Link to original post: [drupal=5081]It's diegesis, not biegesis[/drupal]
I think sandbox games with bi-axial moral systems are just inherently flawed. The main reason, among many others, is that a binary split between moral choices isn't, I guess you could say, <soluble> in the typical narrative stew, though they try to force them to be.
The reason being, that a the split creates subjunctivity; a split reality. In a narrative, if your aim is to create an effectual story, then a potential split in canon, to me anyway, completely dissolves any potential finality the story can have, greatly subtracting from its emotional impact. The only way to reconcile that is by acknowledging that the player's choices don't matter and are non-canonical, in which case the entire choice system is vacuous.
So you either have a useless system, or a narrative ruined by potentiality. A good example, though probably really trite, is when
Sure, a lot of people wanted her to be resurrected, but I think it's inarguable that the bittersweet nature of the reality of her death contributed largely to the cathartic suspension and irrevocable finality that made the event have such an impact on those that experienced it. Had an option existed to resurrect her, there would've been a diegetic split and I sincerely doubt that her death would've held as much sway because there'd be no obligation to acknowledge the canon where she died.
I find that narratives work kind of like a person's acceptance of something. It's only when you're pigeonholed that you accept something as reality, and I think the same applies to a narrative, insofar as the narrative's "reality" is concerned. Finality is a necessity in the making of most narratives. A backstory can still be neat and interesting without it, but ultimately, it will not be an effective or poignant narrative in and of itself.
Though, I also wanna say that if the game isn't as predicated on story as RPGs are, like say, I dunno, Mega Man, then alternate endings can be entertaining, as its attraction isn't necessarily an empathic relationship formed with the characters and diegesis.
In my opinion, this is how stories should flow in terms of splitting canons:
| - linear, no splits in canon. Example:
\/ - Split in canon where acknowledgment of a given ending isn't compulsory, which ruins everything. Example:
/\
\/ - Canon splits, but ultimately yields one final result. Not preferable, but acceptable as far as creating a cohesive world and story goes if done with taste and care. Though, it sometimes can be an extraordinarily effective technique if performed with mastery. Example:
The supreme irony present in such an ambitious presentation is that should the player be aware of the canonical split, that creates an existential conflict that reduces an otherwise fine narrative into a farce, thus less believable, and by extension, less immersive. It's the soi-disant "mistrial" of the video game world, in that which the mind has been tainted with aberrant information and thus has to be reset.
All things considered, I think it's just best to, in most cases, to rarely, if ever, leave the decision-making to the player. If the canon splits, but two separate realities are acknowledged rather than two potential ones by virtue of player choice, then it can be done, albeit with special conditions to maintain the cohesion of what's ultimately the purpose of a narrative. When the player has that much control, however, to generate and acknowledge two canons, then there's no obligation to recognize either canon as the "real" canon.
Another comfortable analogy is dreaming. Ever dream you were about to, I dunno, score with a chick you were into and wake up, only to find the distinct irreality of the dream makes a conscious continuation of it nearly impossible and ultimately not at all satisfying?
In conclusion, I think that while first-person decision-making has its place, its a very synthetic way to immerse a player. I'll demonstrate with an analogy: has a person ever felt catharsis from an ad-lib in such a way that they did from a masterfully-written book or play, barring those with some kind of schizoid personality disorder or profound mental ***********? True moral freedom in something like D&D would be different. However, games like the ones in question now have an extremely obvious prescription, wherein you're filling in a few blanks with a word bank, effectively turning improvisation and ad-libs into the beloved adolescent pastime glorified mad-libs.
It's an admirable ambition, but one that's ultimately condemned to failure for too many reasons.
As a little addendum here, this obviously doesn't apply to games that don't aim to be narratives. However, I'm under the impression that most WRPGs (nothing against them in principle, they just happened to have their hand in the cookie while I was on my verbal warpath of analytic criticism) pride themselves on elaborate storytelling.
I think sandbox games with bi-axial moral systems are just inherently flawed. The main reason, among many others, is that a binary split between moral choices isn't, I guess you could say, <soluble> in the typical narrative stew, though they try to force them to be.
The reason being, that a the split creates subjunctivity; a split reality. In a narrative, if your aim is to create an effectual story, then a potential split in canon, to me anyway, completely dissolves any potential finality the story can have, greatly subtracting from its emotional impact. The only way to reconcile that is by acknowledging that the player's choices don't matter and are non-canonical, in which case the entire choice system is vacuous.
So you either have a useless system, or a narrative ruined by potentiality. A good example, though probably really trite, is when
Aeris dies in FFVII.
I find that narratives work kind of like a person's acceptance of something. It's only when you're pigeonholed that you accept something as reality, and I think the same applies to a narrative, insofar as the narrative's "reality" is concerned. Finality is a necessity in the making of most narratives. A backstory can still be neat and interesting without it, but ultimately, it will not be an effective or poignant narrative in and of itself.
Though, I also wanna say that if the game isn't as predicated on story as RPGs are, like say, I dunno, Mega Man, then alternate endings can be entertaining, as its attraction isn't necessarily an empathic relationship formed with the characters and diegesis.
In my opinion, this is how stories should flow in terms of splitting canons:
| - linear, no splits in canon. Example:
Tales of the Abyss
\/ - Split in canon where acknowledgment of a given ending isn't compulsory, which ruins everything. Example:
Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls, etc.
/\
\/ - Canon splits, but ultimately yields one final result. Not preferable, but acceptable as far as creating a cohesive world and story goes if done with taste and care. Though, it sometimes can be an extraordinarily effective technique if performed with mastery. Example:
9 Hours, 9 Persons, 9 Doors
The supreme irony present in such an ambitious presentation is that should the player be aware of the canonical split, that creates an existential conflict that reduces an otherwise fine narrative into a farce, thus less believable, and by extension, less immersive. It's the soi-disant "mistrial" of the video game world, in that which the mind has been tainted with aberrant information and thus has to be reset.
All things considered, I think it's just best to, in most cases, to rarely, if ever, leave the decision-making to the player. If the canon splits, but two separate realities are acknowledged rather than two potential ones by virtue of player choice, then it can be done, albeit with special conditions to maintain the cohesion of what's ultimately the purpose of a narrative. When the player has that much control, however, to generate and acknowledge two canons, then there's no obligation to recognize either canon as the "real" canon.
Another comfortable analogy is dreaming. Ever dream you were about to, I dunno, score with a chick you were into and wake up, only to find the distinct irreality of the dream makes a conscious continuation of it nearly impossible and ultimately not at all satisfying?
In conclusion, I think that while first-person decision-making has its place, its a very synthetic way to immerse a player. I'll demonstrate with an analogy: has a person ever felt catharsis from an ad-lib in such a way that they did from a masterfully-written book or play, barring those with some kind of schizoid personality disorder or profound mental ***********? True moral freedom in something like D&D would be different. However, games like the ones in question now have an extremely obvious prescription, wherein you're filling in a few blanks with a word bank, effectively turning improvisation and ad-libs into the beloved adolescent pastime glorified mad-libs.
It's an admirable ambition, but one that's ultimately condemned to failure for too many reasons.
As a little addendum here, this obviously doesn't apply to games that don't aim to be narratives. However, I'm under the impression that most WRPGs (nothing against them in principle, they just happened to have their hand in the cookie while I was on my verbal warpath of analytic criticism) pride themselves on elaborate storytelling.
