The Hoard Potato: If the game doesn't need me, I'll be over here.

[athelind]

Every so often, people will ask me why I have no interest in video and computer games, or insist that I'd like some game or another, if I "just gave it a try". I'm going to try to respond to that. I will try very hard to explain why these games don't hold any appeal for me, without trying to make it sound like you're wrong for enjoying them. It's a hard balance to maintain, so please grant me your pardon in advance if I cross the line.

For the last few days, bradhicks has veered away from his usual political insights to discuss the recent overhaul of City of Heroes/City of Villains.

Please understand, I'm a die-hard superhero fan. It's my genre. If any MMORPG should be able to get my attention, it's this one. The game mechanics sound well-considered, the visuals are impressive...

...and I just have no interest in it. It's the usual rounds of pointless combat and trivial errands that, near as I can tell, characterize pretty much the whole computer "RPG" genre. I guess it's not for me.

Today, Mr. Hicks waxed enthusiastic about "Epic Archetype Story Arcs". In CoX, if you have a certain character class, you get to experience specific adventures that give more detail to the ongoing storyline.

As far as I can tell, though, that storyline plays out the same way no matter what you do, so long as you "succeed". If you don't "succeed" by the set victory conditions... you keep trying until you get it "right". If you don't play at all... it still goes on, as if you had.

I've seen people "play" World of Warcraft by setting their character up in a situation requiring a sequence of rote, repetitive movements, putting a book on the keyboard so the key keeps pressing, and walking away. To me, that captures the essence of the whole process.

I... just don't see the appeal. If the story plays out pretty much the same way no matter who's involved, does it really need me to play it?

Maybe it's not that I "don't get" these newfangled video games. Maybe it's that I don't recognize this as play -- but I don't recognize it as story, either.

For me, "story" is something you observe; "play" is something you do. Role-Playing, for me, has to be a creative act; I have to feel that my presence, playing my character, has generated a story that would not have existed without my participation.

Wandering through toy stores over the years, I've noticed that, the more features and gimmicks a toy has, the less actual participation they require from the child. They aren't designed for kids to play with so much as to have kids push a button and watch the toys play for them.*

It's the same with tabletop game settings like the old World of Darkness, where there's a big, official Story Arc that overwhelmed the whole milieu. If your gaming group relied heavily on stock adventures, then, ultimately, your actions as individual PCs didn't matter much at all -- you either got to be one small cog in the Big NPC Machinery, or you were Out Of The Loop.

The illusion of participation that's the core of most computer games is a big dose of cognitive dissonance for me. If I want to watch someone else's story unfold, I'm happy enough to open up a book or a comic or turn on the TV. If I play, I want to engage my imagination. I want to know that the game has turned out differently because of my participation. If I'm trying to immerse myself in a story, I don't want to be pestered to "interact" with a bunch of predetermined options; it breaks the narrative flow.

So, really. It's not you. It's me.

Honest.

---

* Kids being kids, they're sure to find their own uses for things. ("You're playing it wrong!") Still, I think the expectation still bleeds through.

Comments

[tombfyre.livejournal.com]

I've been finding less interest in the modern breed of video gaming recently due to all the trivial crap and whatnot they have you do to extend playtime. Ultimately I either play games for a quick burst of nutty entertainment from racing or shooters, or to immerse myself in a deep storyline with lots of plot points.

Sadly not many of the latter seem to be made anymore.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

...and it's the latter ("deep storylines with lots of plot points") I'm largely targeting.

Honestly, if I had a system that could handle them, Portal and Team Fortress 2 sound like a lot of fun

[tombfyre.livejournal.com]

Well Portal is indeed quite amusing. It actually has a little story going, combined with the wacky antics of the computer system running the show. TF2 is amusing in short bursts, if you're into twitch based crazy combat. ^^

[araquan.livejournal.com]

I've long called computer "RPGs" by the name "adventure games" because there's no roleplaying at all involved. Then again, they're only barely adventure games...

[paka.livejournal.com]

A friend who's really into CoH has given me some perspective on this one - characters play through missions trying to stick with their character's personality, and then 80% of the game actually happens as conversation over the channels and so on. I think it's an interesting parallel to tabletop RPGs - if a player can think of something, especially if it makes sense, they do it, and sometimes the rules aren't set up for the game the players want.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

The big difference is that if you run into that situation in a computer game, you're stuck. In an analog game, the GM can adjudicate a work-around; heck, some games (like Mutants & Masterminds) have mechanics to use when the system doesn't cover something the players want to do. "Wow, you wanna do WHAT? I dunno -- what the heck, spend a Hero Point."

I should also note that I'm not particularly fond of prepackaged adventures in tabletop RPGs, unless they're REALLY flexible and character-centric.

[wy.livejournal.com]

Well, some MMOs do develop their own plots.

EvE online, for instance.. has a large story arc for its 'roleplayers', but the real action is the drama of thousands of players carving out empires for themselves or finding their own way in the sandbox.

Take for example, the grand war between Goonswarm (and allies) versus Band of Brothers (and allies) ... both factions involve thousands of players in a pretty epic war lasting well over a year now.

And then we have those who do stuff on the individual scale, like kane here (http://novakaneinc.blogspot.com/2008/05/fall-of-ars-caelestis.html) who tells the story of the corp I'm in.

[iceraptoress.livejournal.com]

You might have noticed that I'm a pretty serious CoX player, and I have to agree with you on the problem of repetition, especially on the Villain side of the game. Same stuff, over and over again for the most part, the only differences come from which "story" lines you pursue, but even they all have a predictable outcome, and there are only so many to work with.

For me, the extreme appeal of the game is not in the gameplay itself as in the people I play the game with. In my group circle, the majority of us are RPers, and so we RP while working through the game together, and that's what makes the game fun for me. Doing the same old mission type for the hundredth time is a lot more fun when we are all RPing, staying in character, working through situations and relationships and building shared histories and stories for all our characters together.

That's the attraction for me, anyway. And I'm lucky to have fallen in with a good RPing group.

[cpxbrex.livejournal.com]

I feel this pain, hehe. People find it incomprehensible that I like SOME computer games but dislike the Final Fantasy games.

I play tabletop games to role-play. I play video games to blow shit up or sneak around and knife people - the fact that there is a "story" is incidental to my enjoyment of the game (which is good, because so far even the best game "story" is actually painfully childish).

There is, IMO, about zero crossover between computer RPGs and tabletop RPGs.

[jirris-midvale.livejournal.com]

MMO's, in general, are *made* like that. It's all 'grind grind grind'. I played WoW for about a total of a year. Despite the charming Blizzard touches and rather good game balance (most of the time), it still was playing the game more and more for the next carrot. Seriously, when MMO's are made, the sheer number of hours it takes to get to the end game is considered a *feature*. Nonetheless, when a new server pops up some folks still manage to get that far in a few days.

The closest thing I've found to a really 'open ended' game is the Grand Theft Auto series. They give you this huge city, lots of people to work with or against, and a plot line you can usually ignore most of the time to go out and do whatever you want. You still have rails, but they are not as present as what you'd find in the Final Fantasy series, which is ironically the most restrictive set of games I've played. They aren't really Roleplaying games as much as they are really really long movies that have you pushing lots of buttons.

Generally, I lean towards games that are abstract and really don't require much of a plot (old school shooters and fighting games) or games that make up for the lack of choice with good writing. Bioshock was *hella* on rails, but it still is one of the best games I've played due to the fantastic characterization (of everyone except the protagonist) and the gut-punch of a plot twist (which was entirely about the protagonist).

A good portion of a game's enjoyment for me actually comes down to the crunchy bits. I like certain RPGs because I find the system fascinating. I really liked Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, but I couldn't give dick about the characters.

And if the sales (by volume, not money earned) of abstract casual games are any indication, most people prefer 'Addictive Puzzle Game 4 Extreme' over 'Final Dragon Prince Tactics'.

Ever play Doctor Mario?

[athelind.livejournal.com]

They aren't really Roleplaying games as much as they are really really long movies that have you pushing lots of buttons.

YES!! YES!! That's it EXACTLY! You got it RIGHT ON THE NOSE! That ONE SENTENCE sums up everything I was trying to say in ALL THOSE PARAGRAPHS!!!!!

Thank you.

[bfdragon.livejournal.com]

Well, when you are killing time, it's more interesting to have buttons to press. To plan out which buttons you have, and to spend some time to try new things then it is to sit on the couch and watch American Idol. TO me at least.

I think for me at least, with a few exceptions, the story has little baring on my interest in a game in the first place. FPSs are more about just reaction time, thinking on your feet. Where MMOs are more about long and short term strategy (character build and combat).. just enough to keep the mind working here and there during the button pushing.

I don't think that comparing it to a table top RPG is completely fair, I don't think anyone is pretending that your character is going to change the world any more then reading a book or watching a movie. I don't think anyone really thinks of them as a Role Playing Game, or expects them to be, it just got (badly) named that way.

I guess, yeah, if you aren't looking to kill time, games aren't for you at all really, and thats fine. Thats what they are for. Just also understand that having friends to waste time with makes it much more enjoyable, so, you are going to get asked to join now and again. };->

[stalbon.livejournal.com]

I am with you, in a way, on what you've described as the rote 'playing' of an MMORPG. For the most part, you can effectively go away for a few moments, and wind up still killing things, even if you hadn't meant to. I don't play that way...it disgusts me, even...but still, even with what I feel is the 'old-school', tied-in way of playing, it's nothing like a 'role'. Even on servers that encourage you to roleplay, you're effectively talking over instant messages in a game, and you're not gaining any further 'role' to play.

So, I'm with you on that. Is it still a fantasy/sci-fi game with fun to be had in it? Yes. But sadly, so too is the tabletop stuff I do, and even there I'm the one who usually sticks to a 'role' and doesn't change that to further meta-game my way to greatness. Somehow, I expect, if I could end up in a game with you and your 'group', I'd find that groove I'm looking for, where dialogue does not shift away to pop culture every two minutes, and I'm not left with people who'd rather sit silent for two hours than play the game.

[bradhicks.livejournal.com]

Hi, found via Google blog search.

Your complaint is a fair one, but it's a function of MMO economics, and the reason why games from SWG to Age of Conan are trying to include parts of the world where guilds can build cities that other players can try to conquer. The main story can't be different from player to player; your $10 or $15 a month doesn't pay them enough to customize the outcome of the story to the actions you take. So yeah, as much as we all hate it, we're not the people driving the story. We're people who were doing our part while a story was going on. We're less Eisenhower and Roosevelt than we are Willy and Joe, because that's what the economics and the tech make possible.

[halfelf.livejournal.com]

As a MMOG game designer and developer, I see this problem a lot. The difficulty is providing content for that many people, reasonably. While not everyone has the need to be an actual 'mover and shaker', there are some that do. But *everyone* wants to at least have the ability to put their mark on the world, to change it in some way that they can point at and say 'I did that'.

What we do in A Tale in the Desert (ATITD) is put the story as firmly in the hands of the player as we can get it. We run active events, active story plots, and the choices (good or bad) are based on the players' actions. We have an active law system, where the players can vote and change the game in some way. Technologies are researched by the players, rather than being opened on the timetable of the developers.

I'll be the first person to say we have failed in several key elements of some of this implementation in Tale 3, which has gone overlong, but we're learning, and trying to implement it better the next time. Each telling has been better than the one before. After all, how many other games reset themselves every year or two and start over?

For MMOGs to survive, the content must be player driven and player created. You give the players the tools to make their own world, how they want. You then add an active storyline that drives this, that acts as a catalyst, and the story comes together. It's collaborative - you tell a story with the players, not tell a story *at* the players. This is the key to true roleplay.

[toob.livejournal.com]

Interestingly, it is precisely the storytelling aspect of computer/console RPGs that first drew me to them. And it is that same storytelling aspect that somewhat disinclines me away from pen and paper RPGs.

I don't WANT to participate in the story -- I will not do as good a job of telling it. My on-the-fly dialogue will never be as witty, crisp, or funny as that written by those with talent and experience. My character arcs will lose focus, lack cohesion, be badly paced. My involvement with the plot will only interrupt and corrupt the artistic vision of the storyteller. Anything that I do, any way that I participate, will ruin the story. There's a reason stories aren't told by committee.

Story is everything for me. It is far too important for me to attempt to meddle with it.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

I've seen you role-play in a tabletop setting, and I have to disagree: you do a terrific job, and your contributions to the collaborative effort add depth and complexity.

I like the unexpected, and, of all the people in the two groups we're in together, you're the one who's taken your characters in the most unexpected, surprising, and entirely logical directions.