SureAI

Moirai wrote:

I did have my own concerns regarding the rather negative ending, and posted those thoughts in a different topic. I won't spam it here as well, although it's arguably more relevant to this thread, but here's the link if you are interested:

http://forum.sureai.net/viewtopic.php?f ... 234#p88234

Ragnarok wrote:

I get your points and agree that it is not designed as a wRPG experience. In fact, my personal opinion is that far too many games nowadays have followed that "I live a hero" approach rather than Enderal's "I live a story", but that's me.

However, I disagree that it has no replay value. Ever since the VHS era, we all watch our favourite stories on film several times and find different aspects. Before that, books did something similar (in a more imaginative way, in my opinion).

Why do we watch and read our favourite movies and books if we already know the story, then? Because it fascinates us, probably still has something to be discovered or understood. That's my main disagreement.

Moirai wrote:

Ragnarok wrote:

I get your points and agree that it is not designed as a wRPG experience. In fact, my personal opinion is that far too many games nowadays have followed that "I live a hero" approach rather than Enderal's "I live a story", but that's me.

However, I disagree that it has no replay value. Ever since the VHS era, we all watch our favourite stories on film several times and find different aspects. Before that, books did something similar (in a more imaginative way, in my opinion).

Why do we watch and read our favourite movies and books if we already know the story, then? Because it fascinates us, probably still has something to be discovered or understood. That's my main disagreement.

Thanks for reading and the response. Much appreciated.

I would certainly agree with the 'hero' issue and, personally, I'm not keen on games that automatically hand you the keys to 'Hero Manor' at the end. It's kind of trite. However, in truth, neither am I keen on games (and this is a general comment) that present the concept of a challenge and the possibility of success and then remove it at the last moment because the author want to be edgy and make you speculate. That's just an ego thing, rather than a proper consideration of the player's enjoyment and overall satisfaction with their experience. Yes, it can work in films and books because they are linear, non-interactive media. But a game is interactive by its nature and that needs to be taken into account when writing the story.

If you use media that presents the player with the presumption of choice and interaction, and cause and effect, then you should, at least in part, allow the player a degree of control over events via their choices. Otherwise, it is nothing more than an illusion, and becomes obviously so by the time you reach the end.

Bottom line; options for 'success' or 'failure' based on player choice is far better, especially so if success is so much more difficult to achieve.

That said, I guess it's down to what each individual looks for in a game of this type and their own personal perspective. However, the whole point of any 'game' (whether computer games, board games, sports, etc) is to present you with a task and encourage you to work to meet and overcome that challenge. It is the achievement of satisfaction in rising to that challenge and beating it that drives us to engage in such pastimes. If you are presented with a challenge that you cannot best, then that, for me anyway, negates any point in re-engaging with it, no matter how well it is presented.

*shrugs* I guess I've had my virtual fingers burnt too many times by other games which have played out in a similar manner to be particularly amenable to it in this instance. Probably especially so since Enderal's story is so similar to some of them in terms of basic plot concept.

Braescher wrote:

I think that the power to shape the world via your actions or not is rather tied to the overal game mechanics. By that I mean that open world RPGs benfit the most from having more decisions and different outcomes based on your decisions than other games. Even if the differences are subtle. Skyrim for example: from a "mechanical" perspective the only difference between Imperials and Stormcloaks is what uniform the guards will use, which faction will have rogue patrols on the country and who the Jarls will be. But the fact that these outcomes are affected by your power is crucial to the game. The choice is an illusion but the outcomes make you feel like you shaped Skyrim's destiny.

Some games however benfit very little from having the power to choose your path. One of my favourite games ever is Metal Gear Solid 3. That games would benfit nothing from relying on the player to choose the path the story will take. You have a lot of options on the paths you take to your objetive, on how you deal with your enemies, lethal or non letal and you can even kill "The End" much earlier than intendended and skip a whole boss battle. But in the end, the story is already written and you are pretty much guiding Snake from cutscene to cutscene.

Sure you might argue that some cRPGs and jRPGs have both open world mechanics and many jRPGs don't give you much power to decide the course of the story. But then again most jRPGs do not let you create your own character and you know from the start that you are playing the story of character X and not you are not roleplaying freely. In Final Fantasy for example, despite the name you give to your character, Squall is the sad boy with the gunblade and emo personality and Cloud is the ex-Soldier with the huge blade and emo personality. And cRPGs usually give you so much options to choose that you don't even know what to do sometimes.

My point is: I think that the Enderal storyline would feel less frustrating (to me) if the whole open world aspect and maybe even the character customization was removed. If I never had to choose anything I would not feel so powerless when the story ended.

Ragnarok wrote:

Good point.

I wonder if that frustration Enderal seems to cause is not a parallel to reality, where the impression of choice is often an illusion as well.

Braescher wrote:

For example, if you get frustrated because you voted on a politician but he does not get enough votes to get in office you might as well do not vote on the next election, you might vote again on him, you might vote on his adversary, you might leave your country, you might change your name to Grushteniek, you might drink pepsi and not give a single damn about it etc.

Moirai wrote:

Interesting discussion...

I guess it depends on what you personally look for in games, and what you expect to get out of them as a result. To be frank, and these are general comments, I don't play games to feel frustrated, irritated or unsatisfied at their conclusion. Like most, I get enough of those feelings in real life. What I imagine most people look for in a game is something that challenges them, and then rewards them when they best that challenge. It's a standard ploy which is ingrained into our behavioral psyche from a very early age. Take your medicine and get a treat, eat your greens and get a nice pudding, do your homework and get to go out with your friends, etc, and so on. And with games we expect it to work that way as well, because most do. And, besides, why would you play the game if it didn't? Reward is what ultimately makes the entertainment enjoyable and fun, and a pleasing distraction from real life woes. It's the challenge and reward system that keeps you going, and brings you back to experience that feel good factor again. If you don't get rewarded for your efforts or, at worst, get punished for them, you naturally question the reasons for even taking on that challenge again. That's perfectly understandable.

Some people may say that it's the journey and not the destination that is important. Personally, I think that's nonsense. After all, you could have the most wonderful drive through the countryside on your way to the coast. But if your car caught fire on arrival and left you stranded there, any thoughts of how good the journey was would quickly evaporate. On the other hand, if you had a terrible journey, but your destination was wondrous and fulfilling, it would all be worth it. In essence, 'last' impressions count when it comes to experiences. And entertainment experiences are no different.

I think an important aspect of any game writing is to ask oneself; is the player going to enjoy this? If the answer is, 'I'm not sure', or 'maybe', or 'I think so', or worst case scenario 'I don't care', then it's probably worth re-evaluating how you proceed. After all, you are writing for game entertainment purposes, not the Booker Prize or Hugo Award.

Entertainment is about providing people with an enjoyable experience, not a miserable one. Yes, you can play with people's emotions during the course of the story, and make them happy or sad along the way. But, irrespective of that journey, a potential destination should be an enjoyable one.

Good endings are cliched, that is true. But they're cliched for a reason. Because they are popular.

Trite it may be, but people prefer 'happy' for some reason.

Games, being interactive, have a distinct advantage over other story-telling media, inasmuch as you can allow for good or bad results based on actions and decisions. With this in mind, I feel that there is no fundamental reason why 'happy' cannot be included as an option somewhere.

After all, destinations are the reason we travel in the first place, and most people prefer a pleasant one.

But coming back to Enderal; it's worth bearing in mind that this is an incredible piece of work by some extraordinarily talented individuals, provided to us for free. We are not owed anything, nor do we get to demand anything, and I would not assume otherwise. The above is simply a collection of general observations and thoughts.