Vogel's Thoughts on Storytelling and Game Design

[Juan Carlo]

Maybe this has been posted before, so if it has mods feel free to move it, but I though it was interesting:

 

 

It's Jeff giving a speech on how he conceives of storytelling in gaming--especially as far as Avadon is concerned. It's worth a watch.

[Juan Carlo]

Several totally, totally, random thoughts:

 

1. Those questions at the end were a bit boring. I would have loved to hear his thoughts on how he finds the right balance between player freedom and more linear storytelling. It seems like G5 and Avadon stand at the end of either of that spectrum, so I would have loved to hear which model he prefers, which model he thinks is more financially viable, and which model he thinks results in better storytelling vs better game play.

 

This is something that I think Vogel is in a great place to answer too just because I've always seen the gameplay of the GEneforge series as wrestling with this exact issue. You have the earlier 2 which go more the sandbox route, then you have 3 which goes completely in a more linear progression, followed by 4 which attempts some sort of compromise before 5 which seems to do everything (plot, freedom, choice) and more (and succeed at it all brilliantly). So I'd love to get the chance to sit him down and pick his brain about each of the games and what he learned about the nature of story telling and its impact on gameplay and freedom through out the course of making them. But that's another conference, I guess.

 

2. I like Bioware as much as anyone (seriously, I played through the entire ME franchise twice! And have played all their other games at least once), but personally I wouldn't hold them up as the best story tellers working today. I would, however, say that they are maybe the most adept at marrying depth of storytelling with marketability--which is perhaps why Vogel mentions them (given that the speech is focused primarily on how good story can make your game more marketable). This, for me, usually means that Bioware makes solid games, but they rarely wow you. I often wish they would innovate a bit more (and they certainly tried to with ME3, which was awesome, but given the fan reaction I doubt they will try that again, which is a shame).

 

Anyhow, I just wonder if Vogel has ever played any of the Witcher games? I personally think that CDProjekt is the best RPG studio working right now when it comes to story telling, depth of character, and interesting world design. There's also Obsidian who I think have been the gold standard for more than a decade (although usually their games are so buggy that no one notices what great writers they are).

 

3. It was nice to hear that Redbeard was based on Bartok's Bluebeard. Vogel doesn't seem to have much love for Opera, but by sheer coincidence I was actually listening to Bluebeard's Castle a lot while playing Avadon. Weird coincidence.

[Death Knight]

It really was a great video. Hopefully Jeff keeps making videos like that and if anything, the more bioware the better.

[Enraged Slith]

Originally Posted By: Death Knight

...the more bioware the better.

I think the world could do with a few less cyber-harems, personally.

[Sudanna]

That's never been a legitimate complaint for Bioware's games. You spend the vaaaaast majority of your time murdering people and things, you can only pick one, and all possible lone harem members are optional.

[MMXPERT-seraph of thermodynamics]

Bioware and Geneforge...

 

heh.

[Death Knight]

One of the things Ive always wondered about jeff's games was why all of the single create a character rpgs (like geneforge and avadon) that he makes, almost always have a better story than games like nethergate and avernum where you create a party.

 

It seems like it might just be that jeff has mentioned that his writing has gotten better over the years.

[Enraged Slith]

Originally Posted By: Null id

That's never been a legitimate complaint for Bioware's games. You spend the vaaaaast majority of your time murdering people and things, you can only pick one, and all possible lone harem members are optional.

When I played Mass Effect 2, all conversations with every single crew member wound up being about sex. Some even started that way. This isn't an exaggeration. Bioware games have become virtual harems for sexual deviants who want a little power fantasy on the side.

[GoodOld Jack]

I never found Bioware to be a very good game company and I really don't know what Jeff sees in them. I have not and will not play a game by them since Jade Empire which actually wasn't that bad but still wasn't that great either.

 

Mass Effect is supposed to be a roleplaying game but has guns which don't work in rpgs. Dragon Age is said to be a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, yet Baldur's Gate surpasses it in every way. Neverwinter Nights was terrible and buggy as anything. The only game that they made other than Baldur's Gate that had a really good story was Kotor1.

[adc.]

Originally Posted By: MMXPERT

Bioware and Geneforge...

heh.

Valve and Geneforge/SpiderWeb Software
Mojang and Avernum/SpiderWeb Software

heh.

[nikki.]

Originally Posted By: GoodOld Jack

Mass Effect is supposed to be a roleplaying game but has guns which don't work in rpgs.

Huh? Why do you think this - guns have as much a place in RPGs as swords and spells do. I mean, nobody would argue that Final Fantasy or Fallout aren't RPGs, and games in those franchises feature guns prominently.

[Sudanna]

. . . Guns work perfectly well in RPGs. I assume you mean manually-aimed weapons, because games like Final Fantasy or KotOR have guns all over the place and are unquestionably RPGs. And I don't see why that would be any different from manually-aimed melee or magic or bow attacks, which are also commonplace. RPGs are less about specific mechanics and more about a the story's design and the role of the player.

 

Mass Effect's a great game, and very much an RPG. The sequels lose a lot of that, though. How do you know anything about Dragon Age if you haven't played it? It's also really good. It's got flaws, but, well, so does every game. I haven't played Baldur's Gate, and I am as sure that Dragon Age is better as you are that it isn't. I'll agree with you on NWN. Bugs and poor design ruined that for me. Direct translations from D&D to video games are never as cool as that sounds. Bioware tends to make quality stories. Not extremely interesting or groundbreaking or thoughtful stories, but relatively well-crafted and well-written, and sprinkled with good characters.

[Erebus the Black]

Originally Posted By: Nikki.

Huh? Why do you think this - guns have as much a place in RPGs as swords and spells do. I mean, nobody would argue that Final Fantasy or Fallout aren't RPGs, and games in those franchises feature guns prominently.

And let's not forget Shadowrun and Wasteland

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Null id

. . . Guns work perfectly well in RPGs. I assume you mean manually-aimed weapons, because games like Final Fantasy or KotOR have guns all over the place and are unquestionably RPGs. And I don't see why that would be any different from manually-aimed melee or magic or bow attacks, which are also commonplace. RPGs are less about specific mechanics and more about a the story's design and the role of the player.

Hell, Alpha Protocol might be one of the most paradigmatically "RPGish" RPGs released by a mainstream studio in the past decade, and it has guns. Admittedly that game's gunplay mechanics are kind of awful but that doesn't make the RPG elements not exist. Or look at Deus Ex -- the original, if you don't like Human Revolution. Half of what makes that game an RPG is the risks and rewards involved in different courses of action, including using guns.

[Alorael at Large]

Mass Effect does go the FPS route more heavily than traditional RPGs, but with the ability to pause and the heavily stat-oriented system, it's not a big problem. From the story side, Mass Effect is one of the most roleplayish big-name games in a long time: you make choices, and they have effects.

 

You can also think that Baldur's Gate is better than Dragon Age and still like Dragon Age. After all, there's only so many times you can play BG sequentially. Why not mix it up with another game once in a while?

 

—Alorael, who doesn't think Wasteland and Shadowrun are particularly good examples. The former is older than many Spiderwebbers, and the sequel is still being made and could be awful. The latter has a couple of decent but not amazing console games, a PC game that's not an RPG, and two forthcoming versions that might be awful.

[Erebus the Black]

I was referring to this wasteland ,

Are we talking about the same thing?

And I even read it esveral times before posting to prevent this sort of thing, and it still happened :facepalm:

(or maybe Alorel edited without marking the edit, but that's probably just my paranoia)

[Tyranicus]

Originally Posted By: אבדן

I was referring to this wasteland ,
Are we talking about the same thing?

Yes, you are. Alorael said that it is older than many Spiderwebbers. As it came out in 1988, that description is accurate.

[Alorael at Large]

I didn't edit anything, silently or otherwise. And I don't understand what's confusing. It's an old game. It's older than the first popular graphical web browser. It's so old a fair amount of the game's text had to be provided as printed material.

 

—Alorael, who confesses to not having played the original. In fact, he also didn't play its spiritual sequels, the Fallout games, until they were considered old (although not the way Wasteland is now!). And he hasn't played the newer, 3D Fallouts. They're not old yet.

[adc.]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

look at Deus Ex -- the original, if you don't like Human Revolution. Half of what makes that game an RPG is the risks and rewards involved in different courses of action, including using guns.

Machina? Widowmaker? So, Deus Ex was an RPG?
----------
-A

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: "A"

Machina? Widowmaker? So, Deus Ex was an RPG?

It's generally considered one, yes.

[Death Knight]

One of the only things I didnt like with guns in games was Fallout 1 and 2, guns were universally so lethal to the point where I dont rightly know if it's possible to get through the game with melee, unarmed or something else. This is not to say I didnt love playing the game with my critical hit pistol user, but I thought it would have been cool if the game could be played the other way.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Death Knight

One of the only things I didnt like with guns in games was Fallout 1 and 2, guns were universally so lethal to the point where I dont rightly know if it's possible to get through the game with melee, unarmed or something else. This is not to say I didnt love playing the game with my critical hit pistol user, but I thought it would have been cool if the game could be played the other way.

Melee and unarmed are both absolutely viable options in both Fallout 1 and 2. In fact, unarmed is my favourite way to play Fallout 2: it makes your life easier in the early game before decent guns are available, there are a couple of events that are only open to unarmed combatants, and the HtH Evade perk can eventually be abused to make you almost unhittable.

[Alorael at Large]

Originally Posted By: Death Knight

One of the only things I didnt like with guns in games was Fallout 1 and 2, guns were universally so lethal to the point where I dont rightly know if it's possible to get through the game with melee, unarmed or something else.

Because spears and fists against firearms works well in real life?

—Alorael, who wishes Fallout had the courage of its convictions and made melee severely disadvantaged against firearms unless you managed to start out right next to the guys with guns.

[Juan Carlo]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

Hell, Alpha Protocol might be one of the most paradigmatically "RPGish" RPGs released by a mainstream studio in the past decade, and it has guns.

Alpha Protocol is super underrated. Sure the combat's a bit boring, but very few games do choice and consequences better than that one. If you play RPGs primarily to "write your own story," so to speak, then I'd recommend that one.

[Enraged Slith]

Originally Posted By: The praxis of practice

Originally Posted By: Death Knight

One of the only things I didnt like with guns in games was Fallout 1 and 2, guns were universally so lethal to the point where I dont rightly know if it's possible to get through the game with melee, unarmed or something else.

Because spears and fists against firearms works well in real life?

—Alorael, who wishes Fallout had the courage of its convictions and made melee severely disadvantaged against firearms unless you managed to start out right next to the guys with guns.

I don't know about Fallout 1 and 2, but I know that going into melee in Tactics is generally a losing proposition. The melee weapons don't scale with the guns, and the later enemies will kill you in a single burst if you don't manage to drop them immediately.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Ex- -X-

That's never been a legitimate complaint for Bioware's games. You spend the vaaaaast majority of your time murdering people and things, you can only pick one, and all possible lone harem members are optional.

In Jade Empire, it's possible to romance both Silk Fox and Dawn Star as a female. I don't know about you, but that seems pretty close to a "virtual harem" to me.

I mean, generally speaking, Bioware doesn't even do a particularly good job with their romances from a storytelling point of view, at least not relative to other parts of their stories/characters. It's all either blatant fanservice or an attempt to shovel as much tragedy as possible in to make it seem meaningful. The best relationship in Mass Effect from a character standpoint was probably Samara's (Jack's being a close second), and that consists of her standing you up and leaving.

[Sudanna]

. . . You can't romance Dawn Star at all as a female. You can have either Dawn Star, Silk Fox, or Sky as a male, or either Silk Fox or Sky as a female. You have to pick.

 

I'll agree that the romances are often shoehorned in and don't always make sense, but that's not the same thing as calling the games dating simulators. And it's also a trait shared with many other aspects of the games.

 

Personally, I found Liara's romance in ME3 to be done well, though in ME1 they're all just silly. Jack was good, and Tali was. . . acceptable, I guess. It wasn't nonsense. Samara's reaction fit her perfectly.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Ex- -X-

. . . You can't romance Dawn Star at all as a female. You can have either Dawn Star, Silk Fox, or Sky as a male, or either Silk Fox or Sky as a female. You have to pick.

...Nnno, you don't. My point was not that "You can romance Dawn Star OR Silk Fox, but that you can romance DS AND SF. As in, threesome. As in, pointless fantasy that serves no purpose beyond fanservice and detracts from the game and characters.

I mean, I'm not arguing that this outweighs all the other excellent parts of the game (People who know me are aware I am of the opinion it is Bioware's best game), but it certainly detracts from the rest in a noticeable way, and the game would have been better had it not been included, which is what I am starting to think about Bioware romances in general.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

...Nnno, you don't. My point was not that "You can romance Dawn Star OR Silk Fox, but that you can romance DS AND SF. As in, threesome. As in, pointless fantasy that serves no purpose beyond fanservice and detracts from the game and characters.

you can actually only do that as a male character though. not that that makes it any better but still

[Sudanna]

. . . I am absolutely positive that you cannot romance Dawn Star at all as a female, threesome or not. I guess I don't actually know about playing as a male.

 

I dunno, the romances being strictly optional nullifies any negatives of them for me. I pick the one I like or none at all and that's the end of it.

[keira]

i thought this was mass effect not the sims

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Ex- -X-

I dunno, the romances being strictly optional nullifies any negatives of them for me.

you know what else is strictly optional? playing the game

[Sudanna]

Yeah, and if you don't play the game, you don't have to complain about it, and if you play it and have nothing good to say about it, you clearly made a mistake. It's like any other option in Mass Effect - Oh, I hate the idea of, say, killing the Rachni Queen. So I don't do that; I free her instead. I don't then go on to complain about how horrible it was that I had the option to kill her. That part of the story doesn't exist for me, and the romances need not exist for anyone not interested in them.

 

It's just another way to build characters and a story and I certainly don't see why it's automatically invalid. Some of them are done poorly, but that doesn't mean the entire concept of a romance subplot in a game is unacceptable. Real people who shoot people will often have romantic relationships with other people. In a character-driven story like Mass Effect, it would seem oddly lacking to me to not have that option available.

 

You know, threesomes are a thing in real life that real people sometimes do too. I'm not sure why they're being held up as some sort of ultimate fanservice. Depends on the characters, of course, but, for example, in Dragon Age, the sorta hidden option for a three-to-foursome was entirely plausible, since it consisted of Zevran, Isabella, a post-character-quest Leliana, and your blank-slate Warden. The one up there with Dawn Star and Silk Fox is done poorly, since they loathe each other, but that's no reason to condemn the entire structure.

 

I'm not naive, and I know why some of these exist - there is such a thing as fanservice, but I really don't think that Mass Effect is the game to accuse of it. Not intentionally, anyways. For the problems with the various subpar romance plots, I tend to point more towards authorial incompetence than intentional manipulation.

[Alorael at Large]

If there were no romance, some fans would have legitimate complaints about the absence of it. High pressure situation, likable brothers and sisters in arms (unfortunate choice of words, there!), facing death. Romance, or at least hormones, often blossom under those circumstances.

 

—Alorael, who agrees that complaining about the existence of a part of the game you don't like but also don't have to interact with is odd. No one is really hurt by other people watching character romances.

[Erebus the Black]

I think that if it's like in Baldur's gate 2 where you have to pick one (and only that one will remain) or they both ditch you (meaning you can't prevent them from falling in love with you and still have them as a party member), then it's pretty bad. Then it's not optional, it's forced and it truly diminished my enjoyment of the game.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Vortical integration

If there were no romance, some fans would have legitimate complaints about the absence of it. High pressure situation, likable brothers and sisters in arms (unfortunate choice of words, there!), facing death. Romance, or at least hormones, often blossom under those circumstances.

i don't see people complaining about call of duty's lack of romances

[Sudanna]

Does CoD even have more than one gender in it? Also, it's not a character-driven story, there's no choices or roleplaying in it (unless you want to roleplay "guy who prefers x method of attack", and seriously are you comparing ME to CoD?