Separator
Dealing with the Consequences
Default_picture
Monday, July 13, 2009

Editor's Note: Matthew Erazo gives some developers some food for thought. Great idea? Or will it usher in a new era of $!%^@* thrown controllers and $!%^@* swearing? -Shoe



The consequences of our actions is something we never want to deal with. We don't want to deal with the fallout of a relationship, the dissolution of a friendship, or the forehead-slapping stupidity of a mistake. As human beings, we don't want to make mistakes, or if we have made them, learn from them and move on as soon as possible. It's no surprise then, that we don't want to deal with them in our videogames either.

Why should we, though? Games are meant to entertain us, let us escape from reality, or be someone completely different than ourselves. The experiences of our digital avatars become manifestations of what we aspire to become or fantasize about doing since the real world certainly doesn't allow you to attach chain blades to your arms and destroy a god.

Yet, what do we do when we are forced to face the consequences of our actions in videogames? We reload a previous save and make sure we don't make that mistake again.

I propose that in certain games, this feature be banned. Outraged? Hear me out.

 

One of my favorite games is one that was lambasted for having a limited save system: Dead Rising. In Dead Rising, you were only allowed one save slot that was constantly overridden with each new autosave. This was implemented to force the gamer into multiple playthroughs of the game as it was meant to played. Pretty sadistic on the surface, but I saw it under a different light.

See, in the game you had to rescue survivors scattered around the zombie infested mall. Get them back to the safe room in one piece and you gained bonuses. If they died, that was it, they were done for, and you couldn't reload to save them. What made it even better: If one of the them died, you would see them as a zombie later on, further reinforcing the fact that you let them die and have to live with that. This created tension every time I ventured out to find more helpless souls. Would I be able to save this group? Am I up to the task?

I may be projecting feelings that probably weren't there, but that is the point. I felt something toward this game because I was forced to deal with my consequences. It elicited an emotional response out of me, something that many games strive for today and fail at miserably. How can you feel an emotional connection to anything you do in The Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion if you can simply reload a previous save if you made the wrong moral choice?

Or how about in the original Fable? Toward the end, you are faced with a final choice: Throw in the evil sword won from Jack of Blades or keep it and succumb to the evil. You can simply save before this moment, make your choice and then reload to see the other ending. While this does make it easier on gamers, it robs you of any emotion you may feel toward this decision.

Are you ready to deal with the consequence?


There are games that do force you to face your decisions. But do it without being so overt as not letting you reload, and many of us will consider them the greatest games ever. BioShock made you the puppet of Atlus by using the common progression of a game against you with three simple words spoken before each objective. By the time you reached Andrew Ryan, you were forced to watch as you acted against your will, and then you were presumably left to die. This made you feel an "Oh my God" moment and made the game's story stick in your mind.

In Shadow of the Colossus, you bring a loved one to an altar in the hopes that you can find a way to resurrect her and are told to slay the 16 beasts roaming this land to achieve this. As the player, you are not given a concrete reason, but your goal is to save this girl. As you progress along this path, you feel more and more apprehensive about your actions, but this is part of the game. You must kill these colossi in order to achieve victory and get the girl. For those of you who know how the game ends, you know the consequences, and it almost certainly got a response out of you.

You'll do anything for a loved one. Why not in a game, too?


This way of thinking doesn't need to be the only way to make us feel anything about our games, but it's an important step on the way there. In order to gain the emotion and storytelling that we as gamers want out of the medium, we have to embrace the fact that we must face the consequences of our actions. Only then can the game grab us, make us apart of its world, and tell a story that we can react to emotionally. It's then that games can become the medium where the greatest stories can be told.

 
0
BITMOB'S SPONSOR
Adsense-placeholder
Comments (7)
Darkeavy
July 08, 2009
Your point is spot on. Oblivion made me almost lethargic to my moral choices. I could reload the save and not really care or feel anything. With Bioshock, saving the little sisters was important to me, and in a game play sense it was a real choice.

I was tempted to "see what would happen", and battling with my need to have all the upgrades. Moral Choices can really work in games if done right. Even if its not a clear black and white choice.
Me_and_luke
July 08, 2009
Interesting article. I feel like you're giving a little bit too much credit to BioShock, however (Huh, I never thought I'd say that). While, yes, throughout the story you are spellbound by Atlas' 'Would you kindly,' it isn't as if that phrase is actually affecting you. You can't say "Wow, I would have been able to play this game so much differently if Atlas wasn't controlling me." The developers didn't create an alternate story with the absence of Atlas. In fact, you don't even learn of the phrase until well into the story. Furthermore, BioShock is also similar to Oblivion in that saves are infinite (I probably saved somewhere around 100-200 times going for the hardcore "Brass Balls" achievement). Did harvesting that Little Sister make your stomach churn? You don't want to live with that on your conscience? Load that previous save!

But, as a whole, the current system is tried and true. Not being able to save constantly would have had me pulling my hair out. I do think it would be cool to see an IP release in the future where there are no saves, and if you do die, you have to start the game entirely over. Now that would truly influence the choices I make throughout the game.

Good article though, Matthew, I enjoy your views.
Default_picture
July 09, 2009
@Bryan, I wasn't trying to imply that you could realize what Atlas was saying and defi him. I meant that you were progressing without knowing what you were doing until the game revealed it to you and you had to face the consequence. It was a great moment for people because of the fact that you couldn't reload the game and then say, "Well, I'm not going to Fontaine's Fisheries!"

As for the game that forces you to play without saves and death is permament, it's a good idea and I would like to see that game made.

Thanks for your comment
Why__hello
July 09, 2009
Dammit! You beat me to the punch. I was going to write about this. But luckily, you did the idea justice. You've essentially touched upon (in great detail and style) all the points and notions I wanted to discuss.

Brilliant article. Keep em' coming.
36752_1519184584690_1386800604_1423744_1678461_n
July 14, 2009
My one problem with your article is this: You spoiled Bioshock, a 2007 release, but kept the ending of shadow of the colussus, a 2005 release. Kind of weird.
Default_picture
July 14, 2009
I strongly agree with the statement of this article, Matthew. In order to elicit an emotional response, your actions need to have an actual consequence that cannot be reversed. This is one of the major reasons I am looking forward to BioWare's SW:tOR, their new MMO. One of the things being played up in the hype for that game is the fact that you can actually make choices akin to the ones in KotOR, and the choices actually stick; your story is persistent. Now, all we have to do is hope this system works. I personally have high hopes for it.

However, now that I am done agreeing with you, it is time to play Devil's Advocate. Speaking of Dead Rising, I had the opposite response to the save system. You see, because the save system forced me to continue anyway, no matter if I saved the group of survivors or not, I quickly found myself not caring about them. I would see the little icon pop up over the head of a struggling survivor, perhaps pause for a second, then say screw it and continue on, because I only had a certain amount of time to get to the next mission. For the first little while, I really tried to be the hero, to save these people, but it was way too much of a hassle. I kept running from place to place, and it just felt like a job. I was not having fun. So then I stopped and in the free time between missions, I just went out and killed zombies with the lawn mower.

So I wonder, if more games took on this type of save system, one that kept your play-through and story persistent, would playing the game elicit an actual response, or would it become like a job. Would you stop caring and just want to keep going to see how the story ends.
Default_picture
July 14, 2009
I think there are several major obstacles to games forcing us to deal with the consequences of our actions.

1) Game Developers are busy as it is. Every branching path requires two times as much content for everything following that path--more, if there's more than one path. As it is, most branching pathways either result in an immediate reward or punishment and no further comment. Occasionally, there will be a small sidequest that gets locked off, or a character that will react to you differently, but nothing related to the main plot is affected. That makes perfect sense--developers spend years working on games, and it's stupid to prevent gamers from seeing the content they've worked so hard to create.

Ideally, a game would allow every action to have a consequence--for example, if you could protect Uriel Septim VII from his assassination at the beginning of Oblivion instead of being automatically killed off--but that ultimately means the designers have to design *two* main quests. And then two more for each of *those* main quests for every game-altering decision made at the next step. And so on. Pretty soon, the designers have thousands of different questlines to design, and any one player will only see a small fraction of them. Plus, with so many scenarios, it winds up being impossible to test, iterate upon, improve, and polish any individual experience. The decision regarding whether or not to emphasize consequences can easily turn into "Is the gamer's experience the same as their friend's but really good, or different from their friend's but not particularly fun?"

2) Gamers are systematically trained to solve puzzles. Many view the game itself as a puzzle, using the term "solve" to describe completing a game. Even combat is a puzzle--it's a combination of a strategy problem, a resource-management problem, and (in many games) a reflex test. It's no surprise that, when reflected with an ethical dilemma, gamers will view it as a puzzle--"How can I get the most out of this situation?" After hours of seeing failure as something that results in death, and success as something that results in a reward, the ethics of the situation are ignored in favor of the inevitable reward the game developers will offer for a "right" answer. Karma systems are an attempt to solve this issue, but they fail miserably, turning "good" and "evil" into merely two strategies for min-maxing.

3) Games are long. As a gamer, if I know I'm going to be playing something for 20 hours, I want the experience to be a good one. I don't want to feel like I'm missing out on what could have been a *better* experience. If I don't choose the "right" option, or I do something that causes the game to cut me off from part of the experience, I feel like I've screwed up. I feel like I'm playing the game wrong. Many dedicated, hardcore gamers go back and play it again the "right" way. Slightly-less-dedicated ones save and retry until they get a result they can live with. I'm even less dedicated than that. When I sit down with a Bioware game or a Bethesda game, I feel compelled to pull out a FAQ and map out what I'm supposed to do so I can play it the "right" way the first time and so I don't miss anything. That process makes the game so un-fun that I usually get too stressed out to continue by halfway through.

Ultimately, I see a two-part solution.

First, games that want to explore consequences need to be short enough for players to finish quickly and replay, both for the sake of the developers' workloads and for the sake of the player's mental health. Make a game that's meant to be played several times, with a completion time that's reasonable for a single sitting. At that length, it's reasonable to present someone with a completely different experience whether they go left or right, and a gamer won't feel compelled to min-max it so they have the "right" experience--at least, not the first time.

Second, the choices and consequences they offer require nuance. Instead of making the "right" choice rewarding, or offering "good" points for the "good" choice and "evil" points for the "evil" choice, make me experience conflict. Have "good" require sacrifice on my part, rather than reward me. Make "evil" hugely rewarding but guilt-inducing. Put me in a situation that makes me understand why good people do bad things. Don't necessarily make choices backfire on me, but make them not work or turn out differently than I expect. If the choices stop feeling like a dialog puzzle to be "won" or "lost," perhaps the gamers won't treat it so much like one.
You must log in to post a comment. Please register or Connect with Facebook if you do not have an account yet.