We care how others treat us - Design lessons from The Walking Dead

Gabe Newell has said in a few different interviews that 'fun' is when the world reacts to a player's action.  So if you shoot a wall and there is no response, that is less 'fun' than if you shoot a wall and it creates decals.  By that definition, decals are 'fun.'

The Walking Dead makes a similarly subtle point about player choice in conversations.  They avoid the typical RPG content-sink of creating multiple large parallel plot branches (are you GOOD or EVIL?), but instead create relational "decals" from all your conversations.

Several clever and economical ways they did this:

We care how others treat us

Every character in Walking Dead tracks an emotional relationship score with the player.  This rarely impacts the plot, but it shifts the tone of almost every conversation, ranging from "You can be my Wingman any day" to "I hate you but we have to work together."  The result is structurally the same, but the tone shifts significantly based on your previous choices.

This ends up being astonishingly impactful.  We all want to be liked - enough that some choices between "Do the right thing" and "Do the thing that makes person X still speak nicely to you" was a legitimate ethical dilemma

Player agency does not require success

The player is presented with a major ethical dilemma - Do you murder the still-living bite victim in front of his family, or not?  Rather than writing a branching plot that supports each choice, NPCs in your party just overrule you and perform the action if you refuse.

This gives you all the emotional benefits of agency - you took an ethical stand, NPCs can remember and later reference your choice, without any of the content costs of actually branching the plot.

Bioshock Infinite has a couple great examples of this - they give you moral choices that don't really impact anything, but you still chose, and the memory of that choice can be reference by the player or NPCs later in the story.

Remembering small choices

The original Deus Ex had a great example of this - if you went in the women's restroom ,before speaking to your boss, he would chide you for it at the end of your briefing.  Again, no impact to the plot, but a strong impact to the player - The choices I am making are being observed.

Throwaway appended conversation that merely says "I appreciate when you did [...]" or "You shouldn't have done [...]" can energize the player with a sense of agency and persistence. 

In Mass Effect, an NPC showing up and saying "Hey Shepard, I remember when you did that thing in a previous game" was just as impactful as major plot or character changes based on the previous games.

In fact, I think this was Clementine's primary motivational role in the game.  Her job was to watch the player, and remember all your small choices.  The fact that your surrogate child was watching lent significant weight to all of your ethical decisions, and they reemphasized several times that even your choices you thought made in secret, weren't.  She's watching, and she remembers.

Artist or Entertainer?

Is George R. R. Martin an artist, or an entertainer?

With the airing of Game of Thrones on HBO, I've been thinking alot about the internet drama surrounding George R.R. Martin. In short:

• GRRM released 3 excellent fantasy novels in a planned 6 book series, each approximately 2 years apart.
• He takes 5 years to write the next novel, splits it in half because it is too long, and releases the boring half, promising the other half is "almost done."
• He takes another 5 years, and the 2nd half of the novel is supposed to arrive this year.
• During this period, his substantial and rabid fanbase splits into two groups - those who still think he is great, and those who think he is fat, lazy, and not "doing his job" by releasing his books in a timely fashion.
• GRRM tells the Negative Nancy's to get off his blog, Neil Gaiman calls them ungrateful jerks, the rest of the internet also has an opinion.

The last line of Gaiman's blog post was:

"And Gareth, in the future, when you see other people complaining that George R.R. Martin has been spotted doing something other than writing the book they are waiting for, explain to them, more politely than I did the first time, the simple and unanswerable truth: George R. R. Martin is not working for you."

I have to disagree with that statement. George R. R. Martin is working for Gareth, and myself, and all of his other fans. Gaiman probably isn't working for his fans. And the distinction is one of Artist vs. Entertainer.

And Artist is someone who creates a work that they find satisfying and powerful. An Entertainer is trying to create a work that their audience finds satisfying and powerful. Kat Williams says that he tries to optimize his "huge laughs per minute" when doing standup. That's entertainment, not art - he'll discard his favorite joke if the audience doesn't get it. On the other hand, Jonathan Blow is clearly an artist. If you don't get his work, that's your fault, and he's not going to compromise his vision to make it more accessible or widen his audience.

So - back to GRRM, is he an artist or an entertainer? I would argue with the amount he blogs and interacts with his audience, with the amount he merchandises his intellectual property, he's clearly trying to make alot of money, and be lauded, well liked, and idolized by his hardcore fanbase.

There's nothing wrong with that! I want to get rich off my videogames, and I love it when a Halo fan on the bus starts talking to me because my sweatshirt says "Bungie" on it. But you can't enjoy the stardom, enjoy the money, and then say that you aren't beholden to your audience. You're either writing for them, giving them what they want, and getting the glory for it, or you're writing for yourself, ignoring what people think, and ambivalent to the spotlight.

Player Choice

My favorite moments in both Mass Effect 2 and Heavy Rain are when I am given a meaningful, world-impacting choice that is not a success/failure scenario. It's an actual *choice.* Every time I'm presented with one, I realize how little we're offered true agency in most game narratives.

Casting

My wife got a reference call at the library on Saturday, asking for the book "Iron Throne" by "J.R.R. Martin." The actor said that HBO is casting for a pilot episode, and he needed to read the whole book before the audition. So I guess a pilot will definitely be made, at least.

E3

Biggest Surprise:
Secondhand reports that Project Natal actually works, and is a reasonable control scheme for games like Burnout.

Least Surprised:
Milo was BS, being controlled by another Dev at a computer the whole time.

Most Fun Hands-on:
Getting my ass kicked at Tekken 6 a bunch of times. There were some *good* players there. Or I suppose only the good players care anymore about Tekken.

Least Fun Hands-on:
Trying to play Tekken at a 360 kiosk. Although it was enjoyable to see everyone else swearing at how unplayable the D-Pad was.

Best Visuals:
God of War 3 looks really, really good. Especially when you're sitting 12 inches from a 30 inch HDTV LCD.

Biggest Disappointment:
Walking by the Scribblenauts booth multiple times and never trying it.

Games I was convinced to buy during E3:
Arkham Asylum, Splinter Cell: Conviction, Mini Ninjas, Uncharted 2, New Super Mario Bros Wii, Mass Effect 2



Overall, what most impressed me this year was how many good games there are. In most every genre, there are multiple, very strong contenders producing fantastic games. It's a good time to be a gamer, and a delightfully (and stressfully) challenging time to be a developer.

I was also surprised by how much was kept behind closed-doors for press/VIP only. All in all, I think that's a good move, as controlling the experience helps most games (including us), even though I don't get to see as much. I did like the way Ubisoft had hourly, short, controlled public demos of their products, to help drive the busier press outlets into their booths. That might be the best route to go within the new E3.

Kings

Watched the series premiere of NBC's Kings last night. About halfway through I realized that the entire show is a modern-day retelling of the story of King David from the Old Testament. Given that that was the entire premise of the show, it seems odd that they never mentioned this in any of the early marketing for the show. Admittedly, the show opens with King Silas giving a speech that starts with "These days, God is not a popular subject" - so I suppose the marketing department thought the same thing.

But it totally geeked me out, so I tried to brush up on my 1st Samuel, and here's all the parallels I could find. I'll leave out any TV specific spoilers or changes, only the OT version, which I think is past the spoiler statute of limitations by a few millenia.


King Silas Benjamin:

King Saul, of the tribe of Benjamin. Ian McShane seems spot on for what I would expect of Saul. Admirable, yet flawed.

He had a son named Saul, an impressive young man without equal among the Israelites—a head taller than any of the others. (1 Sam 9:2 NIV)


David Shepherd:

soon-to-be-King David, youngest son of Jesse, from the town of Bethlehem (also the birthplace of Christ). Originally brought to Saul as a musician when Saul is suffering from panics, but is also a soldier and shepherd. He steps up and slays Goliath when he happens to be at the front line playing for Saul.

"I have seen a son of Jesse of Bethlehem who knows how to play the harp. He is a brave man and a warrior. He speaks well and is a fine-looking man. And the LORD is with him." Then Saul sent messengers to Jesse and said, "Send me your son David, who is with the sheep." (1 Sam 16:18-19 NIV)

Jack Benjamin:

Saul's eldest son, Jonathan. Becomes fast friends (some have argued, lovers) with David. Was a strong soldier himself, sneaking across enemy lines and routing the Philistines with just his armor-bearer. Later helps protect David from Saul.

The Philistines fell before Jonathan, and his armor-bearer followed and killed behind him. In that first attack Jonathan and his armor-bearer killed some twenty men in an area of about half an acre. (1 Sam 14:13-14 NIV)

And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt. (1 Sam, 18:3-4 NIV)


Michelle Benjamin:

Saul's younger daughter, Michal. Marries David, later protects David from Saul. Wins grossest wedding-gift award.

Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. "I will give her to him," he thought, "so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him." (1 Sam 18:20-21 NIV)

David and his men went out and killed two hundred Philistines. He brought their foreskins and presented the full number to the king so that he might become the king's son-in-law. Then Saul gave him his daughter Michal in marriage. (1 Sam 18:27 NIV)


Reverend Ephramm Samuels:

The prophet Samuel frem Ephraim. He gets 2 whole books in the Bible. Anoints Saul as King, declares that God has forsaken him, and then anoints David as King.

"Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has rejected you as king." (1 Sam 15:23 NIV)


Gath's Goliath Tanks:

Goliath of Gath, a giant warrior. David slays him with a sling.

A champion named Goliath, who was from Gath, came out of the Philistine camp. He was over nine feet tall. (1 Sam 17:4 NIV)

For forty days the Philistine came forward every morning and evening and took his stand. (1 Sam 17:16 NIV)


Shiloh:

The city where the Ark of the Covenant was kept until it was stolen by the Philistines. This was before Saul was King, however, and I don't think Shiloh is mentioned anytime during Saul's reign. I'm not even sure if the Ark is returned to Shiloh after the Philistines return it.

"Let us bring the ark of the LORD's covenant from Shiloh, so that it may go with us and save us from the hand of our enemies." (1 Sam 4:3 NIV)

Meet the New Boss

Same as the old boss?

I hope not.