How to make game choices less meaningful? | Gamedev Dairy #54
Hacks for learning, productivity, having work-life-passion balance and finally game development!
TL;DR
Introduction
When should you choose the color of the ending?
Thinking about brands, sequels, and so on
Honorable mentions
Recommendations
Introduction
Today I wanted to continue on a thread that began some time ago: how I think RPGs should be made. Not being a person who played all of the existing RPGs (which means that there might be a game that fulfills all of these ideas, I consider them my next favorite games) I will base my conclusions on gaming's favorite beating bag - Mass Effect 3.
My ideas and conclusions exist only because someone tried to do the best they could and unfortunately failed. That said I want to highlight that I respect the craft of all BioWare employees, and would love to have a percentage of their skills. There's more to that it seems to create a solid experience than the sum of all crafts.
But let us start with the beginning end.
When should you choose the color of the ending?
What I don't like in games like Mass Effect 3 (and Deus Ee: Human Revolution, and yes I know it was in the first Deus Ex, but THAT WAS TEN YEARS BEFORE!) is that the decision about the finale takes place right before it! I consider this a major BUT in the design: you finish two games, make countless choices, BUT you choose the ending at the end anyway.
People highlight that your choices matter, but the problem is not in the final cutscene. You could read about it, but it would be better to see it before. Sure, I gave the Krogans a chance, but I didn't see the Krogan opera! Or the aftermath of the Quarian-Geth war. It shouldn't be only about numbers in the final battle. It should be about different landscapes, not necessarily in a cutscene.
There are important decisions to be made in the game, but the results are in the wrong places. And when trying to place them correctly I think of the 3 acts structure for drama. But game oriented:
Act 1
Introduction to the world, characters, and game mechanics. Good place for tutorials, introductions, and so on. And a place of minimum choices. I think that character customization should be the majority of choices here ;-) For all game's sake, this one can be even 100% scripted.
Act 2
This is the place the choices should rule. All of the important choices are made here. Hell, most of them are made here. This is the core gameplay act. 50% of what is happening should be scripted, max. There should be a place for player freedom.
Act 3
Minimum choices. Skeleton script. A grand emotional finale, where all your choices should play out. Here you should see the consequences. But not as you did in Mass Effect 3, but larger. And the larger you get, the less scripted it becomes. If I did Mass Effect 3, I would consider even having an ending where you fight alongside Cerberus to beat the Reapers ;-) This should be the finale of an avalanche of choices. There should be no obvious solutions and at some point no good conclusions, only the best you can get, but never THE best. You always lose something, and it's a thought that should be represented.
Thinking about brands, sequels, and so on
Something that seems to be at the heart of the problem of "my choices do not matter" is in my opinion the way brands are thought of. The problem is not in creating another game set in a specific brand's world. The problems are in a sequel/prequel. The resulting worlds
Not to mention the pathology of the canonic ending, or rather the mourning that my choices did not matter to the developers because they chose a different ending as the basis for the next game.
Frankly, only once I saw a slightly different approach. The Legend Of Zelda series introduced a choice in Ocarina of Time. And based on that two timelines occur (actually three, but the third option is when you just die, which happens not so rarely anyway). Why is it different? Because each timeline has a different set of sequels set in them. Fun approach, but I can't imagine a choice-heavy game where each decision results in a separate game. Or even better - each set of choices you make ;-)
And you don't need an entire trilogy of Mass Effect games. To be honest, Dragon Age managed to deliver all these three parts in Origins only ;-)
This is a tricky part. The best solution is to set a bigger time precipice between the games or have an idea for a world's history timeline that cannot be affected by the player. He can affect lives, but not history's path.
I think that in the end, it's all about having either a perfect algorithm or a perfect script. I don't think algorithms yet win with the best scripts, but some games create intricate events, like FTL, Frostpunk, and the like. There's room for improvement. And although scripts will win for some time, I think we should still try to beat them with an algorithm.
Honorable mentions
every line of dialogue has to have a voice over. Which leads to the question: how many voiced lines can you actually afford ;-) But you have to deliver the AAA experience, and that means having voice over. And that means - less dialogue options - meaning: less choices ;-)
cutscenes as a sort of reward for the player. C'mon it's a scripted solution, it screams restriction! Problem is, if you decide to not use them, how are you going to reward the player?
Recommendations
Thomas Brush just hit 300k subscribers on YouTube and decided to share some thoughts on his road to game development.
Apparently, Rust (a programming language that fascinates me) is already used by AAA to studios, here's a nice talk given by some of Treyarch's developers:
Question to you!
How many games have you encountered that are similar to what I described today?