New video! -Video Games and Choice-

[sephfire]

Just finished the fifth in my little series of game-related video lectures! Today's topic: Choice.

Video Games and Choice (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlOXAtPvMDk)


This should show up on Gamasutra.com in the next week or so along with James Portnow's article on the issue. It goes a little more in-depth on game design than usual, but the general tone remains the same. I've already got my next topic picked out, so the gap between this video and the next shouldn't be nearly as long.

Extra special thanks to Anthony Lofton and Joshua Morse for unwittingly providing outro music, and to CarboHydroM (as always) for providing me with an intro theme.

Enjoy!

[Sindra]

Very nicely done. I always liked your format, even though you admit to mimicking Yahtzee, I feel yours is still different. (I mean, how many new ways can things be brought across to people?) I kind of mimic it myself in the videos I do.


Is your voice really that high-pitched?

[The Mutericator]

Delicious. As a software engineer in training, I eagerly await the next entry.

[Fishy]

Pretty cool as usual, just wondering why Fallout 3 didn't get a mention in this? I'd be curious to see your thoughts on what actual choices there are in that game.

[sephfire]

Is your voice really that high-pitched?

No, I pitch-bend the narration up about 10-15 percent. I like that he has a voice of his own and (sort of) stands as a character separate from me. Also, my normal voice is pretty boring.


Pretty cool as usual, just wondering why Fallout 3 didn't get a mention in this? I'd be curious to see your thoughts on what actual choices there are in that game.

Actually, I was pretty impressed with Fallout 3. The decisions weren't nearly so cut-and-dry "Good vs. Evil" decisions as you tend to see in, say, Bioware games. And while a lot of the quest conversations are basically just "Will you help out this old man or ignore him?" scenarios, it really felt like you were free to choose your way in the world. You could handle situations however you wanted, and your choice would lead to consequences, good or bad.

A lot of the choices in the game may still have just been very cleverly-concealed problems, but that's still a step in the right direction.

[JCvgluvr]

It's always a pleasure to watch your videos seph. Not only are they intelligent and relevant, but they're not-so-strangely compelling and interesting as well. Once again, good job (James too).

[Dhsu]

Entertaining and well-done!

But it's spelled "decisions." :D

[relyanCe]

Stellar, as usual!

[Miletus]

Very interesting, actually! Clearly presented, kind of reminded me of that great 'crisis of credit' animation recently: easy to understand yet without oversimplification.

It reminds me of the Gabe Newell (Half Life)/Warren Spector (Deus Ex) debate about linearity in games. I've always thought about the debate in terms of linearity vs non-linearity but problem-solving vs choice is actually a more interesting way of thinking about it, now I've seen sephire's video. The non-linearity is really a quality that arises from the decision to make use of choices.

[big giant circles]

nice work, par for the course. :nicework:

[sephfire]

Entertaining and well-done!

But it's spelled "decisions." :D

:banghead:


One of these days, I'll make a video without one mispronounced word or misspelling. Someday ... :cry:

[Alexis]

I liked it, despite the spelling error!
:-P

[SLyGeN]

I think I was able to infer correctly on my own, but it might have been worth mentioning that the helping the old man "choice" being reduced to a mere problem also seems to have reduced the outcomes to a mere "get money" or "not get money", and therefore are not exponentially increasing the game's size.

As always, a pleasure to watch and learn from.

[friendlyHunter]

This was probably my favourite one so far. Partially because of the content and how it makes me think about videogame design, and partially because of all the James Portnow jokes ^_^

"Should have bought a mic, buddy."

[Arrow]

Ah, good video.

Though the part about the king asking the hero to save the village and the hero refusing before being asked again immediately made me think of this (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ButThouMust).

[glasfen]

Nice work, sephire. Always a fun learning experience.

I have to say this was enlightening. It seems so intuitive but I've never thought about choices vs. decisions in terms of gaming. Certainly gives me a different perspective.

Oh, and labeling Inky and Clyde = hilarious.

[Sengin]

Ah, I always love your videos and as usual, this was very entertaining. It certainly made me think more about the devlopers and the choices they make into, well, developing games.

I definitely look forward to the next one.

[Liontamer]

Why do you never pimp your URL in your video descriptions? It's like you don't want to help people find you. You have to make it easier and more straightforward. Obviously, the lecture kicks ass. Always a great way to spend 6-10 minutes.

In other news, pimp: http://twitter.com/ocremix/status/1365877592

[The Pezman]

You and I need to sit down and have a chat about all this sometime...

[Sam Ascher-Weiss]

Great Video as usual!

It seems to me like this exists more on a spectrum though.. from what you're saying, if a choice has any weight behind it... that is, if one choice can be considered preferable, then it's a "problem in disguise", to me that makes it seem as though the only thing that you could call a real grade A USDA approved "choice" would be something that has zero impact on the game.

Like, if a character early on asked you to choose sides in a dispute and depending on which side you choose, a race of people later on in the game all have red hair instead of yellow hair, then it's a choice I suppose unless you prefer one color to the other, in which case it would become a problem because you'd want to make the "correct" choice, the one that would yield your favorite color.

The thing is, I don't see any decision as worth making if I don't have something invested in the outcome...like say if I were colorblind, then the hair color would be irrelevant. The same goes for "choices" that would create branches in the gameplay...if a decision in a game gives me branching paths, people will have preferences as to which branch is more to their liking. Like Castlevania 3 to a degree, moreso if you took the extra characters out of the equation.

So I see it as any given decision either being closer to a choice or problem based on how much weight is given to the outcome. In order for something to be a pure "choice" by what I see as your definition, it would have to be totally inconsequential and therefore meaningless, like naming your main character with the stipulation that the name never appears in the game because if it did... it might move into problem territory since I'm sure there would be some name you'd prefer to see for whatever reason.

[FR]

It was very informative.

Do you know if Yahtzee seen your vids?

[Txai]

This video was not good at all.

[FR]

Stop trolling Txai.

[Txai]

I am not trolling. I just didn't like it.

Can I have different feelings about something, please?

[sephfire]

I am not trolling. I just didn't like it.

Can I have different feelings about something, please?

No 10charlimit

[Txai]

No, I'm pretty sure I can.
It's what's called "an opinion".

I'm sorry if you can't deal with it.

[FR]

You can have different opinions, just don't be an ass while voicing them.

[Txai]

I don't recall being an ass here. I'm being misinterpreted. But I will cease my talking now.

[Geoffrey Taucer]

It's good, but I think it would have been far more effective if you'd given an example of a genuine choice in a game, rather than spending so much time on the idea of problems diguised as choices.

Nevertheless, worth watching, as are all your videos.

EDIT: Txai, evidently you don't have a choice in this matter ;)

[The Mutericator]

I don't recall being an ass here. I'm being misinterpreted. But I will cease my talking now.

You wouldn't have to if you backed up your opinion with statements supporting it, instead of just saying, "It sucks," and then acting like we're the assholes when we assume you're trolling.

[Txai]

You wouldn't have to if you backed up your opinion with statements supporting it, instead of just saying, "It sucks," and then acting like we're the assholes when we assume you're trolling.

I never said "It sucks". I said that it was not good at all.

I don't need to state a reason why I don't like it as much as others don't need to state a reason about why they like it.

But please, I am not supposed to talk about it anymore. We are ruining his thread.

[Zephyr]

Awesome as usual, you keep making them and I'll keep watching them :D

[Toadofsky]

Sephire, another great lecture. Although, this one was kind of confusing for me to follow (maybe I'm just stupid), but that's because this isn't something I've ever really followed or paid attention to.

Why don't you show this, as well as the uncanny valley episode to people in the gaming industry or at GDC for that matter? Maybe they could learn from this.


And I can't believe looking at my join date, that I've been here for five years...

Where has the time gone?

[sephfire]

Sephire, another great lecture. Although, this one was kind of confusing for me to follow (maybe I'm just stupid), but that's because this isn't something I've ever really followed or paid attention to.

Why don't you show this, as well as the uncanny valley episode to people in the gaming industry or at GDC for that matter? Maybe they could learn from this.


And I can't believe looking at my join date, that I've been here for five years...

Where has the time gone?

Actually, it was supposed to go up on Gamasutra a week or two ago, and that place gets a lot of game industry traffic. I think they pushed it back, so hopefully it will show up sometime soon. In a way, James is the guy who is spreading these ideas to other game designers with his columns. I'm just simplifying the ideas a little and spreading them around to other game enthusiasts.

[friendlyHunter]

Great Video as usual!

It seems to me like this exists more on a spectrum though.. from what you're saying, if a choice has any weight behind it... that is, if one choice can be considered preferable, then it's a "problem in disguise", to me that makes it seem as though the only thing that you could call a real grade A USDA approved "choice" would be something that has zero impact on the game.

Like, if a character early on asked you to choose sides in a dispute and depending on which side you choose, a race of people later on in the game all have red hair instead of yellow hair, then it's a choice I suppose unless you prefer one color to the other, in which case it would become a problem because you'd want to make the "correct" choice, the one that would yield your favorite color.

The thing is, I don't see any decision as worth making if I don't have something invested in the outcome...like say if I were colorblind, then the hair color would be irrelevant. The same goes for "choices" that would create branches in the gameplay...if a decision in a game gives me branching paths, people will have preferences as to which branch is more to their liking. Like Castlevania 3 to a degree, moreso if you took the extra characters out of the equation.

So I see it as any given decision either being closer to a choice or problem based on how much weight is given to the outcome. In order for something to be a pure "choice" by what I see as your definition, it would have to be totally inconsequential and therefore meaningless, like naming your main character with the stipulation that the name never appears in the game because if it did... it might move into problem territory since I'm sure there would be some name you'd prefer to see for whatever reason.

Here are some examples of choices in games that are NOT problems in disguise:

- Choosing the next level to play in Super Mario Bros 3 or Super Mario World.
- Choosing where to go next in Super Metroid or Zero Mission. I hated most of Metroid Prime 3 because almost all of its "choices" were actually problems in disguise (in other words, the exploration was linear and sucked).
- Choosing your character's abilities, upgrades and weapons in System Shock 2.
- Choosing whether or not to use an item in Super Mario Bros 3, or choosing where to go within a level.
- Choosing what to do in a well-balanced RTS (e.g. StarCraft).
- Choose out of the dozens of side-quests to do next in Ocarina of Time or Majora's Mask.
- Choose your destiny (Mortal Kombat).

Ok that last one was a stretch. But my point is that great games are often brimming with choices. However there are also great games that are brimming with problems (e.g. epic puzzle games like Adventures of Lolo 1-3... you should NOT have kept the receipt!!)

Whoever catches the reference first gets a cookie.

[Sam Ascher-Weiss]

If you're correct then I've completely misunderstood the distinction between a choice and a problem because based on my understanding, all of your examples are based on player preference which means there will always be a most desirable action.

So.. if a decision in which there is clearly only ONE absolute right answer is a problem, and everything else is a choice, then I'd agree with you.

Most of your examples I covered in the Castlevania 3 branching reference. Sidequests all have rewards of one kind or another.. if I remember correctly in Majora's Mask you have a book that you get to check off which characters you helped in order to aim for 100% completion.

So yeah.. we're clearly defining "choice" in a completely different manner, it's quite possible I missed the proper meaning, which is why it would have been nice to see, in the video, several examples of real "choices".

[Dhsu]

Good point, it can never hurt to have examples to back up your point.

But yeah, I think the idea here is that decisions based on personal preference are choices, while ones in which only one answer will advance the game is a problem. Incidentally, my personal preference is actually games that consist mostly of problems, since I can never make up my mind. :D

[sephfire]

Yeah, choices can be paralyzing, depending on the mood I'm in. Sometimes you just want there to be a "right" answer, I guess.

[FR]

This has probably already been mentioned but...

Can a choice become a problem depending on the mindset of the player?

Example: In a game, I can be good or evil. I want to be evil. I choose to be evil in a game even though I know that choice brings little rewards. I have effectively made a choice into a problem by negating one of my options.

This is all hypothetical btw.

I should probably read threads more often.

[Native Jovian]

FR, I believe that would be an example of a problem by the video's definition. If being evil has no rewards, then the question of "should I be good, or should I be evil?" has a single right answer as far as gameplay is concerned -- you should be good, because its rewards are greater than being evil. If you choose to be evil anyway, then you've created a problem for yourself (you've made the game harder by choosing a suboptimal solution), but that's not a "problem as opposed to choice" by the video's definition.

Problems disguised as choices, especially in terms of strategy or equipment, always annoy me. For example, in Elder Scrolls: Morrowind, they presented you with a "choice" between focusing on magic or focusing on physical combat. The reason "choice" is in quotes is because a pure mage character was virtual suicide in that game; you needed at least some physical combat skill in order to survive. It's a problem in disguise, not a choice, and it's annoying because it's dishonest. Why present me with the opportunity to go full mage if it's pretty much guaranteed to get me killed? Especially while insisting that it's a valid choice?

[sephfire]

The player can always set goals of their own, and a player will approach each decision with his own preferences. We can create our own problems to solve by setting our own goals within a game, certainly. But that's totally outside the power of the game designer. The lecture is only concerned with the game designer's role in crafting an experience.

Does that make sense?

[Dhsu]

Problems disguised as choices, especially in terms of strategy or equipment, always annoy me. For example, in Elder Scrolls: Morrowind, they presented you with a "choice" between focusing on magic or focusing on physical combat. The reason "choice" is in quotes is because a pure mage character was virtual suicide in that game; you needed at least some physical combat skill in order to survive. It's a problem in disguise, not a choice, and it's annoying because it's dishonest. Why present me with the opportunity to go full mage if it's pretty much guaranteed to get me killed? Especially while insisting that it's a valid choice?
It's still a choice because there are still several viable configurations that will allow you to progress in the game. Intentionally being a weakling just doesn't happen to be one of them. :P

[TheKrow]

I thought this was a very well-addressed topic. Until now, I hardly bothered to think about decisions / problems and how the create a base for a game. Now I'm probably going to be thinking about these things all the time :|

I also like the humor style with the images and whatnot, it's my kind of humor ;-)

[sephfire]

Took long enough, but it's finally up on Gamasutra, along with James' original article.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=22456