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 Tuesday at 07:11 PM 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? 

[Perdido Street]

One of the greatest strengths of the immersive sim is the sense of character it creates; Whether it's in a rpg context, a narrative context, or a survival context: Not only are our choices our own, but they have knock-on effects (which reinforces the 'reality' of our in-game personality, and shows internal consistency to the game world).

In Fallout New Vegas, the actual combat sandbox that makes up the game is pretty sterile, but the ability to take the story in any direction and have the game run with that choice is what makes it one of the best rpgs ever made. Now, I recognize the folly of just saying "be like this other great thing" as if it were just that easy, but (for everything that makes VS both mechanically and thematically different from that game) VS has a much stronger core gameplay loop in its survival sandbox, and I believe that foundation could serve as an even stronger basis for a players to developed the Seraph (like our version of the Courier or the Dragonborn) into a fleshed out character through narrative choices.

...And, when I say narrative choices I don't just mean in the "main" story. Side quests are a possibility, and especially unscripted interactions created by dynamically interrelated systems (the ability to pull on a mechanical "string" and see what happens). It's a lot of work, but for an immense payoff.

Edited 17 hours ago by Perdido Street
Explanation

[DarkGold]

13 hours ago, Maelstrom said:

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

I had only been playing 1.21 for a while before 1.22 came out and I wanted to regenerate my seed to see what had changed. In 1.21, I completed chapter 1, had chapter 2 marked on my map, but had not yet set out for it. I didn't want to start from scratch, since replaying that part of the game so soon wasn't interesting to me, so I copied my base using the blueprints tools and pasted it into a newly generated world using the same seed.

I found the map to the first and second story location carried across, and using the maps worked. I used creative mode to visit the first location, and it seemed to be in the right place (the coordinates were the same as last time, the location did in fact generate there). I presume this means I can go to the second location while skipping re-running the first location in this world?

Will this break the game/miss showing me options? Maybe? I might have to use some creative tools to quickly complete the milestone bits of chapter 1 again if I don't want to repeat it the long way.

Edit: What I wanted to share in bringing this up is that because the time investment players might have in their world is quite high, and the world is worth regenerating every now and then to experience new content, it is great to have tools like the ability to copy your base across. It could also be good to have the ability to play locations out of order for the scenario of players moving worlds after updates, mid journey. Maybe there is already some command that a player can run that sets their story checkpoints forward without having to repeat content?

Edited 18 hours ago by DarkGold
Correcting typos. Adding edit about tools for moving worlds.

[Perdido Street]

2 hours ago, DarkGold said:

 What I wanted to share in bringing this up is that because the time investment players might have in their world is quite high, and the world is worth regenerating every now and then to experience new content, it is great to have tools like the ability to copy your base across. It could also be good to have the ability to play locations out of order for the scenario of players moving worlds after updates, mid journey. Maybe there is already some command that a player can run that sets their story checkpoints forward without having to repeat content?

Being able to pursue different routes or play styles through the story would help a lot with its replayability in general.

[CastIronFabric]

3 hours ago, Perdido Street said:

One of the greatest strengths of the immersive sim is the sense of character it creates; Whether it's in a rpg context, a narrative context, or a survival context: Not only are our choices our own, but they have knock-on effects (which reinforces the 'reality' of our in-game personality, and shows internal consistency to the game world).

In Fallout New Vegas, the actual combat sandbox that makes up the game is pretty sterile, but the ability to take the story in any direction and have the game run with that choice is what makes it one of the best rpgs ever made. Now, I recognize the folly of just saying "be like this other great thing" as if it were just that easy, but (for everything that makes VS both mechanically and thematically different from that game) VS has a much stronger core gameplay loop in its survival sandbox, and I believe that foundation could serve as an even stronger basis for a players to developed the Seraph (like our version of the Courier or the Dragonborn) into a fleshed out character through narrative choices.

...And, when I say narrative choices I don't just mean in the "main" story. Side quests are a possibility, and especially unscripted interactions created by dynamically interrelated systems (the ability to pull on a mechanical "string" and see what happens). It's a lot of work, but for an immense payoff.

Like I had mentioned previously I think its important to note for a game like this to keep the story experience optional because industry wide only 10-30% of players finish a story and that is in games that are NOT sandbox/building games.

Now character RPG progression is different from story. I used to play Wurm online and it had over 100 skills. That is a feature I do enjoy although important to note Perk Systems can nearly kill a game experience for me completely. Perk System however I have a strong aversion to and has been known to kill a game experience for me. It simply should be, the more I do something the better I get at doing that thing. 

Oh also, to repeat: Project Glint is described as Project Glint is intended to be more focused on RPG pillars like exploration, storytelling, and combat..

 

Edited 17 hours ago by CastIronFabric

[Maelstrom]

49 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

Like I had mentioned previously I think its important to note for a game like this to keep the story experience optional because industry wide only 10-30% of players finish a story and that is in games that are NOT sandbox/building games.

I wonder what the definition of "completing" the story is in those studies.  I can see a whole bunch of other factors playing into that don't finish the story, like player pretty quickly decided it wasn't the game that was advertised or didn't like some mechanic of the game.   Then there's the whole lower attention span of the younger generations to consider.

I appreciate that Tyron and Co. have made the game have non-story options.  And even in the story option, the story is still optional.   Enjoying the vibe of survival?  Don't bother giving that one trader that one item and keep on cruisin'.

[CastIronFabric]

18 minutes ago, Maelstrom said:

I wonder what the definition of "completing" the story is in those studies.  I can see a whole bunch of other factors playing into that don't finish the story, like player pretty quickly decided it wasn't the game that was advertised or didn't like some mechanic of the game.   Then there's the whole lower attention span of the younger generations to consider.

I appreciate that Tyron and Co. have made the game have non-story options.  And even in the story option, the story is still optional.   Enjoying the vibe of survival?  Don't bother giving that one trader that one item and keep on cruisin'.

To be frank I think the definition of completing a story is self evident and obvious when it comes to a video game and I am not going to engage in that quandary. Other than to say how they know this is they inject triggers in the final game story sequence (like fighting a boss for example) and the game developers will know how many people exactly have finished that final quest.

Having said that I think when it come to folks who are intrested in story centeric games they really should be excited for Project Glint. I am suprised at how little conversations there are about this project because its description sounds like its 100% what people are talking about here. Project Glint is intended to be more focused on RPG pillars like exploration, storytelling, and combat

Edited 15 hours ago by CastIronFabric

[Maelstrom]

18 minutes ago, CastIronFabric said:

To be frank I think the definition of completing a story is... [emphasis added]

That's my point.  Unless someone has inside the industry perspective we don't know the specifics of that metric. 

[CastIronFabric]

16 minutes ago, Maelstrom said:

That's my point.  Unless someone has inside the industry perspective we don't know the specifics of that metric. 

Like I said, I am not engaging in a debate over what is self evidence even more so when one removes the most important part of my quote. Regardless, you might really like Project Glint 

Edited 15 hours ago by CastIronFabric

[LadyWYT]

3 hours ago, Maelstrom said:

Then there's the whole lower attention span of the younger generations to consider.

Honestly, I think that's what sells a lot of people on Vintage Story, including those from the younger generations. Yes, some end up not liking the game because it isn't fast-paced enough, and several definitely get frustrated by the pacing when they first try it. But I think a good chunk of the younger audience, once they stop and consider the slower angle, end up enjoying the slower game pacing(both of VS and other older games), because it allows them room to breathe and gives them permission to stop and think, rather than try to push them along into "the next big thing". There's not that many modern spaces that encourage that kind of thought anymore.