Monday, September 27 2004 @ 10:03 PM UTC Contributed by: David
The Ludology versus Narratology debate (which I’ll just call LvN from now on!) pops up in the most surprising places.
While at the Austin Game Conference, this little exchange took place on a panel about risk in massively multiplayer online games:
Damion Schubert (Shadowbane) was explaining that he thought massively multiplayer gaming had gone too far down the content road. He thought developers should focus less on content and get serious about mechanics. Why? Because content is consumed by the voracious appetites of the players for play time and developers are constantly behind schedule and over budget trying to feed the content beast. Besides, the stories these content updates represent aren’t even that interesting to the players—they want to make up their own stories based on their own play.
Rather, he thought the solution was to create places for 3,000 or so people to go and have fun. He wanted to focus on the kinds of fun things people could do while logged into the world. He pointed to football as an example and explained that people make their own stories out of the experience of being there. But it is the endless joy of watching the play unfold inside the rule system that brings the crowds back week after week.
In response, Raph Koster (Star Wars Galaxies) asked how many people had purchased the Star Wars movies. Lots of hands went up. “More than once?” he continued. Still plenty of hands in the air and a few nervous laughs.
His point—the story matters. Tons.
Raph and Damion didn’t square off (no PvP). But it was fun to watch. LvN. Right there in the middle of a game development conference with real game developers arguing the same basic questions that the academics kick around.
See, I knew all this Ivory Tower stuff was about real issues!
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
LvN
Authored by: jccalhoun on Tuesday, September 28 2004 @ 01:20 AM UTC
I'm not sure that consumption is the best measure. I mean, how many times have you bought a deck of cards? How many times have you bought a ball? Or to use that old standby of an example, Tetris, how many times have you downloaded or bought a version of it? I know I've done that at least 5 times for various devices.
Story may matter, but it is not the only measure and to pretend so is foolhearty.
LvN
- Authored by: David on Tuesday, September 28 2004 @ 01:26 AM UTC
LvN
Authored by: CapCom on Tuesday, September 28 2004 @ 11:03 PM UTC
Well, I don't think developers should totally ignore content just as they shouldn't be ignoring new gameplay elements (there's that abysmal term again). Extra stuff is good, but that shouldn't be the sole crutch of a game. Perhaps it's not so much that there should be more gameplay elements and less content but more gameplay elements in addition to different kinds of content. Content means more things to see but new gameplay elements means more things to do. So while having more of one thing may not necessarily be a bad thing, having both is probably better.
And speaking of football...sure would be cool to play Everquest football. I'm sure there are a lot of people who would stage matches, especially if there were different rules. I mean, screw tackling the players - why do that when you can hack them down with the sword or hit him with a fireball? Hehe, then some gremlins or something could carry the dead guy off the field where he'd be resucitated in the sidelines and could run back onto the field again :P
Authored by: gjbloom on Wednesday, September 29 2004 @ 05:58 PM UTC
Bottom line - it is the story, or perhaps more a constellation of causally connected events, that the player takes with them after they have played. I agree that emergent stories are most compelling, as they mark the difference between passively observing a tale the game creator has written and directly creating/living an epic tale of one's own.
Game design should utilize elements that maximize emergent story potential. One way for a designer to maintain this focus is to imagine a sequence of events that would be memorable like "persuer gets crushed between two boulders that happen to collide right after the persued passes a junction, thereby saving the bacon of the persued". The designer then creates a mechanism that allows this bit of story to unfold, like "if persued shoots Inca statue in passing, huge boulders are released that will collide at next hall junction in 5 secs." By essentially writing a few dozen "storylines" for each area of the game, the designer guarantees that high-value emergent stories will take place.
Authored by: surelyserious on Thursday, October 07 2004 @ 11:29 AM UTC
As long as the basic premise is sound, the story will carry itself. Pong is a story. Tetris is a story. The conflict holds the attention of the player.
Really, if I wanted to play football online in a game, aren't I dodging the possibilities-equal-responsibilities of videogaming in the first place?
Videogaming is: I don't want to do what I do here, I want to do what I can't do here.
Story may matter, but it is not the only measure and to pretend so is foolhearty.