Remember that really good book, that one you sat with for hours and just couldn't put down? Remember how you savored every moment and truly emerged yourself in the narration of this adventure? Do you recall, once finished, how you bragged to all your friends how fast you blew through the book and that you probably read 50 pages in less than 30 minutes. Of course you don't (and if you do, you're a horrible human being), because what would that gain you other than the satisfaction that either your friends are slow readers or you skimmed past something important in your hurry to be the number one finisher of that book.

Game is in the branding of the hobby, and by all accounts it's roots are in a setting where the High Score were the apex of achievement. Because at one point, games didn't necessarily contain all the complex narratives we have today. It was mechanics first. As the years have passed, and the medium evolved, we've reached a point where the mechanics isn't the only thing anymore. And since we have reached this point, why keep harping the same philosphy regarding design?

When we "win" a game, we get a sense of accomplishment and the high score lists are our bragging rights. But do we really need bragging rights in a story driven experience? I remember playing through Heavy Rain and trying my damndest to get "the best" ending only to have it blow up in my face, and once the sense of disappontment over my own short-comings subsided, I was happy that it happened. I don't need to win at enjoying a well written tale (Yes, Heavy Rain had huge plot holes, but for the sake of this example and topic, let's just ignore that), I just need to enjoy it. But gamers in general are a fickle bunch of entitled brats, if we don't get what we expect out of our calculated version of the game, we freak out. Because in a complete state of irony, we yearn for new ideas, but we fear change.

Walt Williams (head writer for Spec-Ops: The Line) said in a spoilercast on Gamespot (Here, well worth your time) that one of the things they wanted to do was play with player expectations versus the reality of the situation. As players doesn't always have the full information when they enter a specifc situation in order to make a well educated decision. And the end results might not come out the way they anticipated. I think that is something games need more, ignoring player entitlement and look at the bigger picture instead. We're so used to being the masters that we're sometimes forgetting what it is like not to have all the answers and even then, that things will play out the way we expect them to. Because in most of life, it's harder to calculate those things. And why should games be so simple as to cater to our every whim?

But the question remains then, do I as a player need to feel I won? How do we define winning in games where the end goal is less clear? Is reaching the end of the road within an experience enough to be a "win" or does the end have to be a cathartic orgasm of closure and success? I say no. I don't need to feel I won, as long as I feel the road to the end was worth my time. And that the end justifies that journey, whether I am sitting there in complete and utter defeat or joy. However, if winning would imply that the end was satisfactory no matter it's implications on the game world, I could agree with such a proposition. But I don't need to "be the winner."

As seen on the Dialogue Options blog. I wanted to put it here on my own blog as well. As a way to make sure all my writing appear in one place.