Complete, and Thanks, Everyone: ASLOW Straw Poll

[ex_ottoyuhr]

OK, I'd say this is resolved.

People seem to lean pretty strongly towards a greater depth of content as opposed to breadth -- and this is about where I was going anyways. There will probably be just a few 'paths' through the story -- eight or nine through the first, three or four through the second -- but these will be developed in pretty considerable depth.

Thanks, everyone who voted -- especially everyone who posted -- for helping me to clarify this.

(Now, off to wrestle with module_mission_templates again...)

(Original post

To start with, I apologize for posting this in a thread of its own, but it's at least tagged suitably -- and certainly one can't create a poll in an extant thread. If any moderators want to massacre me for this, I apologize in advance, but please let me know what I ought to do.

So... I'm facing a philosophical question with the development of ASLOW's storyline. As will become very obvious as the story unfolds (*knock on wood*), what choices its hero makes actually don't have all that much bearing on his setting as a whole -- meaning that there's room to give the player a lot of latitude for choices within the game. The problem is how much of this latitude he really needs -- each path through the game has to be scripted, after all.

And so, I'm looking for a 'critical consensus' from the boards -- what do people here want to see in a game storyline? Do people prefer a "broad" story, with numerous sketchily-developed choices, or a "deep" one with a few options but much more depth? Before you reflexively say "broad," however, consider: Would you really want to play through the game numerous times to see a large number of ways it might have worked out? Would you feel cheated if the whole thing ends in five or six hours? (Of course, the mod's free, so perhaps you won't feel too strongly "cheated" anyways, but even so.) In short, do you think that the Way of the Samurai games are equal at least in concept to the Final Fantasy of your choice?

(Now, let's hope that stopped the "all games should be like GTA" reflex from kicking in, without sparking the "I should answer what the author told me to" one. I really think that the "broad" approach might be pretty interesting, but it would have the problem of *extreme* lack of 'accessibility' to Joe Gamer. Is this something to worry about, at this early point? If so, how much so?)

Let me remind people that I don't know how soon I'll be acting on any of this -- probably "not very", as I'm still wrestling with the 'story engine' and the first couple of minutes of the narrative -- so don't get any hopes *too* far up too quickly. However, I do want to decide on where I'm going in the long term -- and so...

(Also, feel free to respond to the poll. I'll be especially interested to see what Merentha, Chel, and the resident "forum demigods" -- Yoshiboy, Winter, Janus and the like -- think, but that hardly means that 'ordinary' forumgoers won't be listened to. You never know *who's* going to turn out a perceptive critic -- and for that matter, even uninsightful posts tell me a lot just by their being there...)

 

[fisheye]

I like the most common CRPG method: a single track with multiple rationales. Essentially, the story is the same but the main character is different. So, it's a "role-playing" game but not a "story-making" game. An interesting player-driven story is probably quite hard to do outside of tabletop PnP due to the reasons you listed.

So for example you could offer:
(A) Defeat your enemies to make the world safe
(B) Defeat your enemies to get more neat loot
(C) Defeat your enemies because you're a murderous bastard
(D) Don't defeat your enemies and lose the game* (not really an option)

The three options above can play differently because you've got different allies, different loot, different strategies. But the major tasks are basically the same: "defeat your enemies", e.g. slay the dragon, conquer this city, defeat that other guy.

 

[Gilrain]

I like CRPG's where you can literally do what you want, as long as there is some sort of script to follow.  For example Daggerfall, loved that game, you could pretty much do what you wanted but there were a number of 'main' quests that you could fall back on if you got bored.  A broad story with multiple endings would be great as it would increase playability of the mod/game.

 

[Garth]

I voted deep, because if you're going to do either one, I'll take 'Planescape: Torment' over 'Way of the Samurai' any day. It's just my opinion, but as far as I'm concerned, quality ravishes quantity any day.

And now to be an ass.

Ideally, I think it shouldn't be one or the other-- it should be both. There are the few 'deep' endings- you save the kingdom, you doom the kingdom, and whatever and whyever, but you can also end it by choosing to put down your sword and becoming a farmer, or finding a girl and settling down with her, or being caught and executed, or whatever and whoever.

In this case, the best way to go about it is to make it the broad, open-ended style, and then implementing the deep and thorough endings. That would be my dream game, anyways.

But alas, it takes time. So if you're not up for it, a few deep endings will do.

 

[ex_ottoyuhr]

Well... Preliminary results look pretty decisive.

Fisheye:

Very interesting idea. I don't think I'd thought too clearly about this possible line of development -- not "do different things," but "do the same for different reasons" -- but it sounds very promising, and there'll be a few points in the story where the PC's reasons will probably alter the direction of the game. I had already made 'foreshadowings', as it were, of this, and it sounds like a very good direction in which to go...

Gilrain:

The Elder Scrolls games, though I enjoyed such of them as I've played (primarily Arena), are actually a pretty good example of what I'm out to not do -- what I outright can't do -- with ASLOW. Their style is a little too broad -- and besides that, they really only work when there's no definite 'time crunch' to the game's central conflict, which means one has to pick certain sorts of conflict for the game.

Court magician overthrows emperor, believes himself secure on throne, can only be overthrown by a particular magical talisman? Works. (And incidentally, I would *love* to see a game that was a sort of hybrid TES:A and Link to the Past, but of course with *much* more story and character development.)

Devil-worshipping cult motivated by recent political developments out to overthrow currently-ruling dynasty? Doesn't work...

Garth:

... quality ravishes quantity any day.

I'm glad to hear it. This is my view also -- I'm just not sure how widely it's held, or whether a certain (again, Way of the Samurai-styled) sort of quantity might be worth it after all...

Then again, it certainly wouldn't in a first title, whatever that title's scope.

As far as providing both: I just might, though I'd do it in the opposite order from what you propose -- first a few 'deep' endings, then possible elaborations. I guess it'll be dependent on time -- but do you (i.e. the whole board, though perhaps Garth in particular) think you'd be open to re-playing the game after a 'complete' form was already released, to explore new storylines, features, etc?

(And, I have other projects in mind also -- so the 'few deep endings' may be likeliest. I'm intriguing with James MacAdams regarding a possible Scots Highland mod; I'd like to rework the ASLOW engine to implement a fantasy wargame along the lines of Warlords I; and of course there are larger things -- and work. )

Thanks again, all three of you, for your suggestions... and...

Everyone, please respond! I really am interested in getting a large sample size -- I don't want to hear what non-lurking forum regulars think, I want to hear what everyone thinks. Eighty views and eleven responses are not what I had in mind!

Um... ?

 

[Chilly5]

I voted deep, because I never get around to playing all the other endings anyway.

 

[Tegan]

Apparently I'm the only one who voted broad.  Even if I don't follow each storyline, I like to have a variety of options so that I feel like I'm actually making important choices instead of being puppeted along.

 

[ex_ottoyuhr]

Tegan:

I was hopeful that you, Colt, and/or Ealdorman Hussey would respond here -- and I know and agree with the feeling you describe; there comes a point, as player choice is diminished, where one begins to wonder why exactly the work in question is a game as opposed to some other medium.

I've often found, personally, that a game with a wider variety of paths and possible resolutions will at the very least consume a lot more of my time than the alternative -- although it's important for the paths to be meaningfully divergent in that case. ("Cracked-mirror" levels of divergence -- which I'll probably go for at least a little with ASLOW -- would be particularly enjoyable.)

However, Chilly5 makes a point with a good bit of bearing on this...

And I almost wonder whether I over-emphasized the merits of deep as v. broad gameplay -- I seem to have given far too strong of an impression that I wanted to hear the former rather than the latter. Oh well, I should shut up and stop further screwing up the sample...

But thanks, O Forum, for the further responses.

 

[Merentha]

Bah, I found this thread too late.  My apologies.

Edit:well, I might as well post a brief thought before I head off to sleep: A few broad choices that don't especially affect gameplay or the plot (like, say, sneaking in through the side gate as opposed to climbing the walls) add a lot of variability to two or three main plot changes (like declaring war on a faction or not).  In essence, mostly deep changes with a few options to each add a lot of replayability as well as making the character feel like they aren't being shepherded and removing the Morrowind symptom, i.e. its so broad that the game cannot keep up with the ramifications of your character's actions.

More coming.

 

[Colt]

Tegan:

I was hopeful that you, Colt, and/or Ealdorman Hussey would respond here -- and I know and agree with the feeling you describe; there comes a point, as player choice is diminished, where one begins to wonder why exactly the work in question is a game as opposed to some other medium.

I've often found, personally, that a game with a wider variety of paths and possible resolutions will at the very least consume a lot more of my time than the alternative -- although it's important for the paths to be meaningfully divergent in that case. ("Cracked-mirror" levels of divergence -- which I'll probably go for at least a little with ASLOW -- would be particularly enjoyable.)

I don't really need to explain anything to you when it comes to my position. You said it well yourself.

 

[ex_ottoyuhr]

Merentha:

Don't worry about it too much -- I was leaning in a certain direction already, and besides, it was a nice change to have a discussion without the Official ASLOW Commentator aboard. But then, without the ASLOW Commentator, I lose an excellent quality of commentary; here, you describe very well what I've got in mind for this -- and in fact, "Morrowind Syndrome" is the perfect way to describe what I was trying to avoid on the side of breadth.

Colt:

I'm glad to hear we're in agreement. I fear that if I restate my position here I'll end up over-stating it -- so of course I'm going to do it anyways. Variety, and above all player freedom, certainly is the spice of gaming -- and, of course, real variety. Not "Hey, three different lines of dialogue this time through the story!", but something more like "Hey, Dad, I changed my mind -- I think your 'father-and-son rule of the galaxy' idea's a good one after all."



Well... Back to the mod. The game's not going to write itself...