about this thread
I recently suggested, in this thread, that it seems as if it has meandered into almost too many directions and that it copes with too many questions at once. While the thread has served us/me as an excellent starting point & brainstorming about pros and cons with multiplayer visual novels (MVN:s) and the genres plausibility, I think it's hard to navigate it and/or use it for a more detailed discussion about each and every specific question. Add to that that there are some points that weren't even in my original suggestions, and we have a rather chaotic thread that's hard to follow.
I'm delighted about the high amount of participation in it and wouldn't have imagined so many posts. Nonetheless, I also see it as a call for
more structure. That way every sub-topic, every issue and idea, can get the attention it deserves in a more accessible format. As it currently is, it's hard for newcomers to the discussion and even those who have been in it from the start to actually understand anything from it. Even more so for me as each and every time I have to reply I must address a number of issues at the same time and answer a number of different authors.
It's because of the above reasons, and those only, I won't participate in the thread any longer. Instead I still suggest that each and every topic (problem/idea) gets it's
own dedicated thread. That way we can coordinate the communication way better. As for you guys, you are free to discuss it however you want and keep on using this for brainstorming, but I myself will only reply in the niched threads due to methodology. I also hope this isn't miss-interpreted in any way.
Of courtesy, and to return the favor of those who took the time to address me most recently in the thread, I'll give them a my last reply
in here. Again, I'll use the nicknames as titles. This time around I'll try to keep it short and direct, so the language may sound crude at time (English isn't my native tongue, I'm Swede).
Jake
I'm a frameworks programmer for an online application, and holder of a CS degree.
The reason I asked, however, is that mathematicians - and those in similar disciplines - use phrases like 'I have demonstrated' and terms like 'proof' to mean quite specific and sometimes quite different things to that which - say - an artist might use them to mean. So it helps when such terms are being thrown around to understand whether or not the person you're talking to means the same thing by them as you do.
That said, I was under the impression that philosophers tended to do a fair bit of logic...
Thank you for explaining - I probably took it the wrong way the first time I read it
..and yes, I agree that definitions should be top priority, something that hasn't been the case in here unfortunately, not even from my side.
You're impression is/could be correct: There are a couple of philosophical academic disciplines/areas: Logic is one of them, ethics and politic two others. I've only studied logic for a year or so, so I'm actually semi-acquianted with it. What I usually do is study phil. ethics & politics. I think you yourself point out that the use of it only matters when the assertions are true, and yes, so it is. Since most of what we've been talking about is empirical we seem to more or less to disagree, on some points, about how reality is. The best part with such disagreements are that they can usually be solved by going out to it and having a look or doing an experiment, just like you suggested that I code the thing myself
You think it's solved, but your solution basically involved making a fair number of simplifying assumptions. Which is fine, so long as you're aware that each time you made one of those assumptions you're narrowing the potential userbase down even further.
[Here we're discussing the waiting times as a result of different reading speed]
I fully agree with the part about losing user base. I also still
believe that the problem with waiting times is solved because I presented two solutions:
1. "Mini-games"
2. Extra fiction
Each of those could work as a way to occupy the faster reader if he needs occupation. A MVN could have one of them or even both. I have seen
nothing in this thread which I have
understood as some kind of argument for why
any one of these two solutions won't work. (I have only seen your worry about that the extra fiction will cause extra lag, and I also replied that it would not since signaling could be used.)
If the solutions work or not in the end MVN would ultimately depend on the author, how she'd implement them, and on the player, if she found them interesting enough to kill waiting time with. I'm aware that the author can fail with them, but don't consider it a problem since the same can be said about a single player VN, and thus is still not a problem with RenPy (the tool) but a problem with the user (the author/player).
OK. I don't like the language, /../ it would just include a lot of page-loading if you did that. But hey, for a proof-of-concept that should be OK, surely?
If nobody does give some kind of add-on to RenPy a shot, I think I will actually write a MVN as a concept. However, I'd do it in mIRC and it would be playable on IRC, with any client of your choice... simply because it would be easier and smoother for me. It would also be fully textual due to that. If this happens it will after all the discussions in this forum about MVN:s are at a halt and when I get some time from the university, which translates to this summer. If somebody feels like doing it before me with RenPy or an add-on to it I would prefer that, as using a real engine would always leave a better impression (working or not) even if it is a prototype. I'd also still contribute with my donation since I actually believe the concept is worth trying out.
I also agree with you when you claim that proto-typing will reveal things we haven't considered or can do so by discussing, thus the above change.
The whole watching-paint-dry thing was an analogy for multiplayer VNs; /../ looking at the wall on your own is a single-player VN. It's a thing which you have little control over, can only interact with in limited ways (e.g. by blowing on it, or by choosing from a multiple-choice menu every now and again) and broadly speaking it plays out in the same way every time you try it - the paint dries, or you follow the paths through the VN to the pre-scripted end. /../ You play the game, and it's different because you know there's a human on the other side of the wall/Internet.
[Notice, my italics in the quote]
I'll be frank with you. The point you have made is one of the most interesting ones I've read in here and it
is a key question of proportion, without denial. I'm not sweeping it under the rug. If you are correct about the answer it would mean that very few, if anyone, would play a MVN. If you are wrong, well, then at least that obstacle (and it's a major one to consider) is out of the way.
First of all, let's clear something up. You also write
"...supposedly - according to your theory - the game is worth playing because of the social aspect of simply knowing that the other player is there." No. I really don't claim
that. The game would perhaps be fully playable and at least or more enjoyable as single player VN. It would all depend on the author and the nature of the game.
I'm not saying that every multiplayer game gives its players what they hoped for. I can't guarantee you that 1) the author has written something worth playing 2) that you'll find and download it 3) that you'll enjoy that particular story/music/graphics or 4) that you'll have a pleasant experience playing it with P2 since I don't know how well you work with each other and how well P2 works with 1 & 3. Multiplayer is still just a function. That
alone doesn't enchant anyhting. If I have a turd in my pocket and me & you multiplay it it would still be a turd however much we took turns to squeeze it.
What I do claim is that putting another player on the other side of the wall usually seems to
bring something to the overall experience or parts of it, and that this
something which it brings can only be explained by sociological and/or psychological factors. That is the only thing I claim that a MVN
can offer that a single player VN can't offer (not unless you count imaginary friends etc
).
I claim that it is that way because it seems as a reasonable conclusion if you check out the countless possibilities human have to interact, directly or indirectly, IRL. In the case with a MVN the interaction is "indirect" (something I can contend but which I wont in here because my intro to this post.) To me, humans seem to prefer to rather sit silent and look at a wall next to another silent person than to do it alone. It would ultimately depend on every person and her preferences and purposes, but in general it's safe to say that humans are social animals. As such even non-activity can be social, per sociological definitions of not else. All this boils down to a discussion about humanity, our ways to be social, what we find in it that pushes us to strive towards such activities, and also psychology.
Here I get the feeling we're both laymen. I don't know how much related stuff you've studied. I myself have studied sociology for about 6 months at the university, mostly basic stuff of course. I wouldn't say I'm a sociologist nor that it really matters in this discussion what either of us have studied. I'm also only "revealing" that fact in order to show where I've gotten my influences from, for better & for worse. Experiencing something and relating it to social factors is something that's easily done in many cases. It doesn't mean I'm correct to assume that it's also the case with a MVN. All I'm claiming is that
any activity that involves "multihumans" seems to be a subject for at least
some sociological factors (granted they're aware of each other and function like average humans etc). Exactly which they are and how they work etc is something that's way beyond me - I lack the proper education to lecture about the details.
There's been no mention of direct communication, and in fact I strongly believe that it would detract from the VN-reading experience - so you only have trust in the game that there's a human there at all. You play the game, and it's different because you know there's a human on the other side of the wall/Internet.
I have mentioned direct communication in one of the replies somewhere in here, where I pointed out that a basic chat would be needed.
Not as a feature to play the game with, but more as an emergency solution to communicate with the other player if you need to go to the bathroom, want to continue playing tomorrow or whatever. I share your reservation towards it and agree that it would lead to detraction from the MVN.
And yes, you would have to trust the game that there is a human there. Just as you would do with many other games: If I play Monopoly, Chess or a card game through the internet, how do I know that it's not a well-scripted AI?
Yes, I know there are games where you can detect that you're playing against an AI, and there are still games where you can't unless you already have knowledge about the AI in question. I don't understand the point: RenPy would indicate that somebody connected to your MVN (if you host). It would show the players nickname somewhere, preferably not inside the MVN. You'd know that it's probably a real human that connected and wants to play with you, especially since the genre is/would be small and you wouldn't rely on random meetings in the internet but plan ahead instead and usually play with somebody you have communicated with beforehand. Now, it's true that you would never
know that it's a human. The fine part here is that it doesn't matter if it is or not. I'm saying that the
belief (the one which you'd probably call "knowledge" if you're an average person..) that it is is enough for you to play a MVN, something we'll soon return to.
So - if P2 walks away, and P1 doesn't know, then it's equally fun for P1 before as it is after?
Yes and no: It would still depend on the game at hand.
I mean,
you designed the game where they stared at the wall. In that particular case I'd say that the psychological and sociological factors which P2 brought into the world of P1 when he entered the wall-staring-game would
still be present if P2 sneaks away without P1 knowing it. It's nothing strange with this at all. Reality is
perceived and a state of mind for the
human individual, especially if we talk about it from the individuals point of view. [I'm not talking
about the reality science can describe to us regardless of what some people think is real or not, I'm talking about the individuals thoughts on reality, and those are just baseed on perceptions, thoughts, relations, ideas, feelings etc.]
Maybe the university has brain damaged me, but at my institution we don't make any difference between a situation where 1) you
really believe that your girlfriend loves you while she in reality doesn't and always tricks you into believing it and 2) you really believe that she loves you and she really does. With not making any difference and the situations being the same I mean from your own point of view, with regards to if you feel loved or not by her. What I'm trying to say (jesus, I should avoid this all together...) is that there is no
rational reasons for why you should prefer situation 2 instead of 1 if you
never will find out the truth about her deceit and she acts
identically in both cases. Thus, reality is a perception for you. Whatever you perceive, is real, for you.
All this equals to that it doesn't matter if P2 walks away if P1
still thinks he's there... (unless of course, the wall staring game was very complex, lacked a script, and demanded human responses and so forth.) P1 would still live in is world, where he has a pal on the other side of the wall, P2.
This leads to the obvious question - why bother having P2 in the first place, from P1's point of view? The experience apparently doesn't change when P2 is removed from the equation, so long as P1 believes P2 is still there.
I'd say that the question isn't really obvious: If P2 would never have been there then the psychosocial factors would also never be there for P1. They need to be initiated, meaning, P1 must believe that he
isn't alone there staring at the wall. Once they are in place a belief is initiated and their effects will show (I gave some stupid examples of those in a previous reply). With other words: In order to become a part of a social thingie you need another human presence and some kind of an understanding that you are somehow related by the situation/whatever. In a MVN that would be the
context - being in the same drama at the same time, knowing that whatever the other player does it could affect you and vice versa, knowing that it's not just about you + script + author but also yet another actual mind that maybe even has information you lack. Short, it's about knowing that you experience, share and interact indirectly which makes it,
from a psychosocial point of view, a different experience to play a MVN. That is true even if you could play the same story solo and reach the same ending by doing the very same choices.
So - how does a multiplayer VN differ in experience to a single-player VN which lies to you, tells you it's connecting out over the Internet (maybe checks it can access a website periodically to maintain the illusion) and pretends that some other player somewhere is travelling through the story with you?
In
most cases not at all.
I'm not sure, but I believe there are some stuff that can be written which arguably could be more interesting to play with a real human and that it in such cases would perhaps involve having different info (as an example) or being a very complex story that would require heavy scripting. Then again, I'm not sure and it doesn't matter much, so strike this last part as I'm aware that most things can be scripted.
What I fail to see here is how it matters that it doesn't matter if a player really plays with another player or not as long as he thinks he does. [This has probably to do with my notion of individual reality perception and would explain why you asked the question..]
The thing here is that it's
vital that the liar-VN never gets caught in the act. If it would get caught it would matter. If not, then no, it wouldn't matter. Then again, if somebody was to implement your liar-VN, what are the odds that it's not caught eventually? I don't know. It almost seems easier to implement a real multiplayer support than to start faking it
However, I'd be behind the faked solution as well
if it couldn't get caught or I never got to know that it got caught. [In reality, it would be easy to bust it though, I tell my partner to play with me... and that person would of course not be able to connect or connect and make choices that didn't matter and we'd understand that something interesting is cooking...]
If it's the same experience with fake-multiplayer as it is with real-multiplayer, then there's actually no value in the multiplayer aspect itself, the value lies in believing that another human is joining you in something. If that's the case, then it probably doesn't matter what that something is, it doesn't have to be a multiplayer VN, it could be watching paint dry.
Multiplayer-something get's it's value
in part by the social factors. It doesn't get it's
full value of them. This explains plenty, I believe. Usually we call games/activity where people engage together to be entertained or experience something "multiplayer". The same where no real human can join is usually not called that. Personally I don't care what the MVN:s are called as long as a majority of the people understand that they're not single-player.
Since the social factors don't explain
the whole value of multiplayer game named x and there are other factors at large, many which are perhaps unique to that game or a combination of them, there are still rational reasons for why most people would differentiate game x from game y and those with, say, staring at a wall.
I believe you have oversized the importance I have given the social factors. I would never claim that they
alone would account for why people choose an activity instead of another. All I suggested was that when people choose activities where more than one person is involved there is usually a social factor to it and that
it most often seems to contributes to the total experience, for better and for worse, and in different ways depending on the whole setting.
Lastly, I have no hard time imagining that there
are indifferent people, in the sense that they'd very well indifferent to if they watch a wall or play a MVN. As I've written before, MVN isn't a godlike activity that would interest every living soul. Neither is any other activity I know of.
MUDs, MUSHes and so on are all freeform-storytelling games, as is Second Life, and the non-combat roleplay part of any MMOROGAMAPOG. These benefit from multiplayer because otherwise you don't have any imagination to see new things from - you cannot be curious about your own creations, because you already know everything about the
Just a quickie: Do you believe that people would play them if they were uncertain if it was a real person or a computer on the other side (given what they see the other players do looks credible and readable etc)? Since we have already been discussing this and I suggested that it matters a lot that you believe that it's a human on the other side that you're playing with it would be interesting to see what you make of MUDplayers that know for a fact that all the other players are computers. My guess is that you'll say that the amount of MUDders would become lower. If so, wouldn't the thing that amount of ex-players would miss with an all automated MUD be... partially... the social factors? With this I'm just trying to show that there proabbly
is an un-explicit social factor in MUD:s and that it's reasonable to assume that it matters. If so, it follows that it also matters to know if it's a cpu or a human you play against, even if the output
looks the same... does it not?
My point is that these are the only two classes of multiplayer game that I can think of which currently exist - and a multiplayer VN quite definitely isn't either of those things. It doesn't benefit in multiplayer from the competetive aspect of a sport-analogy game because it doesn't necessarily have any competition, and it doesn't benefit in multiplayer from the creativity of a freeform-storytelling game because the players themselves have no opportunity to be creative, they're just selecting options from a menu.
You are right, a VN is neither to 100%. What I'm saying is that it is or could be a little bit of
both, all
fully depending on what you make of it. Hence, what I write wouldn't be true for every MVN since an author could produce crap in every respect.
It's not true that competition must be defined or even should be defined as you do, even if it sure sounds as a good start. I would like to point out that there's nothing weird with making it a sport and feel competitive when for example playing to finish Monkey Island (a point & click adventure game) before your friend does. To you guys, it could be a sport, it could be a competition, one which is even way more intriguing than playing rugby or whatever, You can compete in an adventure game, at least a well written one, since logic is involved in it. So, if you can compete in Suduko (spelling?) or some logical puzzle game and accept it's competition, then why on earth should it be impossible to find a story based game where you compete? Solutions to the story would simply require you to use your brain (else game over or whatever). Again, it all depends on what type of stories you produce. All I'm suggesting is that the feeling of competition and the understanding of skills etc isn't a necessary problem for a MVN.
In the same fashion, I challenge your thoughts of user creativity. We
both agree that it's creative of a MUD player to write:
"Hello long forgotten Wolf hero. I have come here with my magic bagpipe to create a grizzly whirlwind so thou shall not fear thy nightly demons again..." (english warning.. and this is just an example, we can agree on any player input)
We both believe, I think, that the player is using his creativity and is creating something. We also believe that that process enchants the game genre, and partially makes him to want to continue MUDing.
Now, what you don't seem to believe is that the user selectig pre-written choices in a MVN
is not creativity. I challenge that notion and I believe I'm in good company if you re-think it: It's true that selecting among pre-written options doesn't require the
same amount of engaging activity and it's also true that
the form of the creativity to a part is and looks different. But, consider this:
In a MUD the player plays in a context. He knows he's a dwarf. He knows what he can and cannot do. He knows a lot of stuff which both restricts and gives freedoms. Point being, however many freedoms he has, he also has a shit load of restrictions. Now, those were only the worldly and general restrictions. Add to those the restrictions in every dungeon/room, and also those depending on your co-players and what they expect you to do, your role in the party, your mission, your skills and so on. Again, you have plenty of restrictions.
So, whenever the MUD player decides what to do or say, he is
not free. He selects, and he evidently
selects under restrictions. The only difference here is that
the amount of restrictions differ greatly in a MUD and a MVN.
Now, look at a normal VN that has x amount of selections. Why does it have the selections, if selecting is not interesting for the player? It seems to me as
even when the player is really restricted, like he is in a normal VN,
it still is interesting to actually
get to select and/or have the option to do so. If I was wrong about this and most VN players don't want a single option and really don't get anything out of selection, then it's reasonable to think that most VN:s would totally lack all such interaction. You might argue that they do it to see different branches and that would be harder in a MVN, however, I hold that it would be true even when the selections only were a part of the same branch since it would still affect something in the story, or at least give the illusion of it affecting it.
If it's true that selecting brings something into a singleplayer VN then it's double true that it brings the same thing (and lag
) into the MVN. Thus I now assume that selecting, even in it's simplest form, does bring something to a MVN.
Back to the MUD & MVN analogy. How does the larger selection freedom in a MUD
negate what the limited selection brings to the MVN? Answer is that it doesn't.
They are still two different things, I agree with you on that. What I don't agree with is that making selections, even when you just do 2-3 of them or only have 2-3 things to choose from every time you do choose, doesn't involve creativity or activity. It would, as always, depend on the story how interesting you find the choices and how engaged you'd be in selecting the "correct" choice. That said, if you have been
reading the story until that point, you "must" actually think and use your brain before you select something. Say 3 different options are presented to you. You'd have to read them all and
play with the thought about what would follow if you selected a before b, or c before a and so on. You're play with the thought equals thinking, and since you have to think about what each option could lead to you, you would have to use
your imagination and/or logic (depending on game).
The above also doesn't mention what a player does
while he plays, in between cut scenes, intro, selection boxes. Many players actually
imagine stuff that has to do with the fiction at hand. They fill in the blanks, get hopes up, or are afraid that something will happen and so on. As a player you always relate to the gaming world somehow, or at least you probably should if you're playing a VN and the author knows his shit. All those relations you have, whatever they are, will in different ways affect what you select when you are offered a selection. Some of those relations are also highly creative.
Those are the reasons for why I actually believe that playing a MVN
would be creative. It would be in a sense I tried to capture in the above. No, it wouldn't create a story from zero, but it would, all depending on the players imagination and intents etc, create a story that is a product of both his and the authors creativity. I'm not saying anything about the proportions since they are obvious. Even if it's the author who does most of the work it seems as if what "little" interaction and creativity is needed actually is enough in some games. As an example, I would use the point and click adventure gaming genre, with games from Lucas Arts & Sierra On-Line as the prime example. Many of those games allows you to speak by selecting pre-written options. The rest of the games are usually simpler puzzle solving - bring this to there and do that and something else happens, repeat. In reality you aren't really that super creative when playing them. You are very restricted in many of them, and despite of that they're still a huge success.
Let's not go into the equalizing part. I'm not suggesting those games equal a VN or a MVN. I'm saying that selecting among a few lines of pre-written text in those games seems to work and be interesting as it has consequence. Yes, it would relate to everything else in those games. I know. Fact is that there are scenes in them where it doesn't or does so very poorly.
Forget them all together: The players selection matters, and
that makes the selection worth a while. It goes for VN:s, and, the same will go for MVN. Creativity is there. Spinning a story, that's creative. Figuring out who murdered somebody, or whatever, that gives your choices meaning. Being a
cause to events that follow and having to guess what they'll be, and so on. Again, if not so, how is the worth of choices explained in a regular VN? I'll admit that my explanation isn't full or covering all aspects of them. I'm just trying to show that there is creativity at large in different ways when making a choice and that it does engage people.
Perhaps "psychosocial"?
Seriously, though - you seem to be suggesting that the actual other person doesn't matter, only the belief of the single player that the other person exists. Which means that multiplayer isn't actually important at all, just belief in multiplayer. Which is curious, to say the least.
[My bad with the wording: Psychosocial is actually a real word.. in Sweden.. lol. It's psychological + social, and used whenever you refer to stuff that connects to both, which most usually do. ]
Yes, I'm suggesting just that.
Not because I want to make life harder for people in here, but because it seems that it's the case with human psychology and there's no point for me to lie about my belief. This has been explained in greater detail above somewhere, I hope it doesn't look as strange now as it did in my previous posts.
OK, so this leaves what, exactly, that they have in common? They both have stories, I guess, but so do paperback novels - and the story in a MUD is sourced from a totally different place (the player) to the story in a VN (the writer).
There are programs that ate designed to MUD with. Many of them have scriptable commands and/or the ability to use shortcuts. Imagine a scenario where the user pre-wrote most of his responses and actions in the MUD program, and every time he played, he just selected one of those pre-written responses. Say he starts with 10 000 such options (which is optimistic since restrictions in the game and what he can do etc etc would allow him way less, not counting different way to express the same things). Then narrows them down to 5 000, and then to 100, and then to 10. What does this tell you? In my eyes it seems as he comes closer and closer to what would be the case with a MVN. Somewhere along the road he stopped playing a MUD and started playing a MVN. Why? How do you decide? Because of the number of options available, or, because his actions were comfortably pre-written?
Say it's because the number of actions. Okey, what is the magic number, and how do you figure?
Say it's because they were pre-written. Okey, what does it matter, if he would have written the same thing on a logic level? (there are a million ways to express logical relations with natural languages, but on a logic level a phrase like "widow" = "wife who has a dead husband". ) You'd now insist that he wouldn't write the same thing, not in language nor that it would have same logical implications. Okey, I agree, maybe. Then I must ask if this if
the only thing that makes a MUD worth playing is that a player can freely express herself. You would probably be bound to answer "no". Then, after listing plenty of stuff, you will sooner or later say something that implies that social factors are present.
So, those, and the fact that you
do have very much pre-written content in MUD:s, would be what they'd have in common. Them being primarily "reading games". However, I'm prepared to diss my pointing out of the MUD and skip it as a reference altogether since it actually creates more problems in the discussion than it has proven to solve.
You are correct enough that MUD doesn't serve as a good analogy.
Wintermoon
I'll drop the mud-references since they have served no real purpose in my attempt to express what I was aiming at.
Sethaniel
(Again, apologies for not having the relevant texts at hand.) The proposed system of multiplayer VN, in my understanding, is one wherein all the possible choices for both sides have been preprogrammed by the author. To me, this doesn't seem all that different from using random.choice to make one "player's" selections. Could someone explain why/how (in terms of story structure or enjoyment) having another person choose from a list is better than having the computer make a random selection?
That's exactly what I explain in a number of my posts, mostly in polemic action with Jake
In short: People seem to prefer to play with other real people instead of computers. Why? There are many explanations and it often also depends on the game. However, in most cases it also brings a social aspect - doing something together, sharing the story, both being part of the experience of direct interaction with the story and through that indirect interaction with each other. Perhaps, depending on the game, also competition or co-work. For more details, see my posts, it's all there.
side note: For me, the fun of playing an RPG with another person is in the shared creation of a story. It's in the unexpected plot developments, the ability to leave the "main story" to forge your own path, the way in which a insignificant flavor-text character can become a hero, just because one of the protagonists liked their voice, and asked them to come along on the adventure.
Yes, and I agree - it's the same for me, and most RPG:ers would agree. However, the goal with a MVN isn't to replicate a traditional genre that's already around. It's to be a MVN.. meaning, "the same thing" as a VN but where some of the options are made by P2 instead of all being made by P1. You could of course use it to create RPG games where you hade 10 options in every selection screen, it would come very close to some more traditional games, but, I'm not advocating a
certain use of MVN:s - I'm advocating
the multiplayer functionality.
. Sure, it happen on solo player too, but in multi I doubt you will be able to reload your game to the last save...
. You can *always* share your experience of something, that doesn't make it multiplayer ^^.