Why allow players choice?

drt.gif (46685 bytes)

19 September 2008

Since I began my interactive fiction "game" project, I've been asking myself over and over: Why do I want to make an interactive experience? Why not just write a story?

My initial answer was:

The experience (story or game) will be delivered through a computer. Computers are good at interactivity. Therefore, I should make the experience interactive to take maximum advantage of my platform.

While this reason is correct, it's incomplete.

Interactivity comes at a cost. It introduces all sorts of problems that non-interactive entertainment (stories) doesn't have:

Extremely difficult to control the interactive experience - Stories work (in large part) because the author decides exactly what happens in the story. What, when, where, how, and why are all carefully controlled. This lets authors to create experiences that keep the player in suspense, make them laugh or cry at the right moments, and, in general, keep the players turning pages. (See the Immersion-emotion feedback loop.)

In an interactive experience, authors can only encourage events to happen. In her books, J. K. Rowling ensures that Dumbledore will die. In a game (interactive experience), Dumbledore's death isn't guaranteed. The player might make a decision at some point that saves Dumbledore. (Interactive entertainments where Dumbledore is doomed to die, regardless of the player's choices, are weakened whenever the player's hand is forced. See Choices 3.)
Eye candy (immersion) is more expensive in interactive entertainment - Eye candy is necessary for immersion. When movies are filmed, only those parts of the sets that will be seen by the camera are actually built. The entire set must be constructed for an interactive experience because players can and will wander anywhere. On top of that, when barriers are created to prevent players wandering off the set, players get annoyed; an ideal game world is so huge that players rarely encounter the edge of the world.
Realistic NPCs are difficult - Writing realistic NPCs (characters) into a story is challenging. Creating realistic NPCs in a game is (at the moment) impossible, and even unrealistic NPCs are difficult to code up. Less-realistic NPCs hinder both immersion and emotion.
Other players - One of the strengths of interactive entertainment is the ability for players to play together. This extra dimension, while making the experience richer, also makes it more challenging for the author; There are griefers, players telling each other cheats, players accidentally ruining another player's experience, etc.
Give players an inch and they'll want a mile - Provide limited choice to players, and they'll expect even more choice.

These are enormous problems, which make me wonder why I even bother trying to write interactive entertainment.

Interactive entertainment has its advantages though:

Emotional "flavor" enhancer - When Dumbledore dies, readers feel sad because (a) they've grown to like Dumbledore, and (b) Harry is distraught by Dumbledore's death. J. K. Rowling has written the Harry Potter character so readers will empathize with Harry, allowing Harry to become the reader's "friend". If your friend's friend dies, you empathize and feel sad for your friend.

With interactive entertainment, if a player's choice caused Dumbledore's death, the player would feel distraught (just like Harry), an emotion much stronger than the saddness they feel from the same event in the story. (Important: To be a valid choice, the player must also be provided with a way to save Dumbledore's life.)

MMORPGs and CRPGs provide another example: When Harry Potter "levels up" and learns a new spell, the reader is "ho hum" about the achievement. However, when a player (playing Harry Potter) levels up in a CRPG or MMORPG, they're much more excited.

So what does this mean for games? Choices should not merely result in consequences, but choices should result in emotional consequences! The emotions resulting from the choice will be enhanced because the player made the choice.
A better simulation of reality (better immersion) - As a first-order approximation, the more accurately an experience simulates reality, the more immersive it is. That's why eye candy is important. That's why realistic NPCs are important... and pointing out the obvious: People make choices in real life. A story (non-interactive entertainment) does not let readers make choices, so even though stories can have great eye candy and NPCs, they get docked a few immersion points for not allowing choices.
Gameplay - Interactive entertainment enables gameplay (and puzzles), something that's impossible in stories. Gameplay is immersive and emotion-producing in its own right. Games even evoke some emotions that are difficult for stories to produce, such as "success" and "defeating an enemy".

Notice that I'm differentiating gameplay from the interactive experience! Even though contemporary thinking assumes that all interactive experiences on computers (aka: "games") must be 90% gameplay, it's possible to make an interactive experience without any gameplay at all.
Customize the experience to the player - CRPGs and MMORPGs employ this technique through character classes and skills. If players like long-ranged combat tied to resource allocation they create a wizard. If they just want to press the "kill" button repeatedly, they select a fighter. If they prefer a stealth game they create a thief. Etc.

CRPG and MMORPG "customization" is very crude. More elegant customization can be imagined; Perhaps the interactive experience (secretly) gives the player a personality test, and uses those results to tailor the player's antagonist and in-world NPC friends to make enemies easier to dislike, and friends easier to like.
Social - Non-interactive experiences are fundamentally solitary activities. You can watch TV with other people, but barring the odd comment from the other side of the couch, you're experiencing the story alone.

Interactive entertainment can be social, however. You can "play" with other people, adding a new dimension to the experience. Other people bring more immersion and emotion to the experience, making it more compelling.
Explore alternate realities - "Choose your own adventure" books work because readers can try one choice, while bookmarking the choice page with their finger. If that choice wasn't satisfying, they can rewind time, so to speak, and try a different choice. Obviously, this is a "feature" that doesn't exist in real life, so it can be quite compelling when it appears in an interactive entertainment.

So what's the moral of the story?

Choice is an emotional "flavor" enhancer.
Computer "games" don't need to be centered around gameplay.