Comments on: Design Choices http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2007/01/18/design-choices/ Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist Sat, 04 Feb 2012 15:12:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Seppo Helava http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2007/01/18/design-choices/comment-page-1/#comment-13293 Seppo Helava Fri, 19 Jan 2007 03:52:52 +0000 http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2007/01/18/design-choices/#comment-13293 It would seem to me that the proliferation of choices is also what holds games like Deus Ex, or System Shock, out of mainstream acceptance, while a game like Doom 3 succeeds. After all, in Doom 3, there's essentially only one choice - shoot. Because you don't have the option of playing nonviolently, you can be *confident* that every choice you make (or rather, don't), puts you on a path toward success. In games that give you too many options, you instead wonder, what are the *consequences* of my actions. Rightly so, I'd hope - if a game is going to give you a choice, it should have a consquence of some significance. But therein lies the problem. To understand the choice, you have to think about the consquence enough to believe that you're making a *good* choice. That selection process is work - and that's why, when you're looking for entertainment, eliminating that work is positive, rather than negative. In the game I'm working on right now, the original writers made every line of conversation a choice. Aside from a whole variety of problems with the writing in the game (the Freeman Group is basically a bunch of illiterate buffoons - I had nothing to do with selecting them, and I hope that no one involved with TFG ever finds work again), it forces the player to make a coherent decision about how to respond without ever letting up. So, in my writing for the game, I had two major focuses - one was rhythm - trying to get people to talk like they do in real life, and the second was limiting the number of choices the player made to those that I'd given them enough information to make intelligently. The difference, in practice, is utterly staggering. (yes, I'm tooting my own horn - but saying you're better than the worst writers you've ever seen in your entire life isn't tooting that loudly, I hope.) The characters who have fewer choices, but more information, feel more real, are more "fun" and overall, are just more interesting to interact with, because the interaction *means* something. It would seem to me that the proliferation of choices is also what holds games like Deus Ex, or System Shock, out of mainstream acceptance, while a game like Doom 3 succeeds. After all, in Doom 3, there’s essentially only one choice – shoot. Because you don’t have the option of playing nonviolently, you can be *confident* that every choice you make (or rather, don’t), puts you on a path toward success.

In games that give you too many options, you instead wonder, what are the *consequences* of my actions. Rightly so, I’d hope – if a game is going to give you a choice, it should have a consquence of some significance. But therein lies the problem. To understand the choice, you have to think about the consquence enough to believe that you’re making a *good* choice. That selection process is work – and that’s why, when you’re looking for entertainment, eliminating that work is positive, rather than negative.

In the game I’m working on right now, the original writers made every line of conversation a choice. Aside from a whole variety of problems with the writing in the game (the Freeman Group is basically a bunch of illiterate buffoons – I had nothing to do with selecting them, and I hope that no one involved with TFG ever finds work again), it forces the player to make a coherent decision about how to respond without ever letting up.

So, in my writing for the game, I had two major focuses – one was rhythm – trying to get people to talk like they do in real life, and the second was limiting the number of choices the player made to those that I’d given them enough information to make intelligently.

The difference, in practice, is utterly staggering. (yes, I’m tooting my own horn – but saying you’re better than the worst writers you’ve ever seen in your entire life isn’t tooting that loudly, I hope.)

The characters who have fewer choices, but more information, feel more real, are more “fun” and overall, are just more interesting to interact with, because the interaction *means* something.

]]>