So, I’ve been sick a bit this week(thus me posting a bit more than I usually would), and as I was lying in bed last night, kept awake through pain, I thought of a question of which I cannot think of a fulfilling answer to: “How would you convince a player not to enter a win state?”
And I don’t mean to give them, like, another option, but to invoke the right emotions to stop them wanting to win the game. What emotions would I be invoking?
Personally, I thought this was an interesting concept to consider which could make a really good game.
Reminds me of an episode of ExtraCreditz where they talk about the moral dilemmas in Mass Effect, specifically the player’s decision to brainwash an entire race or carry out genocide.
Definitely an interesting tactic of engagement.
One thing I thought of is, throughout the course of the game, have a friend who is written to be a character that is loved by the player. This character is then lost to the main villain, before disappearing for a large portion of the game(making the player miss this character), before bringing him back at the end, only to be unwillingly under the villain’s command.
Although in my opinion, it seems rather generic, and I’m not sure how many players would become enthralled enough with this character to sympathize him enough to see him die by the player’s metaphorical blade(or not metaphorical, depending on the game).
In my opinion, this would invoke a situation where the player feels like s/he has just met their latest challenge, and would be eager to continue.
Ideally, a situation would be created where, when telling their friends about how they had just beaten the game, the player would receive a comment not too dissimilar to “Ah. Poor you”.
Great topic, I really enjoy the type of entertainment that leaves you with a negative feeling, self doubt, confusion, madness, remorse, regret, loss. Anything that makes the player question his own sanity/morality/actions is worth looking at.
I agree that that ExtraCredits episode is a really good one.
I think this is different from what’s being described in the OP though. In you case, you’re describing a game that the player wants to win, but can’t. In the OP, what’s being described is a game that can be won, but the player doesn’t want to win
This reminds me of an idea I had sometime recently of a game that follows the same concept as The Giving Tree… You know how in most games, players start out weak and gradually become stronger? Well, I was thinking, what if there was a game that the player starts at their strongest state; and then throughout the game, they’re required to sacrifice things related to the character until in the end, you’re left with close to nothing? Would people still want to “win” that game? And if so, how would it be implemented?
In Final Fantasy (2 in the US I think) you play a paladin and confront a mirror image of yourself on top of a mountain. Your mirror image whips your ass every time. There is some dialog that is supposed to help you figure it, but I couldn’t. I was too stuck on killing him, as is done with every other enemy in the game. The trick is not to attack him, if you do that then just before he would kill you the story continues and you effectively beat him. Not quite the same as what the OP asks, but maybe related.
Or how about the shmup that deletes a random file on your HDD every time you kill an enemy?
My most interesting experience while playing a game was at the end of bioshock.
[Spoiler]
At the end of the game the player finds out that he is genetically, psychologically altered/trained to obey every order which is given him with the phrase “would you be so kindly to …”. And in the end there were scenes where you had to do things which you really didn’t wanted to do(think it was exploding something and killing someone), but you had to, cause otherwise the game wouldn’t proceed. So the gameplay mechanics were forcing you, but cause of the story it really felt if the phrase “would you be so kindly…” had a real affect(forcing you to do stuff) on you.
[/Spoiler]
I think this is a really interesting topic
I suppose the only way that you make the player not want to win the game deliberately would be as you suggested, having a companion along the side, but with a twist ;). If you win the game the companion is lost and there is no way to have the same companion again(Random companions each time or something). Or that the game’s an RPG and the world evolve as you play it and at the end the whole game saves gets erased. No one would want to erase a world which they created and influenced, thus the player will not want to win the game. Perhaps.
Speaking of madness and sanity, that is the premise of the game I am currently working on, the same games that inspired this question xP
But yeah, using powerful emotion against the audience is a very effective way to not only get their attention on the game, but keep it. Entertainment with the moments that seem to pull your heart out of your chest seems to be the best kind for sure.
I think what I was trying to ask is, not punishing someone for entering a win state, but simply discouraging them from wanting to enter it. Yes, technically, through punishing them you are discouraging them, but it would be much more effective against the user and leave a lasting impression. That said, a world that builds and flows around the user as they move throughout the game, only to be destroyed during the endgame, would be very interesting as well. Possibly allowing the player to now explore the dead world which they worked so hard to create, only to see it in ruins. What would be worse, is if somehow the player was put in a position where they are the ones who destroy it.
Oh, wow. Using gameplay mechanics as a medium of storytelling is a rather interesting, and seemingly powerful way to storytell. [Spoiler]And the way it forces you to do something that the user probably doesn’t really want to do at all is… wow. And even though that isn’t discouraging the player to not do something they want to do and instead encouraging them to do something they don’t, it is quite though-inducing.[/Spoiler]
Hm. This is an interesting gameplay element, it could be used in a situation like this. Not so much the defeat through not defeating, but more the win through not trying. Which leads me to this possible gameplay element: trying too hard makes you lose.
So your solution would be to change the win state itself, instead of changing the feelings of those who wish to obtain it? That is an interesting perspective.
I like these kind of discussions, where it allows people to bring forth ideas and inspire others’, then those people then coming back to again inspire others’ with their inspired ideas. A cycle that creates complete and utter creativity. It’s certainly better than yet another topic about someone’s latest library or a problem they’re having with LIBgdx. People in early game development seem to always forget that there is more to being an indie developer than code and art. It’s fine if you want a job working at a AAA studio, where they have people specifically to do game design, but in indie, you do not. And if you want to succeed, you need to do more than make something like looks nice: it must also have function.
I think there is a similar situation in Jedi Academy where to win you don’t kill the final character. I like games which don’t give the obvious kill the bad guy ending and have choices that develop your character and change the story based on your path you choose like the Knghts of the old Republic.
There’s Planescape Torment, which revolves around the question, “What can change the nature of a man?” The answer is never given, but would seem to be “nothing”, at least for The Nameless One. TNO is never able to escape his fate and find his own redemption, but does at least manage to deliver it to his companions throughout the story as he helps them resolve their own inner torments.
I don’t think you can ever really motivate the player to “not win”, but you can certainly make “winning” mean something very different than one’s own glorification, as Torment certainly demonstrated.
Maybe the trick is to give the player some flexibility regarding what the “win state” is so she can make a choice?
Many games railroad things so there is only one possible option, and players end up following through because they (correctly) think in metagame terms, that is, they recognize how the game mechanics are working and understand they have no real choice going forward.
That is the failing of most morale systems, in my opinion, they revolve around a simple switch condition between “good” and “bad”, with little granularity, and the player recognizes this, leading to “all good” and “all bad” playthroughs, since there is little reward in choosing the in-between option.
I think the first Fallout game (Vault 13 FTW!) did this in a very interesting game. There wasn’t so much a “good” and “bad” ending, but a montage of the consequences from the choices made in each part of the game, which resulted in there not being a clear “win state” for the player to strive towards, beyond the main goal of the game.
But I’m probably digressing… And since I’m still playing through Bioshock for the first time (Just met the first Big Daddy in Hard Mode… :o ) and still haven’t played through Spec Ops: The Line… I don’t want to spoil myself too much by reading through this thread
In UFO: Enemy Unknown I could fly to Mars and utterly defeat the aliens, but that meant an end to fighting street battles in cities, raiding alien bases, building my network of secret bunkers… Going to Mars and ‘winning’ felt so disappointing. But eventually the game would get so hectic you had to go to Mars or lose everything.
When I was working on my chess game, beating the computer felt depressing - I only felt good when the computer beat me!
You might check out the rumors behind the battle for World Chess Champion between David Bronstein and Mikhail Botvinnik. Bronstein had all but won the match but seemingly decided against consequences of winning the tournament and made a “simple” endgame error (purposely?) that handed the crown back to Botvinnik.
Most of the discussion has been about “sticks” but there is also the “carrots” approach. Suppose the game just ends when you win. No big payoff. But if you stick around you can keep playing, extend the fun or explore or gain some other reward.
This conversation really reminds me of “Save the Date”. It’s a game that I’ve played recently that acts on the very concept of “winning” a game, and how the player “wins the game”.
It’s a pretty short game, so if you have some time, you should definitely check this out. You’ll probably come back with lots more to say. I really don’t want to spoil the ending, so I’ll just leave this link here and if anybody says anything about this later, we can have a discussion.
[quote]I think this is a really interesting topic Smiley
I suppose the only way that you make the player not want to win the game deliberately would be as you suggested, having a companion along the side, but with a twist Wink. If you win the game the companion is lost and there is no way to have the same companion again(Random companions each time or something). Or that the game’s an RPG and the world evolve as you play it and at the end the whole game saves gets erased. No one would want to erase a world which they created and influenced, thus the player will not want to win the game. Perhaps.
[/quote]
I think what I was trying to ask is, not punishing someone for entering a win state, but simply discouraging them from wanting to enter it. Yes, technically, through punishing them you are discouraging them, but it would be much more effective against the user and leave a lasting impression. That said, a world that builds and flows around the user as they move throughout the game, only to be destroyed during the endgame, would be very interesting as well. Possibly allowing the player to now explore the dead world which they worked so hard to create, only to see it in ruins. What would be worse, is if somehow the player was put in a position where they are the ones who destroy it.
[/quote]
I feel like this episode of Extra Credits might stimulate the conversation at this point. It’s all about choices and the way we view and implement them in gaming.
[quote]Speaking of madness and sanity, that is the premise of the game I am currently working on, the same games that inspired this question xP
But yeah, using powerful emotion against the audience is a very effective way to not only get their attention on the game, but keep it. Entertainment with the moments that seem to pull your heart out of your chest seems to be the best kind for sure.
[/quote]
I’m a fan of the works of H.P. Lovecraft so I totally agree that non-positive emotions can be effective and maybe desirable. It’s almost like schadenfreude the way I feel when I’m wanting to read one of the miserable stories written by H.P.L.
In addition, I wanted to talk on similar lines with you all, without a threadjacking taking place so I’ve started a parallel topic (kind of) about some specific emotional motivators in gaming. It’s HERE.
The Greeks had a pretty good handle on the utility of “negative emotions” with their most enduring dramatic form; there’s a reason the saying “The story goes like like a Greek comedy” never really entered the lexicon, but it did when you substitute tragedy. One can relate to the portrayal of tragedy on several levels, whether it’s as a moral lesson, an exercise in empathy, or simply realizing that when the play is over that hey, it didn’t happen to them so maybe life’s not so bad.
One could certainly do worse than to study the history of dramatic forms if they want to become an effective writer of games plots. The emergence of horror as a recognized genre, for example, is pretty interesting. It’s probably one of the oldest forms (what with cavemen telling stories of the strange and terrifying world outside) but as a dramatic genre, I suspect its roots are somewhat newer, since there aren’t too many ancient plays we know of that aimed at frightening their audience.
