Part 2 of 3, by Brian Kindregan
An example and a question for you!
So do I avoid looking at the numbers? Unfortunately, no. If they’re easily available in game, I have to look. Sometimes I try not to… but they’re right there! So I’ll take an example of a hard fight I did on two separate play throughs of Mass Effect. (I did not work on the first game so it was all fresh and new to me.) The Matriarch Benezia fight is generally considered tough. The first time I played the game on the regular difficulty setting, I wasn’t looking at numbers carefully. This was the extent of my numerology: “Oh this thing makes my bullets do more damage. So does that one but it has a IV after the name… I’ll use that one.” It was a tough fight, and frustrating. I had to try different strategies, some madcap schemes and even a few hail-maries. (Hail Mary +2!) Finally I downed her and moved on with my game, secure in the illusion that this was all real. The second time through, on veteran difficulty, I one shotted her. (In the sense that Shepard and both of my squad members each did one action then she was dead. Maybe that’s three shotting.) The difference? I’d looked at all the numbers carefully and designed a strategy around that. (The second play through was months later, so I didn’t remember what had worked the first time.) Did that make it less satisfying? No. But did it make it more satisfying? No. I still killed her the same. I couldn’t win more than I had the other way, just quicker. (And, uh, with no reloads.) But I didn’t think any of it was real. Benezia was a boss at the end of a level.
So am I saying that those who look at numbers are robbing themselves of enjoyment? No, because it’s your game, you paid for it, you should play it the way you that brings you the most fun. There is certainly no “right” way to play an RPG. But it made me wonder, have you (yes you! The one reading this!) ever tried switching your modus operandi?
Have you, the immersion player, ever tried dissecting the numbers, min-maxing, maxing out and generally upping your pwnage attribute? Attacked it like a puzzle? Decided that you will make your character/party a force of nature? (Er, if nature were a collection of really good numbers that is.)
Have you, the numbers player, ever tried playing the RPG game like a story? Stressed out about what will happen to the hostage if you fail this quest? Done things that didn’t bring you more XP because it was what your character would really do? Or what (gasp) you would really do? Reacted with more emotion than calculation?
Are they mutually exclusive?
Brian Kindregan served in 7th Special Ops group of the US military before working as a director and storyboard artist in the film business in Los Angeles, CA, for 15 years. He is a Senior Writer on the Mass Effect franchise, and wrote on Jade Empire.
Tags: game design, kindregan
November 15, 2008 at 10:15 pm |
Depends on the game, yeah?
If it’s a cliched rpg like Fable I’ll just pick whatever nets the most xp and doesn’t make me feel like a complete asshat. If it’s the sort of game with a really interesting world to explore like Bloodlines, I’ll pick whatever gives me the best chance of seeing the most of the game’s dialogue (took hacking only so I could read character’s emails >_>). For my favorite type of videogame though, the type that just pulls you in and never lets go, I’ll answer with what I would honestly say. Because with those games I don’t want to break the mood, I want to see the characters and the world change as I would change them, for better or worse. When your character does something you never would’ve done, you just…disconnect a little. Then the not-you goes and warps the plot around in a way that isn’t a result of your actions, and the whole thing is just a /game/ again. I’ve knowingly walked into ambushes despite prior metagame knowledge of ‘em because I wanted to be a part of that world, not apart from it.
November 30, 2008 at 1:30 am |
I’m old school, so I know how to minimax, but I rarely do in a story driven game. I play my character as I think they’d play. Oddly, I think the moment I enjoyed most in Mass Effect was when the security at the corporate world tried to take away my guns. My Shepard was a complete Paragon, but she’d also been told “you are the law” so often about SPECTRE status that I absolutely refused, and I was actually kind of disappointed (in character) that the arrogant sec guards were called off, because it meant I couldn’t show that I was the fist of the council. After that I had a firm grip on my Shepard’s character: she did the right thing, but that didn’t mean she wasn’t the marshal in town. She’d ask nice, but she wouldn’t back down.
Made the game a lot of fun. Never really looked at the numbers, fought the battles with the characters I liked most (had two full adepts in the group most of the time). Felt really bad for Benezia and Liara, too, that whole “there’s no light, there was supposed to be a light” bit was creepy as hell.
January 4, 2009 at 8:26 pm |
I do both, the main reason being that the story is not on a perpetual clock. You can go do 20 sidequests in Mass Effect, come back stronger and the story does not change in any way in regards to how long you’ve been gone. This asset gives you a great deal of freedom, but at the sacrifice of perpetuity, so you can min-max all the livelong day and still enjoy the story – thoroughly – on the first playthrough. It always waits for you.
BG II was occasionally different. Resting was important in that game because it regenerated magicks (*essential* to pure spellcasters) and healed characters for the cost of.. What? 8-16 hours game time and possibly a small inn fee. That’s it. Where this turned against you is timed quests like the De’Arnise Hold; if you rested too often then Nalia would take the bull by the horns and go rescue the keep herself (not that she actually did, but it established where her priorities were). I suppose this put a damper in grind runs, though the quest would usually net equivalent XP anyway.