Toxic Community and the Illusion of Agency
by jachilli
Bioware has a reputation for storytelling, but it’s taken some hits recently. Over at gamesindustry.biz, I saw an article about the negative environment at Bioware’s social site, however.
Part of the negative attention Bioware has received lately I think comes at the intersection of predetermined narrative and player input. With the negative reception for the conclusion of the Mass Effect trilogy, I think this is a self-created problem for Bioware.
Plainly stated, certain single-player and quest-heavy computer RPGs cultivate the illusion of choice, that you’re in control of the character’s fate. Over time, as the player experiences the game, the illusion grows, but in the end, when the game (or trilogy) concludes, that illusion evaporates abruptly. The end — whether it’s a single ending or one from an array of multiple endings — happens and the player responds with, “What? That wasn’t what should have happened at all!”
And that “should have” is the point of divergence from player expectation and the game-as-product that was delivered. In a scripted storyline, as all narrative-construction games must be, because that’s how they’re coded, the player is not in control of his fate. In tabletop RPGs, the gamemaster can’t help but give a mutually achieved story result. In most computer games, particularly those that rely on scripted stories, it’s all but impossible. Marketing, positioning, and development promises for computer RPGs, however, very often posit just the opposite, that every decision the player makes ultimately collects to create a unique ending that is the culmination of his — the player’s — story.
This simply is not true. In any game with a scripted narrative, the best the player can accomplish is some amount of steering the story toward one of the pre-written eventualities built into the game during development. This has always occurred to me as a weird way to allocate development, as well. Your player won’t see a significant portion of the experience you’re paying to develop. It’s as much movie as game, and the player isn’t really telling his story, he’s only pantomiming his version of the permitted story. I remember seeing a marketing promise about Dragon Age’s story component: The claim was that it had as much “content” — a word that represents a loathsome reduction of the craft of storytelling to a product — as nine fantasy novels! Well, so what? If I wanted to read novels, I’d read novels instead of playing a game. And most of that, the player won’t even see, given that he’s making choices in game that wall off a distinct portion of it. “Features a ponderous volume of writing ill suited to the medium into which it’s been crammed, but don’t worry; you’ll never see most of it” makes for a poor bullet point.
The blame here, unfortunately falls on both sides. It falls on the side of the developer perpetuating the lie that the player controls his fate, when really, he’s in control of (meta)gaming his experience toward his desired result. It also falls on the side of the player for not adequately understanding what he’s buying, or, worse, willfully ignoring that reality. Certainly, the player is less culpable in this arrangement — he’s actively being lied to — but, as the old saying goes, fool the player once, shame on you, but fool the player twice, shame on him. For many players, I believe the potential of the outcome outweighed the inherent limitations of the medium, and then reality intruded.
Games that make this plain don’t suffer the same sort of hostility, at least with regard to the illusion of determination. You’re telling Niko Bellic’s story, or Ezio’s story, or Gordon Freeman’s story: There’s no misstatement there. But when the scope of the degree to which the player’s ownership of that story conflicts with what the player has been led to believe, when the amount of Shepard’s destiny that the player controls is at odds with the amount he’s told he controls, that’s where the letdown of expectations occurs. I’m not generally disposed toward the use of phrases like “entitlement,” but in this case the player has been told one thing and given another. So long that continues happening, especially in the epoch of eight-figure development budgets, the feeling of frustration will persist.

Justin,
Great points and a few questions:
If a designer is creating a game with epic content, shouldn’t they create a game that has mechanics that will encourage multiple playthroughs? I never finished Dragon Age, but I’ve had VtM: Bloodlines installed on my hard drive since the day it came out way back in 2004. Why does an eight-year-old game still get regular playtime from me when an epic multi-million dollar blockbuster doesn’t? I know the answer, but I won’t post it unless asked because it will be exceedingly long.
Do you think it is even possible to create a game where a player has a greater amount of story control over his or her character than say, Dragon Age, without it being an online collaborative endeavor? I remember the Storyteller system that was built into Redemption, which was great for getting World of Darkness games going online, but there’s that word again. Online.
And finally, is a single player game without a tightly driven narrative worth creating in this day and age? I haven’t been hooked into any of the big games like Dragon Age, Skyrim, Fallout 3, etc. They start out well, with a good story, but then when they let me off the leash, I quickly lose interest and go on to something else. Creating an epic narrative that no one else will see isn’t something I want to do. I don’t have this problem with online (MMO) games, as I’m caught up in interacting with actual people and creating my own stories. I have noticed though, that I’m finding most of the “theme park” MMO’s tedious now and pining for something more of a sandbox. The Secret World is keeping my interest though.
Of course, if you’re developing for consoles, I think it’s a different matter entirely, due to input and hardware limits.
I’m not exactly sure where I was going with this, but I think your post is an excellent starting point for a really in-depth analysis of game design. Glad to see you posting more in the new year.
Glad to be back in the habit ;)
For me, the whole experience begins on startup. If I’m creating “my own character,” who I name, etc., then I expect more ability to move around the world and do what I will. I actually found Skyrim to be very good about this — I create my character and explore the world to my heart’s content, perhaps never even bothering with the scripted storyline. But when I make “my own character” who instead must cleave to the scripted storyline, I cash out immediately. This was the case for me with Mass Effect and Dragon Age, in which I create my version of Shepard or my protagonist and instead of telling my story, tell their story. In such a case, just don’t give me the character creation dog and pony show. Let me know that I’m playing Niko or Ezio and don’t pretend that the story is “mine” and we’ll both have a more honest initial foray and I’ll know the terms on which I’m playing.
These games don’t have to be online, as with Skyrim, and even if they are online, the developer can experiment with the relationships between players rather than have them default to a traditional MMO arrangement. The success of Demon’s Souls and Dark Souls, which I actually consider to be very subversive game design, show that there’s an interest in diverging from the meet-up-do-quests-raid-bosses template.
Ah, ok, your first paragraph clears up some of the misconceptions I had about your post then.
I haven’t tried Dark Souls or Demon’s Souls, but I’ve heard they’re hellishly tough. My friends keep badgering me about Skyrim. I might try it, but I almost feel “fantasy-ed out” as it were. Sick to death of elves, swords, and magic.
Skyrim is definitely very stock fantasy, the the scope of the world and the ambition of the world design make it enjoyable once you make it past the generic quest text and bland city encounters.
As to Dark Souls and Demon’s Souls, I think their difficulty is a very strong part of their appeal. They’re crazy hard, but the interesting and risk-taking multiplayer element is unlike anything else in games right now.
I quite enjoyed Dragon Age and never felt that my agency was beyond seeing what happened next. I like exploration games, and narrative is another kind of exploration.
I finished DA a few times, but Bloodlines not once. I’ve played through KoTOR more than a few times. I do buy these games to buy into the story, yes, but to engage it at a pace that suits me and to play a game well-done.
Absolutely, narrative is definitely a part of exploration. I find that the exploration of narrative by design exhausts itself more quickly than exploration of spaces and the systems that allow me to interact with them, however. Of course, such is a matter of taste.
Here’s an interesting article about exploring and agency, with particular attention to narrative.
http://fronttowardsgamer.com/2012/10/12/needs-banner-playing-your-way-control-within-video-games/
I do not really agree on the analysis.
We could compare multiple games, their cons and their pros, but it would be better to pick two examples:
In Skyrim, for the assassin’ missions (which were cool!), I had to murder a woman the day of her wedding. At first, I was quite reluctant because, hey, murder of someone who appeared to be an average innocent… Then I remembered it was a game without consequences, so I did it, and racked the experience points and loot, and moved toward the next mission. Yay. It felt mechanical. Every single NPC was a character sheet with hit points, and sometimes generic quests.
It felt generic.
I recently started a new Dragon Age mage character, and I had to choose between helping my mage apprentice friend flee with his lover, or betray him to the Circle of Mages. No matter my choice, I knew it had little or no consequences in the game… But I spent time reflecting on it, because, f*ck, he was my friend. I even started one path, before reloading and chosing the other, just because…
It felt personal.
I guess I’m there as much for the story (even if railroaded) as I am for the characters and how I interact with them. Of course it is an illusion, but then Hobbits and Jedi don’t exist, too. As long as it is well storytelled, I suspend my disbelief and play along. And it works.
In the end, the thing is not about the larger story. No matter what, a video game’s RPG will at best seem like those “Choose Your Own Adventure” books. And I accept that.
No, in the end, this is more about how I play/live that story, how I make some inconsequencial choices, but also how I make the few important ones (history-wise), and how it affect (or seem to affect) the characters and the story. It is more about how I can compare notes with my friends because their Shepard cured the Genophage/sided with the quarians/let the council die while mine did not, and why.
Like some old saying: It’s less about the destination, and more about the journey.
I guess the people who love Bioware-like games share the same viewpoint: It’s ok to have a few railroads, but let me play *my* character, because I don’t give a damn about Niko Bellic, or Ezio, or Gordon Freeman.
P.S.: As about Bioware’s self-created problem, I disagree, too. IMHO, it can be summarized (for Mass Effect 3) as a rookie mistake (making the enemy so powerful there’s no credible way to vanquish it at the end without some kind of deus ex maquina or space magic) and a lack of closure (remember the part where I wrote I cared about the NPCs?) that ruined the conclusion of the story (the last 10 minutes), despite the remaining 95% of the game being epic.