








  1. Love your insights on this. On the surface I snarl and profess to hate it when games force me to make these kinds of decisions, but I love the game for forcing me to make it, and secretly relish the prospect of going back and playing it again later to make a different decision. I always used to have three or four fingers keeping different pages open when reading a Choose Your Own Adventure book as a kid—hedging my bets!

  2. “Getting a high score is a valid goal and can drive some players. They get to be at the top of the score table.”

    There are goals, and then there’s recognition for achieving them. That’s a separate factor.

    You can see it at work particularly on Xbox and Playstation where achievements/trophies become a cumulative driving factor towards game play. Not just for a specific game, but further games thereafter. The world seems to have moved beyond “you got the goal, but no-one will ever know”.

    Apple is obviously trying to replicate this Microsoft & Sony’s feature with “Game Center”. Does Android have an equivalent?

    In terms of mutually-exclusive goal seeking, there have been a lot of games that pretend to do this, but only a few that don’t actually funnel you down a specific path at various plot choke-points.

    “Deus Ex” was one that seemed to allow you to take different paths, but brought you back to a common point before the climax, after which you could choose one of three different endings.

    “Knights Of The Old Republic” allowed you to play the light side or dark side all the way through, with two different endings. It’s “morality” choice, and dialog trees made it a bit of a landmark in its day.

    “Mass Effect” – especially over three instalments – goes further. Bioware’s experience with KotOR shows.

    “Alpha Protocol” is one of the more open-ended games I’ve played where there were several different outcomes. There must be hours of voice-acting I’ll never hear even after two play-throughs.

    Of course then there is the question of dynamic goal generation, where the game designer is replaced by an in-game AI setting goals for the player. That’s a whole ‘nuther ball game, that conflicts with apparent industry trends of motion-capture and voice-acting, not to mention good old story-telling.

  3. In fact, I’m not ok with you.
    You say that mutually exclusive goals are the gold of games. I say it can also be their doom.

    You take the example of building military forces to protect yourself or use resources to develop your empire. At first glance, this is not a real choice, as there is a better solution : Building enough military forces to fulfill your attacks/defenses goals and use all the remaining resources in development.
    If there is no good solution, either because the resources are lacking or because you can’t distribute them, you’ll find yourself going military or development. And if the player likes both aspects of the game, he is basicaly screwed. It’s for example the case for games letting you choose for a military victory or a political victory or a research victory (a good example is Master of Orion II). All victories are mutually exclusive (you can only win once, you better have to maximize your chances for victory by allocating all resources to one area), so you can’t play any hybrid type of play. It’s frustrating.

    So, I’m not saying that you’re wrong, I’m just saying that it may be more complicated than what you describe.

Leave a Reply


WordPress.com Logo


Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s