The Aberrant Gamer: 'Choose Your Own Adventure'
August 30, 2007 12:14 AM | Leigh Alexander
[The Aberrant Gamer is a weekly, somewhat NSFW column by Leigh Alexander, dedicated to the kinks and quirks we gamers tend to keep under our hats-- those predilections and peccadilloes less commonly discussed in conventional media.]
In last week’s column, we discussed BioShock’s Little Sisters as part of a legacy of creepy, ambiguous little girls in survival-horror who highlight our dark sides with their innocence and shame us by letting us see ourselves through the eyes of a child – even if those eyes are a pair of eerie orange headlamps. Mention the Little Sisters, though, and the question’s bound to come up: Harvest or rescue?
Whichever your pleasure, chances are BioShock fans (and those who are damn sick of hearing about it) have heard or participated in a discussion to that effect at some point over the past week. And in those discussions, chances are someone’s raised the issue of choice in games; that very issue came up in the comments on my last column. As I mentioned last week, I have heard in my colleagues’ work, in emails I’ve received and in various discussions lately – whether about BioShock or other games, such as in the comments of my recent column on Persona 3 – that thus far, what we’ve been offered in terms of "choices" from gaming often tend to amount to little more than what one reader called a “cost-benefit analysis”. In other words, since the impact of our choices is limited to a statistical benefit or penalty (with perhaps a different ending tacked on), any moral or emotional decision presented to us can be reduced to a technicality.
In a recent article at Sexy Videogameland, however, I explained why I feel that the immersive, richly-realized environment of BioShock makes the moral issue very much a choice[spoiler-free link], in that it very greatly alters how it feels to play the game. The sensation of having a choice, an impact, comes from my relationship to the game, a connection that I actively choose to make whenever a game is fleshed-out enough to make it possible. If you aren’t particularly absorbed in or affected by the experience of playing BioShock, or any other game, chances are you’re calculating cost and benefit rather than feeling anything significant changing for you, either.
“Choice in games” is the new Holy Grail, it seems. In the comments on the article I just mentioned, one reader raised PC games like Fallout and Baldur’s Gate as his ideal example of how a game should handle choice. When applied to console gaming or a single-player closed story, though, they become less possible because of the lack of open-endedness, real-time dynamics, or other players. But what would real, definitive branching in games, real gratification for decision-making, look like? And could it be that – of all things – Hentai games know something we don’t?
Plenty of games previously discussed in this column have incorporated some very appealing choice elements. Fan favorite Silent Hill 2 will penalize you for choices you aren’t even aware of making; the story’s outcome is affected by player behavior that indicates a certain preference or state of mind, rather than a single decisive path taken or action chosen. For example, things like examining in your inventory overmuch the knife with which Angela wanted to commit suicide, or staying too physically near the manipulative, sexy doppelganger of your dead wife – such behavior assumes a certain morbidity or weakness of character that reflects on you in the end. You’re never told this, either; if not for GameFAQs, fan forums and strategy guides, nobody would even know.
But Hentai games have choices at their crux. In fact, choosing is the only gameplay to speak of. You watch a scene or an animation, look at some still images, read some narrative and some dialog. Then, the game asks you what you want to do, and you pick. You make your choice with an objective in mind, and there are several objectives – in other words, potential mates – from which to choose. Sometimes it’s not clear whether the decision to be detached or affectionate, to stay after school and help your buddy with his homework instead of going to your club meeting, to snoop in your sister’s room or leave her diary alone, will help or hinder you trying to score with the library girl, your Mom or the interdimensional magical warrior. You can guess, but it’s not always eminently clear (in the more complicated H-game) – and if you don’t choose well, you might lose your shot.
One game I recently reviewed, Yume Miru Kusuri, takes this decision-making to a particularly advanced extent. There are actually three disparate games here; at times, they overlap, and at others they're broadly divergent. A character may die if you don’t take the opportunity to intervene in her life early on; another may fall in love with you but disappear forever if you don’t keep your commitments in mind. Granted, this setup is still relatively simple compared to what choice in games could be – picking plot branches and then getting a “good” versus a “bad” ending is hardly sophisticated. But it’s notable in that what you get for your decisions is a wholly different experience that reflects the fact that you selected one option over another. And each disparate branch feels like a separate relationship evolving, the story beginning to show influence of the traits and tendencies that may have led you to choose that girl in the first place.
When Aberrant Gamer discussed text adventure sex games, I picked the oddball Moist to demonstrate how erotic games might work without pictures. You’d think that a text parser wouldn’t offer much in the way of flexible experience, but Moist is about one thing and one thing only – sex, of course – and as such, the programmer thought of everything. While there are only four different women in the game and they’re all pretty unremarkable “types”, just about any action in your deviant imagination is understood by the parser, and its result is explained in lush detail. Having sex with these women is the vehicle by which you must progress the game’s plot, as flimsy as it is, and you can accomplish this in any fashion that appeals to you. While each girl prefers something specific, after a certain point you can get them to do anything, which means that Moist is an entire game, beginning to end, that you can play your own way. Pretty revolutionary for text-only.
Sex games have been thinking about choice for much longer than mainstream ones; after all, the allure of sex as a computer or video game is that, unlike a still image or porn flick, the interactive element in gaming allows you to have things your way. So to build a better sex game, Hentai titles and their ilk have been adding more and more options for helming your very own personal ship of love. One of the reasons this column exists is to highlight some subtle things that sex games get “right” in terms of the overall gaming experience – like creating a visual experience, or treating emotional relevance as essential, for example – that are overlooked because they’re, well, porn.
There’s another reason, though, why sex games might be more effective at creating choice – or, at least, the impression thereof. When we play a Hentai game or any other interactive sex game, we know precisely what kind of experience we want from it, and what we want our end result to be. There’s no need even to think about it. However, when we play a mainstream game, our reasons are much broader and much more subjective, justifiably. When you sit down to play BioShock or Persona 3, what do you want from it; why are you playing, and what do you expect? That's entirely subjective, and the answers will be as numerous and varied as the individuals in the gaming audience.
Are you playing BioShock because you love action shooters, or because you love exploring complex scenery? Or are you going into it looking explicitly to be rewarded – or punished – for your values, whatever they may be? Do you enjoy video games that challenge you to puzzle out combat strategy or stat allotment, or do you prefer to pretend you’re in a fantasy, with as little interruption between you and the virtual as possible?
The difference between a choice that feels impactful and a cost-benefit analysis that feels hollow or manipulative is not only in the validation that the game provides for one path versus another, but in how it changes our experience of the game. And that needn't be something we can see on the screen. Whether, for example, Persona 3’s social elements feel like a superficial and mindless leveling system or a systematic, emotional power-game is entirely up to the player. Games have a great deal of power to give us experiences – but primarily, they offer us the structures to create our own. Good structures are essential, but at the end of the day, we get out of it what we put in. As for how you are affected and what it means to you -- ultimately, that’s your choice.
[Took the lead image from Bonnie's Heroine Sheik -- you'd think such a picture would be easier to find, right?]
[Leigh Alexander is the editor of Worlds in Motion and writes for Destructoid, Paste, Gamasutra and her blog, Sexy Videogameland. She can be reached at leigh_alexander1 AT yahoo DOT com.]
Categories: Column: The Aberrant Gamer








14 Comments
Why only hentai games? The broader genre being Visual Novels, you can find non-hentai games with the same appeal. Ever17 by Kid comes to mind (or all-age versions of famous hentai games actually).
Anyway... I think it's interesting how most games let you direct each step of your avatar, yet don't allow you to impact the world much. And visual novels only give you a few choices... but they have a lot more impact.
Monele | August 30, 2007 7:38 AM
I liked the articles you did about specific games more then some of these generalized articles.
I found this one hard to take seriously after you dismissed Fallout and Baldur’s Gate.
Corey Holcomb-Hockin | August 30, 2007 1:55 PM
I absolutely did not dismiss them -- would you mind reading that sentence again? In fact, I absolutely concur, but was saying that the things that make games like that compelling in terms of choice and freedom are harder to apply to closed-ended game design, like on most console titles. : .
Leigh | August 30, 2007 2:30 PM
Bioware's games use dialog trees. Their games have well developed characters that react to the players decisions and commonly have romances plots. The dialog tree part of the gameplay is similar to the Hentai games you are using as the most positive example.
Corey Holcomb-Hockin | August 30, 2007 7:56 PM
Thought that image looked strangely familiar :).
"One of the reasons this column exists is to highlight some subtle things that sex games get 'right.'"
Cool point. There's definitely an argument to be made that sex itself is a form of game, so it totally makes sense that sex games could show us a thing or two.
I totally agree with you about the difference between choices that seem calculated and those that seem meaningful. I personally decided at the beginning of Bioshock to save all the Little Sisters (I'm playing on "easy"). The strange thing is though, that decision is seeming less and less meaningful with each one I save. Probably because their responses are all the same, I feel like I'm losing the meaningfulness of that choice...
Bonnie Ruberg | August 31, 2007 7:42 AM
Bonnie -- I owe you a drink!
Generally I don't favor playing a game for the ending, or judging a game experience on that one final cutscene, but in this case, i.e how meaningful your choice to save is, I suppose that the final outcome does play a role in how you will feel about your decision in retrospect. It's a wait-and-see then, right?
Leigh | August 31, 2007 10:43 AM
Bioware's games have dialog trees, and the choices you make affect a small part of the game. But not the overall plot. You may have chosen to romance the flighty blond elf chick instead of the dark angsty elf chick and gotten some different dialog because of it, but you still go up against the same big demon in the end and it plays out almost exactly the same way.
Even with, say, KoToR's good/bad options, you still end up getting to almost exactly the same point, just with some different flavor text and a couple of changed sidequests.
Visual Novels are more likely to let the entire storyline go off in a different direction, not just the main path with a little bit of alteration.
Give me two more months - I am nearing release on an adventure game which is full of choice, multiple paths, and multiple endings. :) (but with puzzles/gameplay instead of pure CYOA)
http://www.hanakogames.com/fatal.shtml
Hanako | August 31, 2007 2:49 PM
Phew, that last one was a doozie. One more comment and I'll be quiet.
I would like to tie my comments about Oblivion together with the previous discussion about the hentai games and BioShock.
Essentially, there are two major paradigms in single player character based action/adventure/rpg games. One involves crafting a story and creatively leading the player through it. The second involves providing a loose framework of a narrative and allowing the player to dictate the action, pace, and execution of the game. BioShock is an example of the former and Oblivion represents an example of the latter. The key difference is the way in which the games progress.
It reminds me of an article I read a long time ago about designing characters for video games. You could either design a character or an avatar. A character is a separate entity from the player with their own back story, motives, and goals. An avatar, on the other hand, is simply the players representation in the game world. The motives, goals, and back story of both the player and the avatar are the same. The article went on to suggest that characters were well suited to third person games and that avatars were better suited to first person games. Both BioShock and Oblivion are first person games, but one uses a character and the other provides an avatar.
BioShock, a linear story based game, provides a character. The player is in no way related to the character who navigates the corridors of Rapture. The player watches the game unfold through the eyes of this character. It is this aspect of the game that is extremely limiting. The choices in the game may seem superficial because it is impossible to truly affect the outcome or the environment.
The player cannot affect these elements because the story is not within the players control. BioShock is not the story of the player but instead the story of the player character. As a player, you are unable to affect things because from the minute you boot up the game you enter into the story scripted for you by Ken Levine and the 2K Boston Team. BioShock, for most, is like a roller coaster ride. It's thrilling, but you can only go where the rails take you. Sure you can shoot things however you like along the way and there is one switch in the track, but in the end you are locked into the experience. The player controls very little because it is not their story to tell, rather it is the game character's story put on display for the player.
Oblivion is another matter entirely. In Oblivion you are given an extremely customizable avatar. The character created for Oblivion is your representative in the digital game world. There is some brief exposition at the beginning, but from the character standpoint your character starts off in prison with no recollection of how they got there and moves forward from that point. From the beginning of the game to the end (whenever you decide to stop playing in this case)the experience of the player and the avatar are synonymous.
As a result the narrative for the Oblivion player is built up of their own choices from start to finish. In essence the player defines the story by playing the game. Oblivion is more akin to going backpacking than riding a roller coaster. It can still be thrilling, but you chose where you go instead of being tied to a rail system. You can pick up the narrative threads of the main quest to see where they lead or just go dashing off into the woods for random adventure.
Each approach is arguably a worthwhile endeavor. In BioShock the aim is to create a deeply immersive interactive story. In Oblivion the goal is to create a fully realized virtual world so that the player might immerse them self in it, and have an interactive experience.
Games will continue to evolve along each of these paths. I am personally far more interested in the path set forth by games like Oblivion and the upcoming Spore. Many mediums can provide compelling linear storytelling, but only an interactive medium can provide a compelling multidimensional experience. I believe that experiences of this type really allow games to shine because they showcase the unique strengths of the medium.
John Jackson | September 2, 2007 1:39 AM
@John Jackson
I think you're being a little too black and white about this. Games like Bioshock and, in fact, Persona 3 don't really have fully developed characters in the role of the protagonist. It might actually be more accurate to call them avatars, albeit avatars within a fairly linear narrative. The entire idea behind having a silent protagonist is that the player can project their own personality in a way they cannot in games like God of War, to name an obvious example of a pure character.
And I have to diagree with your last statement as well: I don't know how far you've progressed in Rapture, so I'll avoid spoilers, but suffice it to say that when you meet Andrew Ryan the concept of "choice" is tackled in a way that wouldn't have been possible in any other medium, regardless of the fact that Bioshock is indeed a perfect example of linear storytelling. That scene is what elevates the game to classic status for me, and it is completely dependent of your identification with the game's protagonist, in other words, your acceptance of having the protagonist be your avatar.
I still shake with existential confusion when I think back on it.
@
farren79 | September 2, 2007 2:41 AM
@Bonnie Ruberg:
"The strange thing is though, that decision is seeming less and less meaningful with each one I save. Probably because their responses are all the same, I feel like I'm losing the meaningfulness of that choice..."
Interesting. Maybe we, as gamers (or even as humans), are too conditioned to getting some sort of gratification. Actually, for a moral decision to be truly meaningful, it shouldn't carry any reward - which is why it's slightly disappointing that Tenenbaum's rewards after saving the Little Sisters still give you nearly as much ADAM as you would have received if you'd harvested them.
But what you describe is actually a good thing, because it's realistic, as it's somehat akin (I'd imagine) to the jadedness real-life heroes feel when they save their hundredth war child: it becomes a grind, because there's always more of them...
farren79 | September 2, 2007 2:48 AM
First and foremost, thank you for the response.
I agree with you that there is a character/avatar gradient. The character in Bioshock may be considered an avatar to a limited extent. He is your connection to the game world, and you do experience the game from his perspective. However, with the exception of deciding what to do with the little sisters, you are experiencing the game from the character's perspective.
The character in BioShock is as much a Character as Gordon Freeman or Samus Aran. None of them talk like Kratos, and for the most part do not take part in lengthy 3rd person cinematics. The key difference for me is that they are not created by the player, and perhaps more importantly they are not solely under the control of the player.
I have completed the game so you don't have to worry about spoiling it for me. The scene in Ryan's office that you mentioned illustrates my point. (I agree it is a brilliant scene) You must witness this scene because you are replaying the events of the main character interactively. Similarly, in order to complete Half-Life or Metroid prime you must undergo certain experiences because you are replaying the events of an established character. The guy from BioShock makes it to Ryan's office and has a pivotal experience. Gordon Freeman Defeated Doctor Breen, and Samus bested the space pirates. All of these events happened before you ever played them. You were merely along for the ride.
In the case of the avatar you do what you do in the game and that's that. There is no event in Oblivion that you must experience because it is part of your character's story. You make your own story by playing. In that respect the three character's mentioned above act as your avatar for combat and exploration. You can choose how you defeat the antagonist, but if you intend to finish the game you must follow the route your character took.
On the whole I think we agree on all fronts. There is a gradient for characters. The protagonist is more of an avatar than Kratos, but clearly a character like Gordon Freeman. After all, a certain character is dispatched by someone who is not the player. His personality is left blank but he clearly already has a fleshed out history and destiny.
As for my last statement, I'm not sure what there is to disagree with. I don't think you disagree that the unique element games bring to the table is interactivity. I mean interactivity is what makes the scene in Ryan's office. Outside of that, I think Games do lend themselves more to multidimensional experiences than books or movies. I mean you can have choose your own adventure books or branching videos, but in general I don't believe those are as compelling as an interactive game. As for me preferring games like Oblivion and Spore, that is simply my preference.
I never said BioShock wasn't a multidimensional experience. It is true that I believe it is only a small riff on linear storytelling, but it is a riff. I think I see where you are coming from. The scene in Ryan's office is explored in a manner unique to games. It is a novel use of game mechanics. However, I think that exploring the concept of evolution through game play will be far more compelling and offer greater replayability.
We can agree to disagree, though, if you wish.
I personally found the scene with Andrew Ryan to be ironic. The point he makes about choice actually highlights how little choice the player has in BioShock with regard to the narrative.
John Jackson | September 3, 2007 3:06 AM
For anyone who hasn't finished the game, this post contains heavy spoilers.
Thanks for your nuanced response.
What I meant when I said I disagreed with your last statement in the previous post, is that it seemed that you were saying that only non-linear experiences could truly play to the strengths of the videogame medium (I'm still not sure what you mean by "multidimensional experience", by the way. Do you just mean non-linear?). I disagree with that notion because, as we both agree, Bioshock proves it wrong; the scene with Ryan works exactly because the game is so linear.
And you're right, on a certain level that makes the scene with Ryan ironic. But it works on a deeper level as well. It challenges your notions of freedom - how hardwired are our choices, anyway? Why do we make the choices we do - in real life, I mean? Aren't we all a product of our parents' genes and the influences in our lives (metaphorically speaking, Ryan's DNA and Fontaine's hypnosis)? We all feel a little existential chill when someone else can predict how we will act in a certain situation - when someone manipulates us into doing something, we still make our own choices, but we aren't really free - or are we?
After the scene in Ryan's office, the rest of the game actually rang false to me - freedom does not exist, there is no escape from our preconditioning. "A man chooses, a slave obeys." But we're all slaves to something, and nothing could ever possibly set us free.
And THAT point couldn't have been rammed home effectively by anything other than a linear videogame, the medium that most closely resembles life in offering the illusion of choice.
So we'll have to agree to disagree; you're right about it being merely a matter of personal preference, though.
One last note though: to finish Oblivion, don't you have to close the Gates and repel the demon invasion? Sure, your freedom to go off on your own adventure is a lot greater than most other games, but to finish the game you still have to follow the prepared storyline, don't you? Isn't it actually the same game design as the GTA series (and I'm sure you'll agree that that series features characters, not avatars)? I think we shouldn't look at the gameworld when deciding if a protagonist is a character or avatar, but only at the protagonist itself. I think you're on the right track when you mention the ability to create your own character, but also, your character's background can't figure into the story.
Do you agree?
farren79 | September 3, 2007 2:26 PM
this game sounds soooo stupid that i would rather play bribe if yu think it sounds fun fuck you all
abbie | November 19, 2007 1:14 PM
Your dumb farren haha
ian | April 15, 2010 2:09 PM