On the difficulties of non-equivalent parallel plot lines

[chris the cynic]

Or, I got my computer back, the time has come to type something outrageously long.

When we say things are parallel we do it with a Euclidean mindset, we mean that they neither converge nor diverge. However far apart they are, they will always remain that way no matter how far you go. Any differences in the path they take are wholly attributable to the unchanging distance between them.

In this sense the TNM's two story lines are correctly described as parallel, they move in the same direction, they traverse much of the same territory, and where they differ in territory that difference is due to the one thing that separates them (you don't need to go to the ATC tower if you are on PDX's side, you don't need to fight ShadowCode if he recognizes you as part of WC, so on.)

The thing is, in Euclidean geometry parallel things are exactly the same in all ways but one (that one way being the offset.) Parallel lines have the same slope, parallel planes have one thing more in common than parallel lines, parallel 3-spaces have one thing more in common than parallel planes, and so one up. As complexity increases the ways parallel things are the same outweigh the ways they are different to an incredible degree for the simple reason that they are only ever different in a single way.

That may work for geometry, but it isn't very interesting for a story. It would be largely pointless, though relatively simple, to create parallel plot lines that were as equivalent as parallel Euclidean constructs. The plot lines would amount to nothing more than reskins of each other.

The Nameless Mod makes no attempt at equivalence, in fact it does the opposite. This is, it must be said, a very good thing. By having things go differently based on the plot line you have chosen it makes the choice you are given significant. Your choice matters because it changes things. The plot lines are not equivalent.

The difficulty this introduces is that things which are not equivalent tend to want to move along paths that are not parallel. Scara is not KK, Slicer is not ZeroPresence. WC is not PDX. These differences change things. They suggest different paths.

When I played WC on the space station I felt like KK should be trying to get me to change sides yet I never felt that Scara should have playing for PDX. When talking to Phas playing for WC I felt that that also seemed like a place where it would be logical to change sides, I never felt that there was a logical time to change sides around when playing as PDX. Part of this probably has to do with the fact that I prefer to play as one of the good guys, but it was more than that.

So I asked myself, what was different? The answer was, "Everything."

KK never sent me on a suicide mission to kill my old friend, what's more (if I'm reading his character right) he wouldn't have and (even if I'm not) he couldn't have. None of Trest's old friends are working for WC. (With the possible exception of Kylie with whom the relationship, again if I'm reading it right, is dead but resuscitation ready.) There was no one there to react with shock and confusion at me turning on him or her, no one there for me to claim I could not be turned to the darkside to. Trest may deny it in the Phas convo, but elsewhere in the game he says that the PDX gang are, in fact, his old friends. That certainly creates a different dynamic than the one had with WC, at most, one person is an old friend, and that relationship is beat up on the rocks.

Similarly KK didn't have a stolen shuttle that followed me onto the space station with his best agent aboard. If he did, he still wouldn't have Evil Overlord megalomania to blind him from the fact that he might not win. He instead had the fact he was one of the old friends that Trest (at the players discretion) doesn't like the thought of vaporizing, which is what he has been ordered to do. KK has every reason in the world to try to convert Trest, nothing to lose by trying, and a position that might have the necessary leverage to succeed.

Scara does have said stolen shuttle with said operative on board, has reason to think he will win, the ego to think it is as good as done, does not have a personal history with Trest from which he can negotiate, and couldn't even bank on Trest being ordered to do something horrific if he wanted to try. Not remotely the same as the position KK has in the WC storyline. This is good for story telling, but problematic when you want parallel storylines. It seems that the WC storyline suggests actions that would make it non-parallel to the PDX storyline, and for which the PDX storyline has no equivalent.

To return to the example of the Phas confrontation, it seemed to be a perfect storm of reasons to change sides. First off, the mission was a clear indication that his new boss was not, at all, concerned about his well being. It was a mission that couldn't be won, but could be quite deadly. Second, it was the first time Trest had been ordered to kill a friend. Third, it was a fucking loyalty test. (What is the point of a loyalty test if you cannot fail?) Fourth it is one of the first times, that I noticed at least, that Trest is forced to say out loud who and what he has become and his reasons for doing so. It is a moment that could lead to serious introspection.

When does that happen in the PDX storyline? The answer, unless I've missed something that is damned big, is never. The situation is like nothing you will encounter on the other side. Again, good storytelling to have the two things not equivalent, but bad for parallel storylines. That is because if you wanted to explore the possibilities the meeting suggests you'd have no way (or at least no readily available good way) of keeping the storylines parallel. You would also have a lot more work.

You know, I think I was going somewhere with this, but damned if I know where it was. So anyway, computer back, fleas still hording, what TNM team did was hard even from an abstract theoretical standpoint, I'm going to sleep.

[bobby 55]

So on the PDX side Trestkon sees more action but we don't get to see his relationship with them revealed as much as the WC playthrough. But in the WC play we see more of that revealed but there could be more?Or have i totally missed something deeper here?

[chris the cynic]

So on the PDX side Trestkon sees more action but we don't get to see his relationship with them revealed as much as the WC playthrough. But in the WC play we see more of that revealed but there could be more?Or have i totally missed something deeper here?

There was something deeper, but it sort of drifted out of my grasp as I was writing the post. I should have made an outline first so that when I got to the end I would still know what the conclusion was.

I think the overall point was probably that it is hard to to make two storylines remain parallel when they are not carbon copies of each other. Any differences between them will tend to change their relative courses and, because they start off parallel, such changes in course will tend to indicate a possibility of convergence or divergence. If you want the storylines to remain parallel you don't want the player to even consider those possibilities.

The two examples given were where factors in the WC storyline that were not present in the PDX created an impression (for myself and at least a couple of others) that there should be (from an in universe perspective) a possibility for a WC player to switch sides. This is not a good thing for a few reasons. For one thing, there is no such possibility and so it feels like there is a choice that you should have which you don't have. That is probably the biggest reason and, I think, what I was getting at.

If you want to have parallel plot lines and want them to be distinct from each other the distinctions are likely to suggest non-parallel possibilities which you have to ignore (or work around I suppose) in order to maintain the parallel structure.

The Nameless Mod presents a good example of the difficulties that causes.

Or something like that. I swear I had a point when I started writing the original post in this thread.

[Jaedar]

In WC, trestkon is a much deeper and interesting character, in PDX he is just a stereotypical good guy.

[bobby 55]

Thanks for that Chris. You did point out you were tired.Your explanation cleared my muddled thoughts though.

[Jonas]

I enjoyed reading this. It's a good bit of analysis I think.

You brought up this criticism in late beta too, and I will say that if you had pointed it out before Kashue's lines were recorded, this is something I would have changed.

Since it was far too late to fix it by the time you pointed out this plot hole, if you will, it's all I can do to rationalise it after the fact: it's fair to say that King Kashue is simply too proud to take you back into the fold. Furthermore, perhaps he doesn't fully realise the consequences of not stopping Trestkon in time, perhaps he's just sufficiently stubborn to sacrifice his city to keep his honour intact.

That explanation works quite well for me given that 1) Kashue states early in the WorldCorp storyline that he doesn't fully trust Trestkon (perhaps based on something in their past, perhaps he just doesn't reflect Phasmatis's blind faith in their old friend) and 2) I like that Kashue has some nice obvious character flaws - all characters should have some flaws, and if it causes them to fuck up in service of the plot, all the better

Still, it's something I would change if I could.

[chris the cynic]

I enjoyed reading this. It's a good bit of analysis I think.

Good. I was worried it might be somewhat redundant because

You brought up this criticism in late beta too,

So good to know you enjoyed it.

[~Psychotic~]

I think I understood that. Somewhat. I personally felt the WorldCorp had a much deeper storyline than PDX did, which is why I liked it more. And I don't like that I liked it more because it means something is wrong with the game for me based on my personal preferences. I enjoy games where I can feel the actions of my deeds, whether good or bad.

I felt that with WorldCorp, I actually didn't want to go and try and kill Phasmatis because I knew I couldn't, it was a pointless endeavor. It also made me, as a person, feel somewhat guilty when asked straight up why you sided with WC in the first place. I didn't feel the same with PDX. Rather, I felt the opposite. I could do all these great deeds for the good of Forum City but so what? I didn't feel much for it except that I had some sort of gratitude for saving people.

With WorldCorp I felt like an evil bastard. And I liked that. With PDX I felt like someones bitch. No offense to the writers but that's how I felt. I knew what I was doing was for the greater good, and I usually go for the "Good" side first only because that's probably what I'd do in a real-life situation (sure I'm a spiteful and arrogant bastard but I wouldn't want to see millions of people die for the goals of some other insane and spiteful bastard lol). I prefer being evil in games because it feels worse, you generally feel the impact of your deeds.

I don't just feel this in The Nameless Mod but in many games that include Good and Bad, Right and Wrong (or their variations of it as I don't believe in Good or Bad personally). In other games I've felt that being good meant hardly anything but being evil meant everything in the world. For example, playing good on Knights of the Old Republic is nice and all, people like me, I'm not an asshole, etc etc. But that's it, I just get random evil Sith trying to kill me (not really trying to turn me, but as chris pointed out it's sometimes an ego thing that one may not try to do this). As a Sith I actually reap the actions of what I sow.

If I kill someone I know that's bad, if I steal something or be rude to someone I know what I've done. Some things even make me feel guilty. But I think this is all who you are as a person. I have morals, just like everyone else, but my morals may not be so drastically "evil" as someone else. Sure, I'm not usually sympathetic or empathetic, I could care less about your problems unless you're particularly close to me but I wouldn't kill someone in cold blood either. On the other hand one may be arrogant, spiteful, hate everyone and wishes everyone would die. And would feel absolutely disgusted when playing as a "Good" guy on an RPG because he hates that line of thinking.

Chris, I personally think you should start a blog, column, series, or whatever you want to call it. Write a fucking book. I can write some long posts sometimes but generally I don't read long posts, you are one of few people who I break that rule for. I love it.

[chris the cynic]

I have a book that I was working on, I think it was at about 80 thousand words when I last worked on it, but that was years ago and it needs serious revisions. Truth be told, I think it needs an author better than myself. I believe in the story, not so much my ability to tell it.

As for a blog, I've thought of it on occasion, a little bit, but what would I write? You can basically count on everything I have to say showing up here anyway. I don't really have anything more to say. What you see here is pretty much everything.

[bobby 55]

And Psy i see you as forthright not arrogant or spiteful.That's not sarcasm btw, or being a psychophant,it's just the way you seem to me.

[chris the cynic]

Oh yeah, in response to the rest of the the post.

It is only natural that playing as someone who goes against your own morals is going to challenge you more than playing as someone who does not. Provided, of course, that you actually care about what you are doing (as opposed to a, "Wee, I can do whatever I want with no consequences," attitude.) It is going to engage you because it is going to make you stop and go, "What the fuck?" at yourself. It is going to make you question your own actions, it is going to make you think about your character and yourself.

If you are doing something you find abhorrent of course that is going to make you think and feel more than if you are doing something you consider good and right. It is going to engage you because part of your brain is going to stand up, take notice, and shout as loud as a clump of grey matter without lungs can shout, "Stop that!" By playing in a way that goes against what you believe you are taking a path far from the path of least resistance, the resistance will generate more response than a lack of resistance.

My problem with that is that when I play a game I don't want "bad" feedback. I want to like my character and thus myself. When Phas or KK talk to WC Trestkon I feel shamed. Yes, that is a more prominent emotional response than what I experience when I play as the good guy, but it is not the emotional response I am looking for. I want to save the world damn it, not let down my friends. When I play a game I want to navigate the delta stream of possibilities to the best possible outcome. I want to be in a world where I can do good. Preferably massive amounts of good.

I understand not everyone plays games for this reason.

[~Psychotic~]

And Psy i see you as forthright not arrogant or spiteful.That's not sarcasm btw, or being a psychophant,it's just the way you seem to me.

Being forthright isn't always a good thing. I will definitely agree that I say a lot of things without hesitation, without much thought. And while I may not be arrogant because of it, it hasn't helped in a lot of situations. Also, I do tend to play with the "Wee, I can do whatever I want with no consequences" attitude sometimes. But I like in-depth storytelling. I am also one who prefers to be "evil" and "good". Because it's far more interesting.

In a video game I'd rather stab you in the back, 457 times. Then help you even if such help may reward me better. As said, I'm not usually sympathetic or empathetic and I actually do enjoy killing good people in video games. See GTA? I will kill everyone. On the map. Because brutal destruction is my kind of playstyle I find fun. It's completely different when you're told to kill your friends though.

Chris, write a blog lol. Write anything. Opinions, analysis such as this, criticism, feedback, whatever. I thought that is what their primary purpose was?

[Jonas]

And I don't like that I liked it more because it means something is wrong with the game for me based on my personal preferences.

Let me just make sure that I got this straight: you think something is wrong with the game because you prefer one of the storylines over the other? Isn't that sort of the point though? That you should be able to make a choice based on what you prefer? I think there would be something wrong with the game if it forced you to make a choice that made you enjoy the game less, but offering you the choice of something you will enjoy or something you will not enjoy doesn't strike me as an inherent fault in the game, as long as not everybody prefers the same option (in which case why include it at all?)

Judging from just this thread, I claim massive success. You prefer WorldCorp, Chris prefers PDX. This is exactly as it should be.

With WorldCorp I felt like an evil bastard. And I liked that. With PDX I felt like someones bitch. No offense to the writers but that's how I felt.

No offense taken. We did end up making the PDX storyline more mission-based than originally intended. The idea was to make the plot fairly player-driven in the PDX storyline, with Trestkon making all the investigative breakthroughs while the PDX gang were tied up preventing the city from erupting into utter chaos, whereas the WorldCorp storyline was just the player doing what Scara told him. I guess we ended up making you just follow orders in both storylines, because - let's face it - most players are stupid and they just want to be told what to do.

[Jaedar]

I guess we ended up making you just follow orders in both storylines, because - let's face it - most players are stupid and they just want to be told what to do.

I'm pondering whether I should take offense to this or not...
I for one would have preferred an actual investigation for PDX instead of being ordered around, but I can see why you didn't go this route

[JizzyJeff]

Investigation sounds like EVEN MORE WALKING.