LUCIDSTILLNESS'S PROFILE

That was an interesting read. This topic is a huge issue with many implications, further complicated by the fact that, as Prachett pointed out:

Game characters often come across as sort of asexual, and I wonder if that has to do with that urge to keep the protagonist as faceless as possible to avoid disagreements with the player.

Exactly. Many protagonists are essentially blank slates that a player can project on to. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as some of the most endearing protagonists in gaming have been silent (Gordon Freeman, for example). Having said that, the fear of alienating the audience,or introducing heavy subject matter into a recreational activity such as gaming, can force writers along a very narrow path of characterization. I think where Pratchett gets it right, and where, say, Yoshio Sakamoto got it wrong in Metroid Other M, is that you don't need to expose and highlight every insecurity and character nuance during the actual game itself; as a writer, you know that they are there, you know the character, and you know how he/she will react in a given situation. If a heterosexual character and a homosexual character both have to find their way out of a death trap, do you think their sexuality would ever come up at all in that situation? Of course not; it would only come up if the writer was trying to shoe-horn in some kind of statement, even if it went against characterization.

But as complicated as this issue is, as writers we really only have to think about characters as people. Imagine if you were this character; what would you do? Who would your friends be? What are you dreams? What do you want? Once you start thinking about all the implications of what it means to be a human being, the stereotypes will melt away pretty fast. Remember, nobody found Lee Everett hard to relate to in the Walking Dead series.

Creating nuanced characters and having those nuances actually be relevant is easier to do in something like an RPG, where story and character interactions are generally more important. To use a personal example, in the game I'm writing the various characters all have lengthy back stories containing a great deal of content that the player will only get glimpses of in the main story. Why bother with all that extra work? As a writer, I can't write these characters with any authenticity unless I know who they are, and I can't know who they are until they have a past, present and future. if I were to try, I'd end up with amazingly dull cliches, because I, like the player, would only be seeing the surface and nothing that was underneath.

So, in short, write people, not 'characters'.

Craze brings up a good point about mechanics, namely that antiquated mechanics should not simply be accepted because they are/were the norm for the genre. As a designer, your understanding of the game's mechanics has to be significantly ahead of the player's, as you otherwise run the risk of creating an imbalanced and flawed game.

There are many different ways to make a game (duh); Dragon Quest may be 'bad' by today's standards, but for the time it was a great game, and everything about it more or less works just fine. The designers knew what they were going for, and how they were going to accomplish their goal. Today, game designers have far more options, which means there is no reason to stick to doing things 'the old fashioned way'.

One relevant example that immediately comes to mind is Pier Solar, an independent RPG designed to commemorate the 20th Anniversary of the Gensis/Megadrive. The game is very professional, but it left some wondering why the mechanics of the game were in line with the visuals and presentation, instead of being updated to more contemporary game standards. Check out this review of the game for a more detailed analysis of RPG conventions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N6DUOeLhr0#t=51m29s

So, in short, think about how the mechanics fit together, and if there are other (and better) ways to accomplish the same things in your game. If you want to make a game just like Dragon Quest, hey, great! Just make sure the mechanics work so that the game is fun to play.

author=Milennin
In my game the way towards the goal is pretty much the entire game. There's this villain that lives in his dark castle of evilness, but before the hero can go there, he does other things first. Rather early on in the game, the main characters learn that they aren't powerful enough to beat this evil overlord. Though, there isn't enough of an imminent threat that they can't just go do something else for a while. So, it's basically shoved pretty low on the to-do list for the heroes. Meanwhile they just wander around the world, looking for adventure, going on side-quests, finding stuff, and getting stronger in preparation for the battle with the evil overlord at the end of the game.
Then again, the main thing in my game is about the heroes going on an adventure, and the many random things they encounter. It's not about this one main threat that's about the nuke the whole world into oblivion.

I'd say you're doing it right.

When you are experiencing any kind of narrative, be it a book, a movie or a game, chances are you want to get to the next exciting confrontation, and you don't want the pace to slack or pointless distractions in the form of 'filler'. However, the truth is that this 'filler' is a vital part of the pacing of the narrative; it is the substance of the story that connects and provides meaning and context to the points in the story.

LockeZ posted a link to Episode 7 of PA TV's Extra Credit a while back that I believe is relevant to this point:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/episode-07-pacing

Extra Credit used Star Wars as an example of solid pacing, but Star Wars owes much of its narrative structure to Joseph Campbell's monomyth, or the hero's journey, a basic narrative structure that is universal to human experience. Many variations of the monomyth exist, but the basic pattern is of a hero setting out from his/her home on a journey, being transformed through trials and temptations, confronting a challenge, experiencing death and wisdom, and finally returning, his/her transformation complete. In RPG terms, it is similar to what Milennin described; the heroes cannot confront the obstacle, because they have not undergone the trials to begin their transformation.

Consider this extremely simple RPG plot; suppose there is a dragon that is destroying the land and burning the fields of farmers. A normal farmer boy is inspired to stop the dragon when an old knight mentor figure gives him a sword. The boy wants to confront the dragon right away, but is encouraged to first train and learn about the world in which he lives, acquiring knowledge, allies, and most likely a love interest. Over time, the hero grows and becomes confident enough in his own abilities to confront the dragon...only for the dragon to defeat him and his allies. Devastated and alone, the hero now searches for answers within, rebuilding and rethinking everything he thought he knew as he journeys through either a literal or metaphorical underworld. Finally, the hero finds his way back, now truly wise, regains his allies and defeats the dragon for good. He then returns home, ascended beyond the experiences of normal men, to share his wisdom with a new, promising youth, just as his own mentor did with him.

In mechanical terms, the trials and the underworld are the valleys, while the confrontations with the dragon are the 'peaks'. If the story was all valleys, it would have no direction and no investment, but if it was all peaks, there would be no real sense of accomplishment in overcoming each obstacle. This is why, even in the absolutely worst-written RPGs, 'Distraction Cave' has a distinct purpose; it's there to provide a valley, a part of the heroic journey that will make the hero stronger (usually just through 'leveling up'). A cleverly written story uses these points to its advantage, as a clever author knows that the valleys are actually more important than the peaks in developing the narrative, the characters, and the world. In the Shandification video, talking to the aliens at the start was a 'valley', but it turns out that valley was critical to the player believing and accepting the world and the hero's journey within it.

One thing that the Shandification video didn't mention (I love that term) is that, even in a linear narrative, Shandification can and should always occur. Think about Final Fantasy XIII; it's pretty much a straight dash to the finish line, but along the way the valleys provide more details about the characters, the world, and, above all reasons for the players to care. Imagine if Final Fantasy XIII really was just a sequence of exciting boss fights; they might entertain for a while, but pretty soon the player would start to wonder about all the Shandification questions; where do these monsters come from, and what do they eat? XIII does provide answers to all of these questions, and those answers make the world more believable and, by extension, empower and give life to the hero's own narrative. After all, if the monomyth takes place in a stale, unrealistic and illogical setting, how can the player identify with the hero and his/her journey? Myths have power because they reflect the world around us, and because we can project our own experiences on to the protagonist.

There's a lot more to talk about, but to conclude for the moment, the valleys of your story serve a definite purpose, and should be treasured and polished even more than the peaks. If the player gets to the peaks, it's because the valleys kept him/her invested and attentive over time, and while one might think deviations or 'distractions' from the main plot are a bad thing, a clever game designer knows how to use the valleys to create proper pacing and investment.

Currently working on combat and map screen interfaces for my game. It's a juggle between having enough useful options, while still keeping things as aesthetic as possible.

It's true that gameplay trumps every other concern; Art vs gameplay? Gameplay wins. Story vs gameplay? Gameplay wins. Logic vs gameplay? Gameplay wins. Doing anything else will just make the game weaker, because we are making games first and foremost.

This does of course mean that many RPGs feature downright absurd elements, such as being able to steal grenades from fish in Final Fantasy X, or leaping into teleporting sand holes in Arc the Lad: Twilight of the Spirits, both of which occur in games that are intended to be taken seriously. Ideally, however, it's best to ground a scenario in some kind of logic. Real-world locations don't have puzzles unless they are explicitly built as tests or as traps, so that's worth keeping in mind when adding puzzles into your game. Similarly, the denizens of each location should fit the area, meaning that it's best to avoid having completely unsuited enemies in a location if at all possible (aquatic monsters that 'hover' in the air of dry caves, for example).

On an unrelated note, I think Intergalactic Dungeon Decorator Bob would make for a great game.