SWTOR

[WindupAtheist]

I wonder how single-playery the plot will be. In KOTOR you were pretty much the fulcrum of the universe, but in the average MMO you're a cog in the machine.

[Stabs]

Well they gave us an example early on in the hype cycle. In a mission you can either execute the ship captain and assume command of the ship or be forgiving and let him live. If you let him live his knowledge can help you with one of the subsequent encounters. But all roads lead to Rome and whichever decision you make the plot is still "I go to the ship, talk to some people, kill a load of people, get loot".

While I enjoy being snarky about TOR as I think they rather set themselves up for pisstaking I actually admire what they're doing. They're innovating. They're gambling that passive players who just amble along to see what happens and don't mind others taking the decisions are the majority of the market not active adhd control freaks who can't bear to be sub-optimal.

Don't think of TOR as a game. Think of it as a film. The best film ever because not only can you interact with it and make choices about how it will unfold but also you "own" one of the characters and can take your character off to Lightsabre Warsong Gulch or go decorating your space dollhouse when you want a break from the story.

I doubt anyone on these boards is the player they're really after. The act of posting indicates you're not passive about gaming. At F13 we're raid leaders not "raid filler". But having organised raids in MMOs I can tell you for sure that there's a ton of really passive people out there who will enjoy just going with the flow to see what happens.

[Velorath]

A decision without consequences isn't a decision. 

A decision where you have no influence over the outcome also isn't a decision.

So having all 'group' choices be the same outcome is pretty much a deal breaker for immersion or emotional investment.

I expect most of the emotional investment to be in the class quests.

[Ratman_tf]

Don't think of TOR as a game. Think of it as a film.

Video games are not films. If TOR manages to do storytelling within the context of it being a video game, then it will be, at least a step forward. If it's interactive cutscenes, I think that's a dead end in game development.

[Stabs]

Can you give me a good reason, other than cultural expectation, that a film, a series of non-interactive scenes works as a piece of entertainment but another piece of entertainment consisting of similar scenes connected by interactive moments can't work.

I'm not talking TOR now, I'm talking generically. Is there any reason why Warlock of Firetop Mountain would make a better film if you picked out a set of story choices rather than filming footage for every choice and letting the player choose their own adventure?

It wouldn't work for YOU, sure, wouldn't expect it too but I think Bioware is gambling there are a lot of people who would like it.

Video games are only clearly not film until someone explores the borders between the two genres.

[Ratman_tf]

Can you give me a good reason, other than cultural expectation, that a film, a series of non-interactive scenes works as a piece of entertainment but another piece of entertainment consisting of similar scenes connected by interactive moments can't work.

A man falling down a set of stairs can be entertaining.

The one thing video games do have over films or books is it's interactivity.* When a game goes passive, with a cutscene or a block of text, it's giving up it's interactivity. This doesn't mean it can't work. Obviously it can. I don't think it's the best way to impart story in a video game.

*

[Lucas]

Can you give me a good reason, other than cultural expectation, that a film, a series of non-interactive scenes works as a piece of entertainment but another piece of entertainment consisting of similar scenes connected by interactive moments can't work.

A man falling down a set of stairs can be entertaining.

The one thing video games do have over films or books is it's interactivity.* When a game goes passive, with a cutscene or a block of text, it's giving up it's interactivity. This doesn't mean it can't work. Obviously it can. I don't think it's the best way to impart story in a video game.

*

Heh, the last two or three posts made me think of the (at least for me) beloved Wing Commander series, especially chapters III-IV-V; and we're talking about 1993-1997. Just sayin' :) (and yes, of course in that case we're talking about single player experiences).

[UnSub]

In a pen-and-paper game, the first to speak up often determines the responses of the NPCs.  

I can think of numerous times among friends the first response to a PC action was, "What the fuck are you doing?".  I can also think of some games that finished early due to someone having a sad and leaving.

Agreed, BioWare is innovating. They are also making a BioWare game writ large, where you will start in the same place and end in the same place for each class, while there will be some differences along the way based on your decisions. I'm fully behind story not having to equal player choice, just the illusion of choice. But the addition of multiplayer options to a story like this opens up some very big cans of worms that (to date) they appear to have tried to solve by offering a random number roll. How those changes impact on individual player events is yet to be determined (e.g. because Darth Dou'Che sliced the captain, the Bounty Hunter is locked out of a later Captain-related quest) as is the potential ability to replay quests to access alternate paths.

As for who BioWare is developing this title for: everyone. They want every single one of us to be playing SWOR because SWOR needs to be at least the #2 title on the Western market to even look to break even, let alone make a profit.

[ajax34i]

Can you give me a good reason, other than cultural expectation, that a film, a series of non-interactive scenes works as a piece of entertainment but another piece of entertainment consisting of similar scenes connected by interactive moments can't work.

1.  Quite a bit of humor in movies relies on the situation being unexpected, and in an interactive game YOU are setting up the joke, and telling or setting up a joke is a lot less entertaining than hearing or stumbling into one.

2.  Good plot twists are unexpected, and two things happen with a game regarding plot:

a.  Gamers will just go read up the plot on swtorhead, pretty much ruining it.
b.  If you're interacting with the storyline you either see the plot twist coming a mile away (cause you're setting it up), or it gets very frustrating when the plot twists out of your control over and over again, negating all you've grinded for.

3.  Most motion pictures, and action flicks in particular, have stunt-work and special effects that make the heroes and villains superhuman in their ability to jump, fall, fight, survive, and take damage.  In a game, all of that goes away because "classes must be balanced for PVP" or whatever.  Your hero isn't special anymore.

4.  A movie that I've seen and have on DVD or blue-ray, I can fast-forward or skip to the good scenes whenever I feel like.  Try that with levelling up an alt.

[Sheepherder]

Also, if I did play this one, hardcore Sith RP guild or GTFO.

That would be the point.  You with a captive audience.  It's unfortunate there's not much for light side or morally neutral options on the Sith faction.  It's just not the same without a wookiee to strangle the twilek which Carth runs like a bitch.

[Cadaverine]

Also, if I did play this one, hardcore Sith RP guild or GTFO.

That would be the point.  You with a captive audience.  It's unfortunate there's not much for light side or morally neutral options on the Sith faction.  It's just not the same without a wookiee to strangle the twilek which Carth runs like a bitch.

I never cared much for that aspect of Sith in the game.  All the little thuggish things, like taking someones last 10 credits when they're starving.   It just seems petty, and evil to me. 

[Lakov_Sanite]

That's the problem with most rpg that have a moral scale. it's either walking old ladies across the street....or raping them.

[Surlyboi]

Also, if I did play this one, hardcore Sith RP guild or GTFO.

That would be the point.  You with a captive audience.  It's unfortunate there's not much for light side or morally neutral options on the Sith faction.  It's just not the same without a wookiee to strangle the twilek which Carth runs like a bitch.

I never cared much for that aspect of Sith in the game.  All the little thuggish things, like taking someones last 10 credits when they're starving.   It just seems petty, and evil to me. 

That's not evil though. It's what petty thugs think is evil in their delusions of grandeur. True evil is building that starving person up to be someone of great importance and wealth and then using that wealth to destroy them and the ones they love.

The problem with most of these games is the writers and the players don't know shit about real evil so they come up with the helping the old ladies across the street or raping them scenarios.

[LK]

That's the problem with most rpg that have a moral scale. it's either walking old ladies across the street....or raping them.

And never undermining their subscription drug program in order to benefit your buddies in Big Pharma and put more money into your pocket.

The evil is always "WHAT DID YOU DO?" rather than "Shit sure sucks, I wonder why?" and you being the reason.

[pxib]

Good is more complicated than just doing nice things, too. In fact, Good/Evil is a lousy moral scale because the meaning of each is so fuzzy. Better to oppose more concrete concepts... Freedom/Order, Peace/Justice, Reason/Emotion. Fun as it is to be a hero and a dick, it's not often particularly interesting.

[Ratman_tf]

Good is more complicated than just doing nice things, too. In fact, Good/Evil is a lousy moral scale because the meaning of each is so fuzzy. Better to oppose more concrete concepts... Freedom/Order, Peace/Justice, Reason/Emotion. Fun as it is to be a hero and a dick, it's not often particularly interesting.

It's telling that most depicions of "evil" in video games aren't even as sophisticated as the Grinch from Dr. Seuss.

[Ingmar]

The cartoony good vs. evil stuff is a core part of Star Wars, though. It is high fantasy dressed up as science fiction. There are other games and settings that deal in moral ambiguity, Star Wars doesn't need to.

[WindupAtheist]

Brucing ahoy! Hey screw you guys, when someone posts an ordered list it's just easier to respond to each point in turn.

1.  Quite a bit of humor in movies relies on the situation being unexpected, and in an interactive game YOU are setting up the joke, and telling or setting up a joke is a lot less entertaining than hearing or stumbling into one.

Dude, this doesn't even make sense. Nothing funny can happen in a game, because the game forces you to set up your own jokes? What the crap are you even talking about? What game does this describe?

2.  Good plot twists are unexpected, and two things happen with a game regarding plot:

a.  Gamers will just go read up the plot on swtorhead, pretty much ruining it.
b.  If you're interacting with the storyline you either see the plot twist coming a mile away (cause you're setting it up), or it gets very frustrating when the plot twists out of your control over and over again, negating all you've grinded for.

A) Every big movie is spolierized all over the web long before it hits theaters.
B) Plot twists can't happen in a game, unless they do, in which case they're frustrating because they happen over and over again? What?

3.  Most motion pictures, and action flicks in particular, have stunt-work and special effects that make the heroes and villains superhuman in their ability to jump, fall, fight, survive, and take damage.  In a game, all of that goes away because "classes must be balanced for PVP" or whatever.  Your hero isn't special anymore.

There are plenty of regular dumbass mooks in games. They're called NPCs.

4.  A movie that I've seen and have on DVD or blue-ray, I can fast-forward or skip to the good scenes whenever I feel like.  Try that with levelling up an alt.

Or with a movie in the theater or on television.

[Maledict]

That's not evil though. It's what petty thugs think is evil in their delusions of grandeur. True evil is building that starving person up to be someone of great importance and wealth and then using that wealth to destroy them and the ones they love.

The problem with most of these games is the writers and the players don't know shit about real evil so they come up with the helping the old ladies across the street or raping them scenarios.

That's not evil either though. That's just a psychopath.

Look at the most evil men in history. None of them would do what you describe there, because it's just *weird*, and so outside of normal human interactions it's not related to anything ever. Someone like Pol Pot or Stalin wouldn't *care* - he might sacrifice the person "for the greater good" of their country, or use them as a human shield, or exterminate them straight away. Someone like Hannibal Lector would butcher them in a unique and horrible way, maybe eat their brains.

But at no point would anyone build a person up to grand heights, then destroy them purely for the sake of destroying them. Maybe some form of primal evil like a demon would - but we're playing people, not demons. Most evil people think they are doing the right and justified thing, after all, and characters in games should reflect that. Not just be brutally unpleasant either in the short or long term for no reason.

[Sheepherder]

I never cared much for that aspect of Sith in the game.  All the little thuggish things, like taking someones last 10 credits when they're starving.   It just seems petty, and evil to me.

That's not evil though. It's what petty thugs think is evil in their delusions of grandeur. True evil is building that starving person up to be someone of great importance and wealth and then using that wealth to destroy them and the ones they love.

Damn you, Mission. The Republic and the Jedi might pride themselves on being just and righteous, but under their rule you grew up living in a sewer and eating garbage. Who pulled you out of that shithole? Who whisked you off the planet just before it got bombed into the stone age? Who took time out from his very important quest to dick around in the middle of the fucking desert rescuing your worthless piece of shit brother from sand people? Without me, you never would have learned about your brother's death at their hands, because the garbage dump you lived in would have come down around your ears in a fucking holocaust of orbital bombardment.

And how do you pay me back? You spit in my fucking face with that silly "But the Sith are EVIL!" bullshit. I expected that sort of crap from Jolee and Juhani, and that simpering dipshit Carth, but not from you. You might not be "evil" but I had come to think of you as at least being halfway smart. (You were so damned pragmatic when we slit the throat of that silly blind leader of your old gang on Taris!) I mean I was prepared to tolerate a little bit of lip, but when it became clear that even your emo throw-rug of a wookie wasn't going to back you, it was time to quit sticking up for a regime that never gave a shit about you and throw your chips in with the only people who ever did you any favors.

But no, instead you call me out. Right there in front of my brand new apprentice and the rest of my followers. You force me to kill you, no pun intended. You ignorant little bitch, what made you think I even had the option of backing out at that point? The die had been cast, blood had already been shed. What the hell did you think was going to happen?

But it's all right. I don't really blame you.

I blame Carth.

Maybe you didn't know better, but he should have. In fact he certainly did, given the way ran for the hills once he realized what was happening. I blame him for not buying your life with his own. All that wannabe-hero horseshit he talked, and in the end he ran like a coward and left a teenage girl to face two Sith alone, with little more than a cry of "Run away!" over his shoulder as he fled. It ought to have been HE who stayed behind to die extolling the virtues of the Republic while YOU ran off into the woods.

The new Emperor of the Galaxy will not be kind to Carth, when he finally catches up to him.

/rant

This started out as me half-jokingly bitching at a fictional character and then turned into some sort of full-blown RP fag thing. Oh well, fuck it.

Youtube link.

[Surlyboi]

That's not evil though. It's what petty thugs think is evil in their delusions of grandeur. True evil is building that starving person up to be someone of great importance and wealth and then using that wealth to destroy them and the ones they love.

The problem with most of these games is the writers and the players don't know shit about real evil so they come up with the helping the old ladies across the street or raping them scenarios.

That's not evil either though. That's just a psychopath.

Look at the most evil men in history. None of them would do what you describe there, because it's just *weird*, and so outside of normal human interactions it's not related to anything ever. Someone like Pol Pot or Stalin wouldn't *care* - he might sacrifice the person "for the greater good" of their country, or use them as a human shield, or exterminate them straight away. Someone like Hannibal Lector would butcher them in a unique and horrible way, maybe eat their brains.

But at no point would anyone build a person up to grand heights, then destroy them purely for the sake of destroying them. Maybe some form of primal evil like a demon would - but we're playing people, not demons. Most evil people think they are doing the right and justified thing, after all, and characters in games should reflect that. Not just be brutally unpleasant either in the short or long term for no reason.

Psychopathy connotes no emotions at all, not so much evil as just not feeling for ones victims. And being brutally unpleasant in the short or long term isn't particularly what I was getting at either.

[pxib]

Someone like Pol Pot or Stalin wouldn't *care* - he might sacrifice the person "for the greater good" of their country, or use them as a human shield, or exterminate them straight away.

I think this is the critical part, and it requires a bit of psychopathy to pull it off. To be evil (as opposed to merely doing evil), one must be largely uninterested in what the other thinks. It isn't a desire to destroy somebody... many good people desire human destruction for fundamentally good reasons. Evil requires the ability to destroy people (or their bodies, their futures, their dreams) because they are in the way. They are less important than whatever needs to be done. Evil is the process of reducing life to a resource.

Video games and movies avoid this sort of evil for two reasons. First, it's boring. Second, it hits a little too close to home in media which convert death and destruction into light entertainment. Emily Short (talking specifically about Fable II) says is better than I would:

The interesting moral arc here, for me, was first the realization that my character could not treat "ordinary" people as her equals and her acceptance of emotional distance from them; and, later, the decision that she was more important than they were, and therefore it was all right to use them or even if necessary kill a few.

There was no way for me to communicate that to the game, though. It kept treating me as an almost-pure-good character when in my own opinion I had entered a serious grey zone.

[PalmTrees]

Youtube link.

Thanks for the link. I recently finished a dark side run but after force persuading Z the game would crash so I had to pick the other option.

[Ratman_tf]

The cartoony good vs. evil stuff is a core part of Star Wars, though. It is high fantasy dressed up as science fiction. There are other games and settings that deal in moral ambiguity, Star Wars doesn't need to.

Not so much moral abiguity as much as- even the villian thinks he's the hero. Nobody goes out and says to themself, "I'm going to be Evil today, so that the hero can have an enemy! That's my job!" Ever since Empire one of the main themes of Star Wars is that Vader was a real person underneath his armor. (Whether the prequels managed to convey that well is another topic.  )

Video games tend to treat their villains very simply since they tend to be problems to be beaten, and so often it seems that when designers put "evil" in as a player choice, it means letting the player do the stuff that the villians do. But this isn't a problem to be solved, or a story to be told, it's kicking the puppy for evil's sake. It's putting a skull on your belt buckle and saying "There! Now I'm evil!" It's superficial mimicry.

And some video games do put a little more thought into it than that, but some don't and a lot get caught up in the superficial "It's cool to be bad, man." mimicry.

[UnSub]

Things are more interesting in games when good and evil aren't that well defined. The Witcher did this better than most - help the witch who has been wronged but looks like she's going to kill a lot of people in revenge, or help a murderer, a child slaver and coward (iirc) stop her?

However, as stated, the best most video games do in this area are: you can either save this little girl, or crack open her spine for its sweet goodness.

[Lakov_Sanite]

Youtube link.

Wow that didnt age well.

[Ingmar]

Things are more interesting in games when good and evil aren't that well defined.

No, things are more interesting when some games treat things that way and some games offer you black and white choices and some games do other things entirely. Above all what makes for a good gaming environment is variety. If every game took the same approach to choices and morality as Planescape: Torment then the gaming landscape would be just as boring as a world where every game was save the princess. There's room for both approaches and there is value to both approaches, just like fantasy literature is better off for having both Tolkien and Howard rather than just one or the other.

[Paelos]

The problem with moral choices in games is that we as players can game the system. We can decide where we want to go as players long before we're given the choices in the game. In fact, the choices are so blantantly obvious in certain games that we know how to game them just by reading the instruction manual. SEE: Mass Effect's choice system of good on top, bad on bottom.

[Lantyssa]

My ideal is to have black, white, and a couple of shades of grey.  Then produce consequences with repercussions which aren't necessarily clear until later, but that don't necessarily penalize or reward you so much as take the story down new paths.  Branching stories are tough though, so we get +/- Moral Points.

[Megrim]

The problem with moral choices in games is that we as players can game the system. We can decide where we want to go as players long before we're given the choices in the game. In fact, the choices are so blantantly obvious in certain games that we know how to game them just by reading the instruction manual. SEE: Mass Effect's choice system of good on top, bad on bottom.

This really depends on how the game is written. For example, the difference between Any Bioware Game and the Witcher.

 * Edit: just read what Unsub wrote ^^.

I suppose it mostly becomes an argument on the suspension of disbelief and immersion in the story. If the choice put before a player isn't obvious, i suspect it more likely they will just load an earlier save once the result becomes apparent - and replay the scenario until they get what they want. Precious few players (at least among the Bioware audience) are going to be willing to say "welp that didn't turn out as well as i thought, guess i'll have to take the status/etc... hit and keep going".

[Koyasha]

That can be easily resolved by not having the consequences become apparent until ten hours later.

[Spiff]

Isn't part of the problem really that what in many cases is seen as evil is simply the action that gives the biggest reward in the short term/serves your own purposes best?
In reality you refrain from doing so because a: you care and b: there is (hopefully) a significant chance of getting caught.

Now a single player game can make me care to an extent (there are just certain 'dark' choices I can't bring myself to make in ME2), but in an MMO competition becomes a lot more important and I can't imagine they could ever approach the kind of immersion they offered in their single-players.

And adding a serious and direct downside to one choice to show it's evil (such as imprisonment) would enrage the 'Dark Siders' to the point of quitting.

It all becomes completely detached from reality because the repercussions aren't comparable, but isn't that a large part of the fun?
The games are set up to turn us into (read: allow us to be) online psychopaths.

If in real life I help an old lady to the other side of the street, she thanks me and that gives me some sort of contentment in being a constructive part of society (also it's not hard to empathise with something that has a pulse for me).
If I help an NPC cross the road and all she does is pop a textbox to thank me, I'll f'in beat her 'till she gives me mah damn foozle!

[Sheepherder]

the difference between Any Bioware Game and the Witcher.

Remind me.  Is the Witcher the one where you play the last act of the life of an evil man who, having reformed himself approaches a hag who's gifts always contain a barb seeking immortality, for fear of a justly deserved eternity of torment in hell, and a desire to work off his karmic debt to the universe.  Yet having attained immortality he's lost what made him good, and as soulless undead monstrosity rampages across the planes seeking an end to his twisted and hunted existence?

Because if that one is the Witcher, then yeah, it's a pretty good game.

[Megrim]

the difference between Any Bioware Game and the Witcher.

Remind me.  Is the Witcher the one where you play the last act of the life of an evil man who, having reformed himself approaches a hag who's gifts always contain a barb seeking immortality, for fear of a justly deserved eternity of torment in hell, and a desire to work off his karmic debt to the universe.  Yet having attained immortality he's lost what made him good, and as soulless undead monstrosity rampages across the planes seeking an end to his twisted and hunted existence?

Because if that one is the Witcher, then yeah, it's a pretty good game.

This is the point --------------------------------------------> . It's going over that way ->








This is your head. (-.-)

[Stormwaltz]

The problem with moral choices in games is that we as players can game the system. We can decide where we want to go as players long before we're given the choices in the game. In fact, the choices are so blantantly obvious in certain games that we know how to game them just by reading the instruction manual. SEE: Mass Effect's choice system of good on top, bad on bottom.

Based on the decisions you made in Mass 2, do you expect the quarians or the geth to rally to your side in Mass 3? It seems unlikely that they'll work together. How did you resolve Tali and Legion's loyalty missions?

How about the krogans? How did you handle Grunt and Mordin's loyalty missions?

And reaching way back, how did you resolve the rachni situation? It sounds like they were manipulated by the Reapers before (the "sour yellow note" dialogue). Whose side do you expect they'll be on?