Player’s Choice (Or Lack Thereof)

SPOILERS FOR FINAL FANTASY VII

Hello y’all,

What a week, huh.

Let’s first talk about Verification Quest. I have made major progress from last week! Which is mostly because last week I had little progress. I have a lot more work to do, but I am really happy with the topic I choose. I am a little glad I picked an easier topic (if reading about copyright law is easy) then the last project. I am eager to continue experimenting with it until it shapes up to be exactly how I want it. 

Now then, let’s talk about Approaches to Game Construction. Let’s dissect one quote and see how that plays with the rest of the article and my experience as a “Gamer.”

“My job as a writer was to tempt players into making bad decisions [because] a bad strategy decision might lead them to a more interesting story.” (126)

This quote comes from Jayanth, the creator of 80 Days. 

What separates games as a medium from any other story-telling device is our choices. We do not get to choose what characters do in a movie, novel, comic, and so-on. But we can in video games. Why should we care? 

Let’s consider the later example used, that of Papers, Please. What value do choices have, well, “they turn the camera back on the player, asking them to consider why they have made these choices” (138).

Of course, not every game wants to be Papers, Please and force the player into making ethical decisions and reflect on what that says about them as a person. You will still have to make choices regardless, and these influence what values your game has. 

In an example not used in the piece, let’s consider a game near and dear to my heart, Final Fantasy VII. While there are limited narrative choices, they do not impact the story of the game. Instead, much of the choices come from how you set up your party. 

Notably, there is only one person who neatly fits into a classic JRPG role, being Aerith who acts as a healer (low damage, high healing). So we as the player put her into our party, and more often than not she stays there. So, when she dies, we have not only lost a character, but we feel the loss. We are now stuck with making the choice of who to make the next healer, a role no one else fits into perfectly. 

You are forced into making a “bad decision.”

Of course we then have to talk about different types of players, as they react differently to these choices. We have Bartle’s taxonomy: achievers, explorers, socializers, and killers. Quantic Foundry has a slightly different one: action, social, mastery, achievement, immersion, and creativity. 

I do not believe either of these are necessarily bad. It works as a trampoline to what your goals are. For example, Webfishing does have a system for collecting each of the types of fish, but it’s goal is to be a social game. Minecraft’s primary appeal is social and creativity.

But how do these taxonomies influence choices within these video games? I worry that they may be stifling if we put too much credence into them when we make smaller decisions. 

Case writes, “As a game writer, it’s useful to consider how you might adapt your games to make them more appealing to a broad range of players” (129). If we are trying to design a game for peak market value, I understand. You should try to hit as big of an audience as you can.

But I worry that idea will stifle creativity. There is so much value in a game trying to do one thing as best as it possibly can. By trying to appeal to as broad of an audience as you can, I fear you may end up sacrificing what makes it unique. 

It makes me think of novel genres. When writing a novel, it is important to figure out who your audience is, which typically comes from a genre. But is it not foolish to try to write a novel for every audience, for every genre? Does your novel need romance? Does your game need action? 

What do y’all think of player taxonomies?