweet home.” Player looks around; there’s two floors, and absolutely nothing to do or interact with. “Right, I guess I’ll go out for a stroll then!”

Pointless. A player does not need personal space! That’s what the “off” button is for!

The ability to do it in a number of different, seemingly generic, towns, is just as pointless. I mean, what’s the point of all these identical towns anyway? Why not just have one main town. One town where the lead character lives. You have a room at an Inn where you go to “recharge”, but you never see the room. By having one town, then you can really concentrate on building up the personalities of the people who live in that town. Think of the handful of characters in Monkey Island’s Melee. I can just about remember the names for all of them. In fact, I can just about remember all the names of ALL the NPC characters in ALL Monkey Island games (which has got to be around 40). I don't recall all the names of the characters from KOTOR, but I can sure remember their personalities.

And yet, I can only remember one from Fable. (Lady Grey.) One!

By limiting the majority of NPCs to one town (and god knows there has to be locations outside of that town, don’t get me wrong), the lead character can have different relationships with all of them, and because there’s not 100’s of the blighters, the player can appreciate and enjoy watching those relationships change, too.

This would mean that, with each mission that takes place in a different location, there would be two sweeteners upon completion: The first, a mission successfully completed, plus stats increased, treasure, etc. The second, going back “home” and seeing the same people’s reactions change to you. Imagine being away on a massive mission, and you finally get home, only to find that one of the NPCs you really liked had been taken ill while you were away. Maybe even died. That might actually provide you with a sense of loss.

This sort of thing worked pretty well in KOTOR. They cleverly used your ship, the Ebon Hawk, as your home. Your crew were always there, so you could progress with those stories and relationships, outside of your other missions. As your other missions progressed, so did your relationships with your crew.

I think that by creating a “base” for the lead character, you’d also be able to appreciate how things change within the game. (Of course, you couldn’t stay in one town for the whole duration of a game, there would have to be any exciting and varied locations and NPCs.)

I imagine a game set a similar pseudo-time to Fable, with blacksmiths and heroes and lots of wooden buildings, where your missions take you further and further away from your home town as you progress.

In one scenario a dragon would attack the village you live in, messing up a mission you were just about to complete in the process. Your mission being lost would get you annoyed and emotionally involved along with the angry villagers. You get set on a mission to kill this dragon, and you then go out of the village, on a big journey looking for the dragon’s lair, in order to put an end to these attacks one and for all. On the way though, you start to hear a story unfold, told to you by the people you meet on your journey. By the time you reach the dragon’s lair, you’ve heard a story that makes you feel sympathetic towards the dragon (I don’t know, something like: You find out that the dragon keeps having her eggs stolen by poachers, which is the reason she attacks the village; looking for her young). Over the years she’s gone mad from grief. Do you kill the dragon, put a stop to her terror once and for all, and maybe gain some riches? Or go back to the village to maybe try and stop the poachers?

If you go back without killing the dragon, I can imagine everyone calling you a coward and booing you, and not really being interested in your story! But then maybe you find the poachers and everyone realises what’s gone on, and you regain their respect.

That way where you live actually becomes part of the story (and you get to explore some of the "grey" area morality we've discussed).

Maybe the final mission of the game would force you to leave your village, never to return, in search of another bigger town far, far away. When you get there you're subjected to one final, massive, moral twisting, brain squeezing mission (maybe something similar to the ending to Princess Mononoke, actually).

Anyway, these are just some of the more practical thoughts I’ve been having on such a game. Your comments would be welcome.

Speak soon,

- Johnny

And here's the original post which started our conversation in the first place: Peter Molyneux and 'Emotional' Gaming

[Wrestlevania]

Well I'm glad to hear you weren't just uninterested in what I was writing about (which is how I took it when you failed to reply)!

No, that was shit of me. It was such a large email I didn't want to reply to it half-arsed -- just didn't get around to replying at all (which is even worse).