|  Mail  |  You might also like GameDaily, Games.com, PlaySavvy, and Joystiq

Big Ideas: Interesting failure


"By and large people enjoy failure in games more than success. They want interesting failure." -- Will Wright

This year's GDC was a great one, with a lot of game previews and tons of interesting panels to observe. The above paraphrasing of Mr. Wright's came from the "Role of games in personal and social change" panel, which he shared with industry luminaries like Lorne Lanning and Peter Molyneux. His point, as I understand it, is that it might be more efficacious for game developers to focus on presenting cautionary tales to the audience. Like Blade Runner and Brave New World, which he also mentions during the panel, it's helpful for people to see the consequences of wrong decisions, so they can avoid making similar mistakes.

While this is a good notion, how exactly does it play out in a video game? Isn't all gameplay predicated upon making mistake after mistake until the right path is chosen?



So, let's say that you're a game designer who wants to make a game that presents the player with enough freedom of action to be able to make their own moral choices. First of all, you're not alone; it seems that lately "moral choices" is the current popular buzzword. A lot of upcoming games play with this idea -- Bioware's Dragon Age: Origins offers the player a number of conversational options that determine how he or she is perceived by the active party and the world around them in general. Depending on how you work things, you could end up affronting one of your party members so seriously that they'll leave the group, or even worse, attack you outright.

An even better example would be Grand Theft Auto 4. Pretty much from the get-go, you're called upon to make tough choices -- who to kill, who to spare, who to help, who to hurt. And (no spoilers here) by the end of it all, no matter how you've chosen, you still kinda lose. It's safe to say that there's a fairly significant spectrum of options in the "moral choice" arena, from less effective to more effective. But do any of these choices really matter? Because you're playing a game, one that you can turn off and walk away from at any time, how much of an affect on your psyche do any of these decisions have?


During the Giant Bomb Game of the Year Edition podcast, Jeff Gerstmann defended his choice of GTA4 for Game of the Year by saying that the game so faithfully depicted a particular character that resembled someone he knew that at one point he was emotionally overwhelmed and had to pause for a while. "Games don't do that," he said quietly. But maybe they should, Will Wright is saying. Maybe truly affective games only work when their reality matches yours on some level. It works well in the case of the GTA universe because it's one that's grounded in reality. You probably couldn't get that sort of intimacy from, say, World of Warcraft, or Dead Space. Maybe it's only when the game world bears a close enough resemblance to your world that the in-game choices you make start to have an impact on your emotions.


Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Advertisement

Our Writers

Steven Wong

Managing Editor

RSS Feed

John Callaham

Senior Editor

RSS Feed

James Murff

Contributing Editor

RSS Feed

Learn more about Big Download