Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Asherian Command wrote:
A game can literally be anything.

False. Games are defined by their interactivity.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:
So When they say realistic.

It basically means

"Please buy our game".

Because no, they aren't realistic, or even "more" realistic. They're not even trying, they're just marketing.

 Melissia wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
A game can literally be anything.

False. Games are defined by their interactivity.

Yes I know. Thats unique to games. I forgot to include that in my definition :/

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:
So When they say realistic.

It basically means

"Please buy our game".

Because no, they aren't realistic, or even "more" realistic. They're not even trying, they're just marketing.

I am not disagreeing.

But most games usually say they are realistic because they have something that is realistic. I mean remember Battlefield 3? That entire marketing ploy is that their bullets actually drop. Did they? Yep. Is that a big thing? no. Thats been around for ages.

IT is very much the biggest marketing idea ever. Apart from the creators of X game that you liked. (Where like 1 team member worked on that game.)

Asherian Command wrote:What choice? The problem with that idea is that they don't take away any choice except for what your character looks like.

Isn't that a choice, too, though?

As far as my preferences go, my character's appearance can make a huge difference on how much I enjoy a game, or whether I enjoy it at all. Not only does it allow me to avoid boring clichés a dev came up (I certainly wouldn't have enjoyed Mass Effect as much had I been forced to play with the default generic Maleshep), it also allows me to insert bits and pieces of my own ideas into a game. I like being creative, so a game allowing me to "participate" in shaping its experience, even if it just affects my character's looks, is a huge plus for me.

Asherian Command wrote:There are no choices in games. Everything is prescripted. Everything you do in a game is designed that way.

Ehh, that's a pretty broad statement. Sure, a game will only have limited choices, but even a choice between A and B is still a choice.
Besides, personally I consider the illusion of a sandbox more important than its actual construction behind the scenes. I'm playing a game to feel and experience, not to dissect it just to look for its flaws.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:Wait. So you mean to tell me that Gandhi actually was NOT a blood thirsty, nuke happy tyrant!?

Obligatory:


I actually really, really like "what if" scenarios as well, which may seem conflicting with my appreciation of realism and continuity at first glance, but I feel it's instead more like two different menus. I'm only biased towards the "in-betweens" who don't really commit to either accuracy or embracing the deviation but instead go about depicting a setting in a half-assed way. Kind of how I enjoy pizza and ice cream but would never mix the two.

Shameless plug: Elite Dangerous accurately modelling the Milky Way is another huge plus on its list for me. Just knowing I can travel to any star I can see in its space, and that it is a 1:1 representation of what contemporary science knows about our galaxy, lets me appreciate the game more by increasing the factor of "I'm there, this is space".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_mSlz6tpmc

Just because games are run off scripts doesn't mean that they are "prescripted" and thus have no choice in how the player wants to play them. You're presenting a patently ridiculous false dichotomy... again.

Ehh, that's a pretty broad statement. Sure, a game will only have limited choices, but even a choice between A and B is still a choice.
Besides, personally I consider the illusion of a sandbox more important than its actual construction behind the scenes. I'm playing a game to feel and experience, not to dissect it just to look for its flaws.

Well I am saying every decision you make is basically already planned out. Its scripted. You are expected to make either choice a or b. so basically.

IF (string player A picks option b)
Do Option B Alternate path


The thing about it is I am saying it is completely scripted from the get go. They know which choice you are going to make.

Isn't that a choice, too, though?

As far as my preferences go, my character's appearance can make a huge difference on how much I enjoy a game, or whether I enjoy it at all. Not only does it allow me to avoid boring clichés a dev came up (I certainly wouldn't have enjoyed Mass Effect as much had I been forced to play with the default generic Maleshep), it also allows me to insert bits and pieces of my own ideas into a game. I like being creative, so a game allowing me to "participate" in shaping its experience, even if it just affects my character's looks, is a huge plus for me.

Sort of, and sort of not. Because that still is an illusion of choice. Those are all tools given by the creator. It is supposed to feel like a choice but it is techincally not a choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Just because games are run off scripts doesn't mean that they are "prescripted" and thus have no choice in how the player wants to play them. You're presenting a patently ridiculous false dichotomy... again.

Umm no. Prove to me, that a game does not have any prescripted choices.

Prove to me that is a meaningful choice. That is not prescripted.

If the creator gives you the tools to do something that event is then predesigned or prescripted. It is basically planned out and that is what the creators want to happen. What you do with those tools are actual meaningful choices.

So for example in minecraft. I can decide to either mine or farm. Both are prescripted ideas but that does not mean they are not choices. They are an illusion of choice. They make you think these are meaningful choices. When they are not.

Its a very high level of thinking in game design and is something that I even have a hard time grasping. The entire idea is to give you a sense of agency and this idea that your choices matter. But everything in the game is created to support this feeling.

Okay.

X3: Albion Prelude.

No prescripted choices that you are forced to take. You can jsut go along and explore if you want. You can become a trader if you want-- big time, or small time. Hell, you can even make a living being a space taxi, working your way up to having a luxury liner. You're in space, there's a universe around you, and the universe reacts to your actions. The "story" doesn't even start unless you explicitly tell it to, and it never HAS to start to play the game to its fullest.

 Melissia wrote:
Okay.

X3: Albion Prelude.

No prescripted choices that you are forced to take. You can jsut go along and explore if you want. You can become a trader if you want-- big time, or small time. Hell, you can even make a living being a space taxi, working your way up to having a luxury liner. You're in space, there's a universe around you, and the universe reacts to your actions. The "story" doesn't even start unless you explicitly tell it to, and it never HAS to start to play the game to its fullest.

Still prescripted.

Because A. Option is given to be in a ship.

Ships are all determined by programming.

Choices are given not to follow a set path. Is this a real choice? Or an illusion of choice?

It is an illusion of choice. You are basically following a set path already. The designers created it so you would follow something.

I never said anything about a story. Just prescripted.

All choices are made by the designers on purpose. They are expecting you to do certain things. Very few times do designers give the gamers full reign like giving a player a toolbox to neccessarily make anything they want. I.E. Warcraft world Editor. Or any game that allows you to modify it. And make your own meaningful choices within it.







The Stanely Parable is basically an example of this linearity is a thing no matter where you go you will always be on that line created by the developers and designers.

Asherian Command wrote:Well I am saying every decision you make is basically already planned out. Its scripted. You are expected to make either choice a or b.

And it's still a choice.

When I jump into the air, I know gravity will pull me back down. Does that mean it's scripted? I suppose in some way you could argue that, it just sounds a bit weird. Any environment will have laws and limitations you can't change. What does it even matter whether they exist because of physics, or because a programmer scripted them?
The way you're going on about illusion of choice kind of makes it sound as if our very real life was pre-scripted, too, by established society.

"Option is given to go to school. Schools are all determined by government."

#thisisdeep

Melissia wrote:Except that it is not. "Realistic" is more of a marketing ploy than anything these days, people think it sounds nice, kind of like how stores put $9.99 instead of $10.

Sorry, missed this post earlier ...

I wouldn't compare the two. To me, "realistic" is more like a subgenre. Like "dark fantasy" or "hard sci-fi". You'll always have to weigh and balance realism against gameplay/fun, but you can't deny that different people will have different tendencies as to which ratio they'd prefer.

I'm not denying that some companies might just advertise it like a marketing ploy, but at the same time one shouldn't automatically assume that it's the same everywhere, be it because you can simply start up the game and see how it affects your enjoyment, or because the developers themselves have a history of sharing this preference with the playerbase they are aiming for.

This peculiar kind of "there is no free will" sophistry from you, Ash, isn't really a topic I really want to touch in this thread.

And it's still a choice.

When I jump into the air, I know gravity will pull me back down. Does that mean it's scripted? I suppose in some way you could argue that, it just sounds a bit weird. Any environment will have laws and limitations you can't change. What does it even matter whether they exist because of physics, or because a programmer scripted them?
The way you're going on about illusion of choice kind of makes it sound as if our very real life was pre-scripted, too, by established society.

"Option is given to go to school. Schools are all determined by government."

#thisisdeep

It is an illusion of choice but it is not a true choice that you or I could make in real life.
Every thing is basically scripted to be like that.

And You really can't compare the two as you are still given a choice in life that games you can't. In real life there hundreds of thousands of choices to make saying that it applies to real life is stupidity. A Game will never truly be able to encompose that idea of near infinite possibilities of choice as there is only so much you can do in programming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
This peculiar kind of "there is no free will" sophistry from you, Ash, isn't really a topic I really want to touch in this thread.

I am not going into that, at all.

I am touching on the illusion of choice in games.

You are given a script of actions to do, you can do it in any order, but that is a choice. An actual choice.

But the choices on how to do it is an illusion.

Asherian Command wrote:It is an illusion of choice but it is not a true choice that you or I could make in real life.

What? I can make a choice between a yes or a no every single day.

Asherian Command wrote:And You really can't compare the two as you are still given a choice in life that games you can't. In real life there hundreds of thousands of choices to make saying that it applies to real life is stupidity. A Game will never truly be able to encompose that idea of near infinite possibilities of choice as there is only so much you can do in programming.

So what you're saying is that the amount of choice is the important distinction here? Where do you draw the line, personally? A million choices? A billion?

There's sandbox games out there that leave quite a lot of choices for you, too - I already named one example in one of my previous posts.
Real life does not have "near infinite possibilities of choice" because of limitations based on physics, culture or quite simply the opinion of the person you're talking to. For example, I can choose to continue posting in this thread or leave it be, but I can't choose whether or not you're replying to this.

Again, we face limitations to our freedom in any environment, what does it matter whether they're the result of programming or the laws of nature etc? I care for a certain agency in a game, it's as simple as that. Enjoyment of a game is based entirely on individual perception - meaning what choices are limited in what way. Not why they are limited (or not).

On the subject of defined characters... I was originally going to post this as an extra bit on my last one, but I decided against it, as it turned messy/rambley. - So my apologies if that happens again.

I've been playing Dragon Age 2 again recently. And, when you think about it. You've got near enough total, complete control on Hawke's appearance, gender, choice of abilities, tone of voice.

But, basically, Hawke is a very well defined character. - That was part of the complaints about the game.

Hawke is always Hawke. Hawke has a mother, Hawke has a brother and sister. They have an uncle who is a jerky jerkface, they come from a noble family etc.

There's all this, well, character definition that makes a very established character. And, yet. The players have complete customisation about so many other things, most of which have quite negligible effects on the game (again, another one of the complaints).

So, if a character can have all this personal customisation, that does help players feel a bit closer to the gameplay and still be a well defined character, I posit an argument that many games that are NOT designed to be an RPG, could do much the same.

 Lynata wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:It is an illusion of choice but it is not a true choice that you or I could make in real life.

What? I can make a choice between a yes or a no every single day.

No. Read it again.

A real meaningful choice.

Asherian Command wrote:And You really can't compare the two as you are still given a choice in life that games you can't. In real life there hundreds of thousands of choices to make saying that it applies to real life is stupidity. A Game will never truly be able to encompose that idea of near infinite possibilities of choice as there is only so much you can do in programming.

So what you're saying is that the amount of choice is the important distinction here? Where do you draw the line, personally? A million choices? A billion?

There's sandbox games out there that leave quite a lot of choices for you, too - I already named one example in one of my previous posts.
Real life does not have "near infinite possibilities of choice" because of limitations based on physics, culture or quite simply the opinion of the person you're talking to. For example, I can choose to continue posting in this thread or leave it be, but I can't choose whether or not you're replying to this.

Again, we face limitations to our freedom in any environment, what does it matter whether they're the result of programming or the laws of nature etc? I care for a certain agency in a game, it's as simple as that. Enjoyment of a game is based entirely on individual perception - meaning what choices are limited in what way. Not why they are limited (or not).

Agency and choice go hand in hand. In a game no matter what i do I will always get a to b.

In real life I could go to b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, and so and so forth. Games you are limited by the programming.

In a conversation if I phrase the sentence. "Lets eat grandma!" That would raise eyebrows. but if I said. "Lets eat, Grandma!"
A simple phrase could change someones entire opinion on you and then a dominio effect is started.

In games they do not have this full dominio effect or butterfly effect. Where a single medicore decision leads to terrible consequences later down the line.

Games do not have meaningful true choices.

No matter what you do in that game it is created to do that.

The Designers sit down and think of. Okay what can we let our players do. And then they set up restrictions in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:
On the subject of defined characters... I was originally going to post this as an extra bit on my last one, but I decided against it, as it turned messy/rambley. - So my apologies if that happens again.

I've been playing Dragon Age 2 again recently. And, when you think about it. You've got near enough total, complete control on Hawke's appearance, gender, choice of abilities, tone of voice.

But, basically, Hawke is a very well defined character. - That was part of the complaints about the game.

Hawke is always Hawke. Hawke has a mother, Hawke has a brother and sister. They have an uncle who is a jerky jerkface, they come from a noble family etc.

There's all this, well, character definition that makes a very established character. And, yet. The players have complete customisation about so many other things, most of which have quite negligible effects on the game (again, another one of the complaints).

So, if a character can have all this personal customisation, that does help players feel a bit closer to the gameplay and still be a well defined character, I posit an argument that many games that are NOT designed to be an RPG, could do much the same.

Hmm Interesting. Then why are final fantasy games so popular?

Maybe it is the promise of choice that skews peoples reasoning.

See, the issue with "realistic" is that it can be seen as an excuse for arbitrary limitations in the game. Note, there is nothing wrong with arbitrary limitations: a game could not function otherwise. But, the problem is when it is used to defend a stylistic choice: Like only having the option to be a white male soldier in the Civil war game. The designer made that decision because that is the narrative they wished to tell. They wished to have the game from that perspective. Which is fine. But it darn well gets annoying when they defend that choice by saying it was "realistic." No, it was the game you wanted to make.

Games have always been willing to tweak "realism" to accommodate story lines and game play. It's just frustrating when it comes to certain things (race and gender), that is a line that is not crossed. Just admit it is arbitrary.

 AdeptSister wrote:
See, the issue with "realistic" is that it can be seen as an excuse for arbitrary limitations in the game. Note, there is nothing wrong with arbitrary limitations: a game could not function otherwise. But, the problem is when it is used to defend a stylistic choice: Like only having the option to be a white male soldier in the Civil war game. The designer made that decision because that is the narrative they wished to tell. They wished to have the game from that perspective. Which is fine. But it darn well gets annoying when they defend that choice by saying it was "realistic." No, it was the game you wanted to make.

Games have always been willing to tweak "realism" to accommodate story lines and game play. It's just frustrating when it comes to certain things (race and gender), that is a line that is not crossed. Just admit it is arbitrary.

What does that have to do with choice?

Asherian Command wrote:No. Read it again.

A real meaningful choice.

You assume a failure in reading comprehension where I merely disagree with your personal opinion.

I can make both unimportant as well as meaningful choices both in real life as well as in games. You'll have to elaborate.
And please, use words - just throwing random videos you liked at peoples' heads is rather lazy.

Asherian Command wrote:Agency and choice go hand in hand. In a game no matter what i do I will always get a to b.

In real life I could go to b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, and so and so forth. Games you are limited by the programming.

In Elite I can go to b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, and so forth as well, because that game presents me with a 1:1 replica of all planetary bodies in the galaxy and leaves me with the choice of what I make of it.

Yes, in a game you will always have limits based by programming. Just like in real life you'll have other limits based on the laws of nature or your current standing in society as defined by a plethora of factors. So what?

Asherian Command wrote:Games do not have meaningful true choices.

I'm not sure what you played. A lot of mine do.
Are you sure you're not just automatically applying your personal definition of what a "meaningful choice" is on other people?

Asherian Command wrote:Maybe it is the promise of choice that skews peoples reasoning.

In your words: "read it again".

"Enjoyment of a game is based entirely on individual perception - meaning what choices are limited in what way. Not why they are limited (or not)."
-- Lynata, 2014

AdeptSister wrote:But it darn well gets annoying when they defend that choice by saying it was "realistic." No, it was the game you wanted to make.

Isn't that ... the same thing?
I'd never accuse a developer of being "arbitrary" just because the game they wanted to make happened to be a realistic game with a certain theme. In historically inspired games, the two go hand in hand, as established settings - be them historical or fictional - evoke expectations that makers and consumers will gravitate to. Would you want a 40k game with female Space Marines?

The bigger problem is developers using a skewed sense of realism, such as the makers of War of the Roses claiming that female characters would be unrealistic based on flawed popular knowledge, or fail to acknowledge that quite often you can perfectly preserve realism and expand scope beyond the narrow confine of "defaults". For example, it'd be perfectly possible to make a Civil war game with a white female or a black male soldier, if the devs would just be willing to work the consequences of such a design decision into the final product.

tl;dr: Yes, it comes down to what exactly they want to make, but to assume that realism is always a cop-out might be a tad unfair, when the alternative would have been to not make that game at all, or the character becoming so unique that him or her being special should override what the game was initially all about (with the extreme of possibly turning a mindless FPS action game into a piece of interactive social commentary).

The War of The Roses thing is interesting as, from what I can see, they are the same people who did Mount&Blade: Warband.

In M&B:Warband, they had an interesting and different approach. - I'm not going to say it was a 'good' approach, I'll leave that up to yourselves.

However, playing a female character in M&B was in many ways, the game's equivalent of a 'Hard Mode' - a female character had a significantly harder time in any of the RPG elements of the game, it was more difficult for rulers to trust you, they were less inclined to grant you castles or titles, etc.

It leads to the question of, how sexist was the game in doing this, or was it making a comment on sexism?

Compel wrote:The War of The Roses thing is interesting as, from what I can see, they are the same people who did Mount&Blade: Warband.

Naah. Mount & Blade is from the Turkish studio Taleworlds, War of the Roses from Swedish studio Fatshark. They both just had the same publisher (for Warband, anyways; the first Mount & Blade was published independently) and one was obviously inspired by the other.

Compel wrote:It leads to the question of, how sexist was the game in doing this, or was it making a comment on sexism?

In my interpretation, if the game were truly sexist, it'd just have not allowed female fighters in any way or presented them as weaker. Implementing them as an option with social reservations, however, was just a way to replicate the "medieval theme", as the setting may be fictional but is obviously inspired by the real world (with the various factions corresponding to historically existing nations). At least that's how I felt about it.

A difference between "a game being sexist" and "a setting being sexist", if you will.

However, the fact that games trend to almost ALWAYS have settings sexist against women says much about the laziness of game writers.

Cheers, thanks for the correction.

Things make a bit more sense now.

 Melissia wrote:
However, the fact that games trend to almost ALWAYS have settings sexist against women says much about the laziness of game writers.

Basically you an blame bad game writing for most things that could be considered sexist.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
However, the fact that games trend to almost ALWAYS have settings sexist against women says much about the laziness of game writers.

Basically you an blame bad game writing for most things that could be considered sexist.

Or, realism=sexism.

So I may love the talk about historical accuracy and it's place in games. We have been off topic from basically page 2. That might say something, but I don't know what.

I guess it means gamers don't have that many problems with men in video games, other than the average-height-white-bloke-with-short-brown-hair design that's become the company standard.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Games do not have meaningful true choices.

You post this In the same post as the two EC videos that deal with choice in games.

Really?

I mean REALLY?

*sigh*

I'd thought you were just using 'Illusion of Choice' without knowing what it meant, not that you completely misunderstood it.

'Illusion of Choice' is where you are given different options that lead to the same outcomes. When the outcomes are different, even if they are pre-designed to follow from those options, it is not 'Illusion of Choice'.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Or, realism=sexism.

When people say "realism is a good thing" and "sexism is realistic", they're also saying "sexism is a good thing".

I know I'm going to get hatemail for that but meh, reality sucks in many ways. It shouldn't be damn hard for people to admit that realism in videogames can and does also suck in many ways, too.

 Melissia wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Or, realism=sexism.

When people say "realism is a good thing" and "sexism is realistic", they're also saying "sexism is a good thing".

Cats hates dogs. Dogs love eating food. Cats hate eating food.

Melissia wrote:When people say "realism is a good thing" and "sexism is realistic", they're also saying "sexism is a good thing".

In some cases, sexism, as well as racism and other -isms in fictional backgrounds of games, movies and novels can indeed be a good thing, if for example it serves to sensitivise and educate the player as a form of social commentary, or as a plot device for a player character fighting against oppression.

Examples could be Bioshock featuring criticism on organised religion, or Dragon Age city elves tackling minority segregation. Off the top of my head, I can't remember a video game that tackled sexism in a similarly obvious way, but it's the same approach and the same potential. It just takes a studio brave (or crazy) enough to dare creating such a product, and given the current evolution of gaming in general I have a feeling this is just a matter of time.
Speaking of Dragon Age, I recall the writers once saying that when designing Thedas, they took existing historical inspiration and gave it a different spin, with the legend of Andraste being sparked by the thought of "what if Jesus has been a woman".

From something I've written on the FFG forums a few days ago in regards to sexism in the Imperium:
"Thematically, I do not consider sexism, racism or religious intolerance (etc) wrong, as long as they are inserted with a modicum of care and somewhat counter-balanced by related elements and thus do not come off like some wackjob's creepy personal fantasy. Used correctly, they serve to support the tone of a grimdark, dystopian atmosphere. And with 40k, the balancing aspect is that you'll have Imperial worlds that can be an oppressive patriarchy, or an oppressive matriarchy, or anything in-between up to perfect equality. "The Imperium" isn't sexist - it just has member worlds that are. And since everyone is given their own space, nobody should feel offended."

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Or, realism=sexism.

When people say "realism is a good thing" and "sexism is realistic", they're also saying "sexism is a good thing".

Cats hates dogs. Dogs love eating food. Cats hate eating food.

Your inability to do basic logic is noted.

Assertion 1: A = True.
Assertion 2: B = A.
Conclusion: B = True.

If assertion A is true, and assertion B is also true, then it MUST follow that the conclusion is true.

It just so happens that, in this case, assertion A, "realism is good", is false.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lynata wrote:
[snip]

None of this is a good reason to force sexism in to a game every single FETHING time you have a woman character.

 Pendix wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Games do not have meaningful true choices.

You post this In the same post as the two EC videos that deal with choice in games.

Really?

I mean REALLY?

*sigh*

I'd thought you were just using 'Illusion of Choice' without knowing what it meant, not that you completely misunderstood it.

'Illusion of Choice' is where you are given different options that lead to the same outcomes. When the outcomes are different, even if they are pre-designed to follow from those options, it is not 'Illusion of Choice'.

Illusion of Choice - the illusion of there being other choices available to you the player. It is a design choice. Agency and choice are both in games. But illusion of choice is commonly used to get the player to pick an alternate path but you are pushed back onto the main road.

Watch the video again.

Choice is basically meaningless because you will always get the same storyline.

(unless otherwise noted)

I am saying everything in the game is designed to make you feel like the things you are picking up are meaningful and new and different.

That is what illusion of choice and agency does.