Should VS embrace the Immersive Sim in its Story?

[Perdido Street]

Even without how often the words "immersive" and "simulation" are used when describing VS, the dynamic ability to travel through and reshape the world (where limitations are few, and grounded in the internal logic of the setting) puts the game in that category. In many ways, alongside a handful of other survival-builder sandboxes (particularly Minecraft), VS is probably one of the most elaborate immersive sim games in the world. The level of agency available to players even blows games like Deus Ex and Skyrim out of the water, however, that is in terms of physical agency (not only can you "See that mountain? You can climb it," in VS you can break down the whole mountain range and rebuild it as a stadium), whereas the types of narrative agency present in those games is still somewhat lacking here; This is less of criticism and more of a statement, given that (while the game is already massive) we are still in what is, relative to the overall vision of the game put forward by the devs, early-early access. 

What I'm getting at is that the survival game elements of VS are very "immersive sim-y" in nature, whereas the main story (at least right now) is a lot more linear and, at-times, relies on restricting players out of the immersive sim (picking-up and putting down blocks in different locations). While I understand some of that is an unavoidable concession to balancing, at least in its current state, there is no other developed mechanic (stealth, combat, character interaction, etc) that can step in and fully fill the void. 

To be clear, this is not a criticism of the contents of the main story (I think that it is compelling, and genuinely boasts some of the best presentation out there), just an observation about how the core mechanics of the game and the sandbox are much better integrated with one another than those same mechanics are with the story. It is a very natural and satisfying progression through the first year of the game (a sort of light narrative) going from the stone age to the late stages of metal working, all with the overarching challenge of building up to survive the winter (challenging enough that it has to be addressed, but open ended enough that it can be solved in numerous creative ways). Meanwhile, the story is not rooted the same way in survival (after all, if the story had to be completed as a survival objective then it would not be optional), so progression takes more of a "conquest" format, like in Minecraft (we don't go into dungeons or seek out story locations to secure our survival, but to unravel the mystery and test our abilities against escalating challenges - we 'conquer' the sandbox).

I hope (and am reasonably confident) that the story will catch up with the sandbox in terms of depth eventually, but that (in my estimation) requires addressing its unique mechanical needs. The only reason I even bring this up is because I've been thinking about just how incoherent the connection between the story and the sand box is in Minecraft, where the Ender dragon is just there to be there and has no organic relationship with the journey players go on (VS is already light years ahead of that, but I still think that it can do better).

[CastIronFabric]

Here is my guess.

1. The developers of this game clearly enjoy making a story, the hint is in the name. However they understand or have come to learn that many players (I would argue the vast majority of players) for a game like this are not really tightly into story telling as a game mechanic as such the developers have made the experience optional.

2. The second project they have however has been described as: 'focuses more heavily on narrative, exploration, and combat.' I think this is wise on their part.

If I had to guess, they have done some monitoring on what players actually do in game and have found that most players are engaging in building/crafting and far less on story. They have decided that they should make a different game that is focused more on Narrative than it is on building.

Side note:

How would they know? Sure developer staff can read player feedback (via Discord for them) on which updates players liked and which they were 'meh' about and get a general baseline however it can also be code based. I do not know exactly how they would know without you connecting to their server however that aside, they could put in triggers in the story that lets them know how many people get that point.

Industry wide only 10-30% finish a story in a game making is safe to say its not something people actually do in the majority. In fact, given that number of 10-30% there is a very wide discrepancy between the volume of people and industry leaders that suggest story is important in game play to that of how many people actually truly engage in a story. I have theories as to why this discrepancy exists but when I mention those reasons it tends to turn into an unpleasant argument so I will just state that there is a discrepancy and leave it at that

 

[LadyWYT]

4 hours ago, Perdido Street said:

To be clear, this is not a criticism of the contents of the main story (I think that it is compelling, and genuinely boasts some of the best presentation out there), just an observation about how the core mechanics of the game and the sandbox are much better integrated with one another than those same mechanics are with the story. It is a very natural and satisfying progression through the first year of the game (a sort of light narrative) going from the stone age to the late stages of metal working, all with the overarching challenge of building up to survive the winter (challenging enough that it has to be addressed, but open ended enough that it can be solved in numerous creative ways). Meanwhile, the story is not rooted the same way in survival (after all, if the story had to be completed as a survival objective then it would not be optional), so progression takes more of a "conquest" format, like in Minecraft (we don't go into dungeons or seek out story locations to secure our survival, but to unravel the mystery and test our abilities against escalating challenges - we 'conquer' the sandbox).

I think the main reason that the story is "optional", is that there's a subset of the playerbase that just wants a realistic survival experience and nothing more. In which case, it's not really possible to tie the story directly to the survival experience(that it, make it a progression requirement), since doing so would make it extremely difficult to give players the option to just turn the lore off entirely and play exclusively survival. It was before my time, but as I understand it that's how Homo Sapiens even came to exist as a game mode option.

That's not to say the story feels tacked on either. It's very much tied to the world, and if the player wants to fully understand what's happening, they'll need to play the story to find out. But they're the ones that get to decide what pace it unfolds, at least at the present time. It's similar to an Elder Scrolls game in some ways--there's a main story there, the game gives you some plot hooks to pursue it. However, the player can also decide to go off and chase sidequests or do a bunch of crafting and never touch the main story, and still have a lot of fun in the game. 

If there's anything to "conquer" in Vintage Story, it's probably the following:

Spoiler

The world was torn apart due to Jonas's Grand Machine, which was created to save the world from the Rot. However, it seems the efforts weren't as successful as previously thought, since the Rot is apparently returning and the world is still very much fractured given the presence of monsters, rifts, and temporal storms. The player's main objective is probably figuring out what went wrong and how to fix it so the Rot can be permanently stopped and the world set on a path to fully heal.

 

[CastIronFabric]

3 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

I think the main reason that the story is "optional", is that there's a subset of the playerbase that just wants a realistic survival experience and nothing more. In which case, it's not really possible to tie the story directly to the survival experience(that it, make it a progression requirement), since doing so would make it extremely difficult to give players the option to just turn the lore off entirely and play exclusively survival. It was before my time, but as I understand it that's how Homo Sapiens even came to exist as a game mode option.

That's not to say the story feels tacked on either. It's very much tied to the world, and if the player wants to fully understand what's happening, they'll need to play the story to find out. But they're the ones that get to decide what pace it unfolds, at least at the present time. It's similar to an Elder Scrolls game in some ways--there's a main story there, the game gives you some plot hooks to pursue it. However, the player can also decide to go off and chase sidequests or do a bunch of crafting and never touch the main story, and still have a lot of fun in the game. 

If there's anything to "conquer" in Vintage Story, it's probably the following:

  Reveal hidden contents

The world was torn apart due to Jonas's Grand Machine, which was created to save the world from the Rot. However, it seems the efforts weren't as successful as previously thought, since the Rot is apparently returning and the world is still very much fractured given the presence of monsters, rifts, and temporal storms. The player's main objective is probably figuring out what went wrong and how to fix it so the Rot can be permanently stopped and the world set on a path to fully heal.

 

I would like to point out that industry wide only 10-30% of players finish a story. I think there is a possibility that in the Mean the 'subset' as you say is actually the inverse. That is to say people who play for the story are the subset, not the other way around. I think that is absolutely true with this game given how many videos I watch of people playing this game, in 1 1/2 years I have seen only one covering the story aspect. I do not mean a RA run, I mean the actual story

anyway, side note

Edited 10 hours ago by CastIronFabric

[Maelstrom]

4 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

  Hide contents

The world was torn apart due to Jonas's Grand Machine, which was created to save the world from the Rot. However, it seems the efforts weren't as successful as previously thought, since the Rot is apparently returning and the world is still very much fractured given the presence of monsters, rifts, and temporal storms. The player's main objective is probably figuring out what went wrong and how to fix it so the Rot can be permanently stopped and the world set on a path to fully heal.

If the devs do intend for the player to figure out what went wrong, I hope that as more story locations are created the treasure hunter will provide maps to them so you can potentionally go out of order, get some information from the "wrong" site but in the end figure out you done gone the wrong way to circle back to the treasure hunter to pick a different location to go to.   As it stands the quests to advance the story are pretty much a go hither to do stuff.   I wants some meat to chew on and figure out what my next move should be.

[LadyWYT]

1 minute ago, Maelstrom said:

If the devs do intend for the player to figure out what went wrong, I hope that as more story locations are created the treasure hunter will provide maps to them so you can potentionally go out of order, get some information from the "wrong" site but in the end figure out you done gone the wrong way to circle back to the treasure hunter to pick a different location to go to.   As it stands the quests to advance the story are pretty much a go hither to do stuff.   I wants some meat to chew on and figure out what my next move should be.

That would be pretty interesting, but also fairly difficult to write, especially since the story so far is meant to be fairly linear and have the player character going on what's essentially a hero's journey. That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing some conflicting information, or requiring the player to make choices between NPCs/factions, and having those choices influence the eventual outcome of the story. It could be that while all endings technically save the world, who died in the process and the general state of things afterward might determine whether it's a classic happy ending, something quite bleak, or something in-between.

Of course, I don't want to see everything turned into a case of "everything is morally grey and there's no good guys here". There's nothing terribly wrong with that trope, but it's an easy trope to mess up, and a trope that's greatly overused these days. 

[Maelstrom]

I don't have a problem with a single ending regardless of the path taken.   I just don't want to feel like It's a case of walking down a hallway with no doors to get to the destination.  Especially if I get instances of windows in the hallway such as the speaking to the treasure hunter after the first story location.

[LadyWYT]

8 minutes ago, Maelstrom said:

I just don't want to feel like It's a case of walking down a hallway with no doors to get to the destination.  Especially if I get instances of windows in the hallway such as the speaking to the treasure hunter after the first story location.

When life gives you no doors, simply punch a hole in reality and carry on like nothing happened?