Storytelling Styles in MMOs
I had some discussion about story and presentation, having just done Arah in GW2 this weekend for a couple people. So here are some sort of general thoughts...
Now, it should be acknowledged that telling a player-driven story in an MMO and offering real choice may be a Sisyphean task. Offering real choice means more development time in making branches of the story. Making any story that centers on the PC involves some slight-of-hand in a multiplayer environment to be even remotely believable. And on top of that, opinions vary on what the best way really is.
WoW: The game always kind of skirts the issue of player involvement. Big bad bosses are taken down by "heroes" or NPCs. Questgivers occasionally show recognition for the PC, but it's pretty trivial and interchangeable. With major bits of story "told" through raids, it's pretty easy to miss out on some things, too - though Blizzard has been more inclusive with LFR instances and such.
Ultimately, I sometimes felt like a badass in the story, but I never felt the story was about me. Things the PC does have an affect, but the PC has no choice in what they do. Plus little things like class-specific quests have been scarce, making the experience pretty homogeneous with rare exception (death knights and some post-Cata starting zones have some uniqueness).
GW2: The Personal Story pitches choice, and there are a fair number of points where you do choose between three options, plus the starting points are different by race. This ultimately works out to sort of an inverted tree of story branches, as the stories become mostly the same by the time you choose an Order and have pretty negligible branching by the time you join the Pact.
There's also the fact that the Pact storyline revolves around an NPC, putting the player in a second-in-command spot. I've heard it argued that this frees the character up to do things a leader couldn't, but to me it felt like I mattered less and the story wasn't very "personal" to my character at that point.
The Arah dungeon is the capstone to both the Personal Story and the plot told in the story mode of the dungeons, where Destiny's Edge reforms and comes to terms with previous failure. On paper, there's nothing wrong with that, but in practice I think it ends up being a bit clunky, trying to cram too much into a dungeon instance that's already long and poorly paced.
Interestingly, the Living Story progression has offered (and claimed) less in the way of choice. It also feels like it's using less of the artsy 2D+ dialogue scenes and more in-game dialogue.
SWTOR: It's a Bioware game! There's going to be choice and dialogue and involvement!
But really, for all that pitch, I have a hard time thinking of any instance where a choice mattered long-term. Sure, you can shoot or spare some people, which affects your light/dark-side score, but I'm not aware of any time it comes back to mean much more than a couple quests down the line. My biggest disappointment was at the end of the first chapter of my Agent's story - I opted to save a bunch of Imperial lives even though it meant letting the rogue Sith Lord I was hunting go. He never appeared again and saving citizens never actually seemed to matter. I agonized over a choice for nothing.
On the other hand, the the stories are pretty good and interesting even for lack of repercussions to choices, and there's one for every class (eight total, I believe?). My Agent's story was ultimately satisfying.
FFXIV: Lots of Final Fantasy tradition is visible in this game. It's also pretty - and makes heavy use of cut scenes (arguably too much in places) during the story. There are class story episodes that play out every 5 levels and a main story that starts you out a newbie adventurer who gets caught up in politics and plots and joins a faction dedicated to protecting Eorzea. There's no real choice, and the PC doesn't actually have any lines (just sort of relaying what happened with a "blah" motion). There are also a few stories that play out in side quests ranging from comic to disturbing.
Making the story instances single-player and painting the PC as special for being gifted with the Echo (and possibly a reincarnation of a Light Warrior of the past), yet not being -unique- in that, works better than I would have expected. Of course, if I were leveling with someone else in my party, that might be a distraction, but solo it works out fine.
Now, it should be acknowledged that telling a player-driven story in an MMO and offering real choice may be a Sisyphean task. Offering real choice means more development time in making branches of the story. Making any story that centers on the PC involves some slight-of-hand in a multiplayer environment to be even remotely believable. And on top of that, opinions vary on what the best way really is.
WoW: The game always kind of skirts the issue of player involvement. Big bad bosses are taken down by "heroes" or NPCs. Questgivers occasionally show recognition for the PC, but it's pretty trivial and interchangeable. With major bits of story "told" through raids, it's pretty easy to miss out on some things, too - though Blizzard has been more inclusive with LFR instances and such.
Ultimately, I sometimes felt like a badass in the story, but I never felt the story was about me. Things the PC does have an affect, but the PC has no choice in what they do. Plus little things like class-specific quests have been scarce, making the experience pretty homogeneous with rare exception (death knights and some post-Cata starting zones have some uniqueness).
GW2: The Personal Story pitches choice, and there are a fair number of points where you do choose between three options, plus the starting points are different by race. This ultimately works out to sort of an inverted tree of story branches, as the stories become mostly the same by the time you choose an Order and have pretty negligible branching by the time you join the Pact.
There's also the fact that the Pact storyline revolves around an NPC, putting the player in a second-in-command spot. I've heard it argued that this frees the character up to do things a leader couldn't, but to me it felt like I mattered less and the story wasn't very "personal" to my character at that point.
The Arah dungeon is the capstone to both the Personal Story and the plot told in the story mode of the dungeons, where Destiny's Edge reforms and comes to terms with previous failure. On paper, there's nothing wrong with that, but in practice I think it ends up being a bit clunky, trying to cram too much into a dungeon instance that's already long and poorly paced.
Interestingly, the Living Story progression has offered (and claimed) less in the way of choice. It also feels like it's using less of the artsy 2D+ dialogue scenes and more in-game dialogue.
SWTOR: It's a Bioware game! There's going to be choice and dialogue and involvement!
But really, for all that pitch, I have a hard time thinking of any instance where a choice mattered long-term. Sure, you can shoot or spare some people, which affects your light/dark-side score, but I'm not aware of any time it comes back to mean much more than a couple quests down the line. My biggest disappointment was at the end of the first chapter of my Agent's story - I opted to save a bunch of Imperial lives even though it meant letting the rogue Sith Lord I was hunting go. He never appeared again and saving citizens never actually seemed to matter. I agonized over a choice for nothing.
On the other hand, the the stories are pretty good and interesting even for lack of repercussions to choices, and there's one for every class (eight total, I believe?). My Agent's story was ultimately satisfying.
FFXIV: Lots of Final Fantasy tradition is visible in this game. It's also pretty - and makes heavy use of cut scenes (arguably too much in places) during the story. There are class story episodes that play out every 5 levels and a main story that starts you out a newbie adventurer who gets caught up in politics and plots and joins a faction dedicated to protecting Eorzea. There's no real choice, and the PC doesn't actually have any lines (just sort of relaying what happened with a "blah" motion). There are also a few stories that play out in side quests ranging from comic to disturbing.
Making the story instances single-player and painting the PC as special for being gifted with the Echo (and possibly a reincarnation of a Light Warrior of the past), yet not being -unique- in that, works better than I would have expected. Of course, if I were leveling with someone else in my party, that might be a distraction, but solo it works out fine.
It came to me that one place WoW offered a branching story choice was back in Burning Crusade. The Aldor or the Scryers. Granted there wasn't a big impact on your story, save for having the NPCs of one faction hostile to the other. They sort of revisited that in Wrath with the Oracles and the Frenzyheart (Puppy-men rule, fish-faces drool!) and that was on a much smaller scale (confined to just one zone instead of two and related to the overarcing plot to fight Illidan). Neither Cataclysm or Mists of Pandaria had anything resembling that, I think, and that might've been due to overall player feedback. It might also be that any sort of PvP was already hard baked into the game, faction wise, with Alliance vs. Horde. GW2 lacks that, so making choices of joining the Whispers over the Priory doesn't have any PvP aspect.
ReplyDeleteYeah - not a lot of impact to those branches, and not really much story. And you could switch allegiance and play through both, potentially, if I recall both in Aldor/Scryer and Oracles/Frenzyheart. I think in MoP, Alliance and Horde allied with different sides in the starter zone, but yeah, again not that much difference ultimately. GW2 based PVP conflict around worlds (servers) in the Mist. The Orders aren't really in conflict - though I wish there was some more to them, honestly. Of course, when they megaservered PVE content, that made things a little weird for the PVP differentiation. In FFXIV, you ally with one of the three Grand Companies that serve the major city-states of Eorzia. They are allies in a sense, fighting together against things like Primals and the Garleans, but conflict some over resources, hence are the basis for faction in PVP content.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I can see why some people are pissed about Trehearne, but I really think it's misplaced. I don't see a player enjoying 'and in this mission, you'll plot what the NPC does next and send him on his way, while you organize a bunch of other stuff and micromanage'. ;) Personally, I prefer being the trusted 2nd in Command. You lay out options, I'll give my opinion, you make your decision, and I'll go kick butt for you. And through the entire story, Trehearne emphasizes just how much he values your presence, time and again. I've always considered the 2nd in Command to be more important than the Commander for getting things done. :)
ReplyDelete"Trehearne emphasizes just how much he values your presence, time and again" Doesn't mean squat when the PC still takes a back seat, story-wise to the most important figure in their PERSONAL STORY. The overall plot of GW can focus on Trehearne the military genius, sure, but the PCs own story shouldn't have Trehearne being so central. The PC should find a legacy weapon, the PC should be the one people turn to for answers (Instead of first asking Trehearne who then asks the PC)
ReplyDeleteActually... 1) If you're on the sylvari path, you're the one who finds the Big Important Sword, which you give to the Pale Tree. This is the weapon given to Trehearne to purify Orr. 2) You are chosen by your nation's leader to settle the dispute between the three factions. 3) Trehearne makes all these plans, but he always turns to you, asking you which plan you think is the best, and deciding where you think you're needed most. And when you're out on the field, everyone turns to you for how to solve everything, because you're Trehearne's tactician. He's a strategist, he's looking at the big picture, but you're the one who's got boots on the ground and gets things done. The Story is definitely a war story, and that means the PC's going to have a superior - there's no way you can be put in charge of all the armies, and have the time to go do your own thing running across the five nations - it just doesn't make sense. The way they did it was logical: "Commander, I have a plan to do this, what do you think sounds better, A? B? Or C? I see, well, good. Do you think you can look after it and get it done? I trust you - I need to go talk to these people about a thousand different things involved with keeping an army intact." "Cool, you did it. Okay, I need to think about the results - I'm sure you've got other things to handle, I'll let you know when I've figured out our next step - you're free to go after your own pursuits." --- That's a lot better than: "Hey, General, we need you look after these hundreds of nit-picky little details. What do you mean you've got to go fight The Shatterer right now? Fort Trinity can't function without you!" Or worse: "Hey, General, here's the report about The Eye of Zhaitan, but yeah, we'll wait while you go party it up in Lion's Arch with Mad King Thorne." ;)
ReplyDeletePlayer agency, or, how to make the PC into the Big Damn Hero™. Consider the following scenarios: 1) Cut-scene wherein an NPC subordinate approaches Trehearne, informs him of the options on how to proceed. Trehearne then turns to the PC and asks, "Well, option one or option two?" 2) Subordinate comes to the PC, informs them directly on their options on how to proceed, player then makes the choice. Which of the above empowers the player and which reminds them they are not the important character in their personal story? I would have preferred if, after getting his shiny sword and forming the Pact, Trehearne had just been like, "Okay, I need a hero to command the Orrian offensive, _player_ I leave this in your capable hands." and then never shows up in any cut-scene ever again until the final fight with Zhaitan. Hell, if Trehearne had sacrificed himself to give the PC "the shot" to fell the dragon that would have been even better! No, we are instead reminded that Trehearne is Frodo and you are Samwise. Trenhearne is Optimus Prime and you are Bumblebee. You are Duke, Trehearne is Flynt. etc, etc. The player is not being empowered in THEIR OWN STORY, this other guy is.
ReplyDeleteI don't know, I was feeling pretty heroic. To me, being the Big Damn Hero ™ doesn't mean being in charge, it means going out and getting the job done. I'd rather have other people do the organization and point me in the right direction. I kind of liked the back and forth conversations with Trehearne. As far as I'm concerned, I was more Legolas to his Aragorn. Or Ironhide to his Optimus Prime. :) You send me off when you want the job done right. ;) Besides, I was responsible for the main push into Orr, uniting Destiny's Edge, and taking down the damn dragon. As he says... he feels bad for not being there. If the roles were reversed? 'Cool, I sent people to take down the dragon, while I had other things to do'. ;) Not so heroic.
ReplyDeleteI don't want the roles reversed. I want Trehearne gone from my character's story.
ReplyDeleteI guess to each their own. With him it felt very much a 'better him than me'. Let someone else do the boring jobs, I'll go get the hard stuff done. ;)
ReplyDeleteYeah, opinions vary, none are inherently wrong, etc... Yet while I see your point and think that was a factor in the design process (along with the technical issues of adding more player agency), I have a couple main issues with it personally. 1) The fact that Trehearne accompanies you on a number of missions (I want to say around half, but it's been a while and I'm too lazy to look up exact numbers) undercuts the whole "He administers, I get things done" angle. If he can find time to come try to ambush and examine an Eye of Zhaitan with us, maybe that paperwork isn't so serious after all. 2) The GW2 team pitched this as a "Personal Story," capitals and all. That creates certain expectations, especially when the whole thing starts off meeting (or at least building toward) them. Around the time the Pact is formed, though, it loses that personal aspect. The PC is still the viewpoint character (by necessity in a game like this), but the narrative arc shifts to Trehearne's big, fated quest to cleanse Orr. The PC enables him, yes. That gives us players something to do, which is great. And that might have been fine - if we weren't still playing what was described as a personal story. Arah even shifts angles to reconciliation for Destiny's Edge. That may be a fine story in and of itself, but it isn't about the player's character, it's about those NPCs. Zhaitan's demise is reasonably cinematic and awesome in scale, but there's nothing personal about it in presentation. There's not even any "And THIS is for !" moment unless you just sort of make one up in your head. In contrast, the Living Story doesn't make any claims of being about the PC, just that it involves him/her. And there, I've been enjoying the interplay between the NPCs. I might wish a little more choice and consequence were available, but I don't consider the lack to be a failing because there's no claim it should be there.
ReplyDeleteThat's the other thing. There's signature NPCs in the game, I'm cool with that - I don't understand why people don't want the NPCs to have backstory - or to resolve anything. *shrugs* I don't know. Though yeah, the Living Story's cool.
ReplyDeleteIt's like... 1) A GM says "hey, I've got this great idea for a campaign!" You play. There are NPCs who develop and do their own things while you do your own character's adventures. That's generally acknowledged as a good thing. vs. 2) A GM says "hey, I've got this great idea for a campaign that is all about your character!" You play. You get some cool choice in establishing background and gathering allies. Then partway through, an NPC is introduced who starts driving the direction of the campaign. You still have things to do, but all that character building stuff you did seems to matter less and less. The story in the campaign itself isn't necessarily bad, and maybe you're still having fun playing, but you can't help but think "wasn't this supposed to be about my character and his/her development?" That's not so good.
ReplyDeleteThe Personal Story in gW2 is so totally #2. Trehearne is the GM NPCPC (A non-player character who the game master uses as a player character [they get experience, they get a share of the loot] and thus has agency, but in the end, steals the spotlight from the PCs)
ReplyDeleteFine. Let him do that. Off camera. As Scott says below, Trehearne is alongside you for most of these missions and it stops being about the PC.
ReplyDeleteI guess that's where the disconnect is. I saw 'Personal Story' and parsed it as 'for the story arc, it will focus on your character's perspective and the choices the character makes'. Which is what I got. What I didn't parse was 'you're going to be the biggest, baddest, meanest mo-fo around'. Unless my character was going to take over a kingdom or something, I fully expected there to be people who were more important than my character who were directly involved. It's like with Destiny's Edge. I knew going in that the PC's responsible for getting them together again, and I didn't expect them to sit back and do nothing after - they're dragon hunters, so of course they'd help hunt down Zhaitan. That was sort of a done deal out of the gate. The entire story arc is about 'no one person is ultimately the most important, the cause trumps all', and I agreed with that sentiment. Everyone has a role to play, and they made the PC the field commander, which I fully understand. If I was running a war campaign (which I may yet be doing in my current game), the PCs are going to get rank, but promotion would probably stop where the PC commands a small handful of units - that way it would still be personal - I'd not be putting the PCs in command of massive armies. Which means that the PCs are still answering to a superior, and that superior's still the one telling them what to do. Does that mean the game's no longer about the PCs? .... no. The PCs are still doing things, and what they're doing is important. It just means the world itself doesn't revolve around them - which it shouldn't, anyway.
ReplyDeleteExcept he's there for perhaps a third of the Pact missions. Your 'personal horror' story arc doesn't involve him coming along, nor does the actual push into Arah. And in the end, you kill the dragon - not him. So he's not stealing anything from the PC. Everyone's celebrating your victory and he's along for the ride. Seriously? I can't think of a better way to show the entire story thrust of 'we are stronger than the sum of our parts'. Have you go try to take Arah alone with a small handful of people? That'd be killing the point of the story - and would probably be unrealistic. You'd not get the tools provided by the Pact (airships, tanks, mecha suits). Make your character the Marshall? Then you'd be missing out on most of the adventure, since you'd be busy looking after Pact forces. If this were, perhaps, a RTS, I could see it though... I completely bought the story. The PC is important, but the world doesn't revolve around him - there's other people who are just as important, who have their own stories, and some of them don't make it to the end. I accepted that - which is why it bothered me anytime someone died. Because I got the message. 'These people were here to help me, we were working together for a greater cause. They didn't make it.' And I really didn't like it... but it made sense, and I accepted it, because sacrifice is a part of the story.
ReplyDeleteThat'd be weird then. "Your commanding officer never meets with you in person, instead uses a go-between to send you on your way. But you're really, really important to him and he values your judgement." And I'd say probably a third of the Pact missions, not 'most'.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to be biggest and baddest, but if something is supposed to be a personal story, I want to be a bit more central to the narrative. I don't need to kill Zhaitan single-handedly, but I'd like to have been a little more involved than pushing the fire button repeatedly on a cannon from a battleship across the sky. I don't need everyone to survive, but I'd like some feeling of resolution with threads from early on. Losing Tybalt impacted me way more than the "greatest fear" section of the story. Charr (and perhaps asura) especially suffer as they rebuild their warband (krewe?) early on, but see that go nowhere in the latter half of the story. I have no problem with the Destiny's Edge story itself. I don't like how so much of it is put in Arah - which is the required finale to the personal story. Then again, I don't like that a dungeon was required at the end of a soloable story chain to begin with. I feel those should have been separated. I don't want the world to revolve around my character, but I wanted a story arc that does - largely because I felt that's what was promised. Heck, even if they'd ended the "Personal Story" earlier and run most of the Pact-Zhaitan stuff as a "Campaign Story" or something, it would have worked better in my mind. But the shift in narrative focus does not work well in my book.
ReplyDeleteSo like the real army
ReplyDeleteI think I figured out what bothers me about this Personal story plot. It's Final Fantasy X. The PC is Tidus, but Trehearne is Yuna. Sure the beginning of the game seems to be about Tidus, but in the end it's Yuna that's the important one as one of the Summoners and SHE not Tidus, is the one who needs to defeat Sin. All while Tidus says, "This is my story!" in the beginning of the game (and halfway through. to everyone there.)
ReplyDeletePerhaps in the modern age. Try back during the middle ages, however.
ReplyDeleteWhen generals communicated orders through waving flags, trumpet or horn blasts or runners going to and from the front lines?
ReplyDeleteThat'll do. :) At least they're more likely to be directly involved. ;)
ReplyDeleteWell, plenty of discussion about GW2, but it looks like we'll mostly have to agree to disagree. ;)
ReplyDelete