Contrasting User-Driven Play With Developer Vision

GameSetWatch is running an opinion piece (sparked by a lecture at NYU by Deus Ex developer Warren Spector) about the difference between game experiences that are specifically planned by the game's creators and experiences that are either constructed by players or arise unexpectedly. Quoting: "One thing Spector said during the NYU discussion was that he feels multiplayer games are 'lazy.' This is the designer in him talking, of course — his theory that in letting players build stories via Left 4 Dead-style happy accidents in open worlds, the designer doesn't have to tackle complex challenges like making choices meaningful, or making characters believable. Spector wants to take on those challenges, and he doesn't like the idea that user-driven play, from his standpoint, effectively allows game design to bypass them. It's actually an idea I relate to a lot as a writer — I was raised in an era of authoritative media, when individual voices drove culture, opinion and information. The internet's changed everything, of course; the authoritative voice has evolved into a conversation between writer and audience, and the writer now leads the community discussion rather than acting as a single determiner, a unilateral judge."

Comments

Who is asking for it?

[plover]

Who wants to be always led about by the nose through every adventure? We did that before.

Rigid story lines have all the staying power of cut scenes. They're fun once or twice, but then they get in the way of game play, and it doesn't take long for the average player to <esc> their way past them.

Multiplayer is about "players". Let them play with each other. A wizened NPC that tells you "You must not enter the Dungeon of Doom until you have brought me the Ring of Gold" is fine in single player mode, but a group of friends doesn't want to grind, they want to play together.

Re:Who is asking for it?

[White Flame]

but a group of friends doesn't want to grind, they want to play together.

Play what? Play how? Also, they don't want to grind, but they want to "play"? What are they going go play at besides grinding in a typical MMO? That pretty much encompasses the entire gameplay, unless you're talking about characters just playing dressup, chatting, and running around for the heck of it.

Some really get into plot & environment of their world, actually roleplaying within it. Others simply see game mechanics to exploit for greater achievement. Then you've got the griefers and trolls. "Let them play with each other" is a pretty meaningless statement. Defining what "play" is still needs to be done; which brings up what types of enjoyment can be had from it; which leads to defining the world's characteristics, available mechanics, and affectable facets.

Leaving that sort of design out leaves you with things like Second Life.

One word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nethack.

Re:Different challenges.

[Sentry21]

The same thing happens in World of Warcraft. A new 70-man raid instance is made available, and all the high-level, best-gear-available guilds on the server all start hitting it, doing it as much as they can, trying and trying desperately to be the first to beat it.

Eventually, one group beats it, and then there's a cascade. The second group finishes it, maybe faster. Then the third. Then 60 people. Then 40. Eventually you have three hotshots essentially solo'ing something that used to be nearly incomprehensible.

In a lot of cases, it's just a progression of knowledge and skill. Once you know exactly what needs doing, you can refine it further and further, hone the edge sharper and sharper, until you can make one swift stroke instead of the dozens it once took.

Re:Rise of the idiots

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Do you seriously think that professional journalism is anything more than idiots with training in sensationalism? When New Scientist will have articles on zero point energy and 20/20 will run segments on engines that run on water or even free energy machines? Or that the bulk media runs the moon landing conspiracy theories?

Nothing has changed. Idiots will be idiots and like attracts like. Anyone smart will know not to listen.

Re:Why do they have to be mutually exclusive?

[wildstoo]

I get the feeling that Spector is still butthurt from when Quake 3 Arena (probably the epitome of what Spector is referring to - a plotless multiplayer game) outsold Deus Ex by a considerable margin.

There's room for both types of games, and I don't think there's much laziness involved in developing a fun, balanced, competitive multiplayer game. I mean there are plenty of godawful single-player "experiences" one could point at to refute Spector's claim.

It's not multiplayer free-for all vs. single-player guided experience, it's good game vs bad game.

I love most of the games Spector has had a role in developing, but that particular comment seems misguided. Of course, there's no direct quote in TFA so context is lacking.

Having run and played P&P rpgs for years

[internerdj]

Letting the players have too much control for too long ends up getting boring for most of your players.

Stop bashing journalism

[Nerdposeur]

Do you seriously think that professional journalism is anything more than idiots with training in sensationalism?

Do you seriously think that professional programming is anything more than malicious hackers with day jobs? Oh wait. Not everyone who works in the same profession has the same moral character and goals.

When I worked as a newspaper writer, I did try to write stories that would keep government accountable, point people to good things happening in their community, and generally make the world a better place.

There is a lot of crappy journalism out there. But it's ridiculous to make a blanket statement about everyone who works in the field. You depend on journalists a lot more than you realize.