(Back to TOC)
2 October 2005
by Mike Rozak
When I consider my grand unified theory, a visual metaphor comes to my mind...
-
In Choice I gave each type of sub-game a single-letter moniker, like "K" for combat, or "N" for narration. DNA is likewise notated using single-litter terms for bases, GATC, which are graphically represented as different colours on the double helix.
-
At its simplest, a quest is a series of sub-games, just as DNA is a series of bases. However, choices exist within the quest, so (unlike DNA) there can be branches within the sequence. For example: NcNSKNGN (CX|F) KN allows players a choice between "CX" and "F". Keep a vision of a DNA strand with reconnecting branches (loops) in your mind.
-
A quest can be a sub-quest of a larger quest. Again, just as like genes (sequences of DNA that produce a specific protein) are combined in series into chromosomes, quests can be combined in series. Zoom your imagination out of the small strand of branching/looping DNA to see a larger picture with a long strand of quest DNA.
-
Players also have a choice of quests. Quest arcs are tied to one another at the beginning and end. Again, zooming out reveals more even more structure to the quest DNA, producing a tangled mass.
-
Players' decisions can affect other quests; if the old woman is fed to the troll, she can't bake the cherry pie, and the player won't be able to meet the mayor in quite the same way. You could visualise this by producing more tangles, but there's an easier way: Every time the player makes a choice, the quest DNA rearranges itself, detaching and reattaching portions.
-
Zooming out completely reveals the big picture. Strands of branching/looping quest-DNA are entangled together. Pieces occasionally detach and reattach as players achieve goals that let them reorder the world. And, most importantly, from this angle, you realise that the bases (sub-games) all have subtle variations in their coloration, since the sub-games vary slightly according to the quest. Fighting a troll is different than fighting an orc because trolls and orcs use different combat tactics, fight in different sized groups, and have different special abilities and weaknesses.
-
If the exact same colour (sub-game with no variation) is re-used, players will notice and not enjoy the experience as much. If too many of the same colour (sub-game) occur in sequence, or too close together in the strand, players will notice. If there's a pattern to the colours (blue always following red), players will notice. If there's a pattern to the branching, players will notice. If there's a pattern to the way that the quest DNA rearranges itself, players will notice.
I suspect that any identifiable pattern will weaken the experience. However, pure chaos won't work because that breaks characteristic #1 of avatar games, that the world and physics resemble reality. Some sort of balance must be reached between pattern and chaos... which harks back to Raph Koster's Theory of Fun.
The peacock
(Back to TOC)
16 October 2005
by Mike Rozak
I ranted about the need for choice in several articles, such as Choice and consequences. Unfortunately, choices all come to naught when players reach the end of the game, where they have to kill the evil overlord whether they like it or not. All the choices they were given, such as whether to play a good or evil character, what clothes to wear, etc. are completely ignored by the ending. (If your world has no end, such as a typical MMORPG, then this issue isn't much of a problem, although you have a different set of problems to deal with.)
Some games try to solve this problem by allowing multiple endings; In one ending, the player slays the evil overlord, while in another, the evil overlord slays the player's character... I'm being a bit cynical. Some games allow for completely different endings, such a letting the player partner with the evil overlord.
Unfortunately, since designers don't want players to miss too much expensively-produced content, designers inevitably place the branches to the different endings at the very end of the game, usually in the last five minutes of play. This enables players to reload previous saves and see all the endings, thereby making the investment in content worthwhile.
Designers could place the branches earlier in the game, but then they'd need to produce more content to cover the different (and lengthy) branches. Since most players don't replay their games, they wouldn't experience the extra content, making it a waste of resources. Additionally, since we're talking branches here, once a player makes the choice, its effects are final and irreversible. As I pointed out in Choice 2, players will have entered a new pearl on the string/tree. While this makes for a very strong choice, it will annoy many players when they realise they're following the "wrong path" and can't undo it. (The "wrong path" is in the eye of the beholder.)
The feather
Here's an alternative way to view a typical game's choices:
-
When the game first begins, choices are intentionally limited so that players aren't overwhelmed.
-
Players are presented with the most choices during the middle of the game.
-
Since the end of the game is fixed (killing the evil overlord), and usually punctuated by an expensive cut scene, the player's choices are paired down at the end.
If you simultaneously stretch your imagination and squint very hard, you can imagine the game's choices look like a feather, which is narrow at one end (where it attaches to the bird), wide in the middle, and narrow at the tip. (For Monty Python fans, you can also think of it as a brontosaurus.)
When designers produce multiple endings, they usually produce one main feather. At its tip are splayed several other feathers whose roots all meet at the end of the first feather. This configuration happens to look like a tree, with branches where the feathers meet. If you really-really squint, the feathers look like the pearls mentioned in Choice 2.
The peacock
And now for something completely different...
Rather than producing a tree from the feathers, arrange them like a peacock's tail feathers. They all start from one point and splay out in all directions.
Notice that the feathers overlap near the base, so that from a distance, you're not really sure which feather you're seeing. The overlap is greater at the base than the tips. Only at the tips is it easy to identify which feather is creating the pattern. (By the way, peacock feathers really don't overlap that much; Analogies only go so far.)
If I explain the analogy in game terms:
-
A game has N endings (aka: feathers).
-
When players begin, neither they nor the computer is certain which ending will occur. (The feathers are all joined at the base.)
-
As players make choices, some endings become more likely, while others fade away. (At the base/start, all the feathers overlap each other, so it's impossible to say which "feather" a player is on. Half way up the peacock's fan, you can't be entirely certain which feather you're seeing, but you know it's either the central one, or one its immediate neighbours.)
-
By the time the game is ready to end (or perhaps as a trigger to its ending) the player is locked into one of the endings. (The bright-blue "eyes" at the tip of each peacock's feathers easily identify the feather from its neighbours. By the time your eye reaches them it's obvious the feather is about to end.)
In technical terms:
-
When a player begins the game, each of N endings has a default score, such as 100.
-
As players make choices (in quests), the score for some endings will increase, while others will decrease.
-
The world, as well as choices offered within the world, will change based upon the relationships of the scores. These changes, in turn, serve to funnel (but not force) the player towards the endings which the player has the highest scores in.
For example: Imagine that two endings are possible. Either the player can become pope or the bandit king. When the player does something good, he gets pope points and loses bandit points, or vice versa. Eventually, the world will change depending upon which score is higher; At some point in the game, a bandit-king player will be so despised he won't ever be allowed into a church, so he couldn't possibly become a pope. Conversely, a pope player will have such an entourage of followers that he wouldn't be able to abscond into the forest and rob travellers for jollies.
-
A player can fight against the funnel at any point up until the end. Players could recite the rosary 5000 times to counteract their bandit ways, or steal from the holy offerings to become more bandit-like.
-
Eventually, one ending will be so much stronger than any others that the player will be locked into an ending... and at that point, the game rushes towards the grand finale and the final cut scene.
Notice that this is different from the string/tree of pearls that I discussed in Choice 2. There are no 100% final decisions, although some decisions might be very difficult to counteract.
Advantages and disadvantages of the peacock
The peacock works well because:
-
Players' choices affect the outcome of the game up the end. Thus, they are never left impotently watching a story unfold.
-
Players can tailor the game towards their desires. Those players that like combat will chose the bandit's path, while those who enjoy political intrigue will join the clergy.
Notice how the paths end up becoming a sort of personality test; I'll talk about this in a moment.
-
The peacock's fan works well for a multiplayer game. Here's why:
Imagine a multiplayer game based upon a single feather. Whenever a player meets other players, he knows for certain that the other players have the same basic goals, since they're on the same "feather", and whatever they do, all players will come to the same end and they will all kill the evil overlord. This means that players which meet can either:
-
Work together to kill the evil overlord. (This is a win-win design.)
-
Endeavour to keep the other players from killing the evil overlord first, since evil overlords are a limited resource. (A zero-sum design.)
-
Ignore the other players for now, but expect to frequently bump into them on the way to killing the evil overlord... which usually means they eventually end up working together or against one another.
In a peacock arrangement, players don't really know what other players' goals are. (The players might not even know their own goals/ending themselves.) Interaction amongst players becomes more complicated:
-
The players might be crossing paths, never to see one another again.
-
They might have mutually beneficial abilities (based on their chosen feather) that encourage them to work together for a short while. (Popes might be able to heal wounds that bandits receive from their fights... which sounds an awful lot like class relationships in MMORPGs.)
-
They might not be able to advance without the aid of players from another feather. (For example: A bandit king must marry to produce an heir, and a pope player is required to perform the marriage.)
-
The design could encourage a conflict between two of the feathers. (Bandits get extra points stealing from popes.)
-
The more feathers, the more permutations.
-
There's another advantage for multiplayer games... Since each path is a sort of personality test, players with similar personalities will tend to make decisions that put them on the same feather. Those people will tend to group up wherever win-win contexts exist. Not only will they have the same game-based goal, but their matching personalities will (hopefully) produce better social relationships, strengthening The four pillars.
If a designer thinks that opposites attract, which they sometimes do, then win-win situations could occur amongst players on different feathers. For example: Find a way to identify which players are leaders and team them up with followers.
See The dating game.
Of course, the peacock arrangement is not without problems:
-
It requires more work. While developing a game with N feathers isn't N times as much work as a game with one feather, it's certainly more work.
-
Balance is an issue. If one feather is easier than the others, word will get around and players will abandon the other feathers, even if they're more enjoyable. Players jumping around feathers might also upset balance.
Beyond the peacock
-
In, A tangle, I discussed a tangled mass of quest DNA. It appears that if you "zoom out" far enough, the tangle looks like peacock's feathers.
-
This sounds an awful lot like real life. As a child, you don't have many choices. Your greatest opportunities for choice occur in mid-life. While traversing through life, you have an idea what feather you're on, but are never entirely sure. If you don't like where your life is heading, you can change it with difficulty. As with the game model, people you meet in real life are sometimes passing through, sometimes on your side, and sometimes against you.
-
The feathers don't need to start from the same point...
-
Think recursion.
Share with your friends: |
