[MUD-Dev] Homogeneity and choice

[Paolo Piselli]

--- Mike Rozak <Mike at mxac.com.au> wrote:
> Paolo Piselli wrote:

>> Just to add some analogies to this post: I do recall having seen
>> good movies and read good books with low-points and tragedy.
>> However, I don't recall ever having read a good book with some
>> uninteresting filler chapters in there that serve no other
>> purpose but to make the experience of reading the book take
>> longer and therefore be more satisfying to finish.  I don't
>> recall watching any good movies with intentionally uninteresting
>> scenes that you just have to sit-through and bear in order to get
>> to the really interesting parts.

> A few months ago I would have completely agreed with this
> statement, but now I'm not so sure:

> Interactivity is all about choices. For a choice to matter to the
> player, the alternatives must have different consequences, not all
> of them good. To create a "bad consequence", designers have
> several options:

I absolutely agree with this and everything else that you wrote.
You are discussing *choices* with *consequences* which may be better
or worse.  I said that highs and lows are present in other fictional
experiences.  The point I was making about a "lulls" or
"low-amplitude experiences" was more about negative experiences that
are associated with non-choice.

I must get to the other side of the mountain.  The pass is blocked.
At my charachter's level, The only other option is to travel 20
leagues around to the south.  There is no choice.  I must suffer the
journey.

I must get to work.  There only way to cross the river is by
highway.  Route 128 is backed up with traffic today.  There is no
choice.  I must suffer the traffic.

Ok, well there are choices in these examples, because the "must"
conditions are preconditioned with respect to some goal that I have
placed high enough value on that it dictates my behavior.  I have a
goal to keep my job therefore I must go to work.  I have a goal to
quest for the uber sword of leetness therefore I must get to the
other side of the mountain.

> Am I making sense? (I suspect not.)

Yes, you are making plenty of sense :)

> Consequently, I'd claim that making the user spend 20 minutes
> riding to their destination is a useful device if it's the
> consequence of a bad choice the player made. This, of course,
> means that the right choice allowed the player to avoid the trip,
> or at least have fun on the trip. (There are other reasons why a
> 20-minute horseback ride might be good, such as a way to make the
> destination more valuable.)

I agree that choices need consequences in order to have weight.  The
trick is getting the consequences "right".  IMO, the push towards
"casual-friendly" MMOs is in the right direction.  It is a movement
towards a style of world where consequences are balanced such that
more people have an enjoyable experience, even if it means moving
away from other design goals such as realism or strongly encouraging
socialization.

-Paolo
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev