Reaction to the article:
Keeping in mind I have not Played Fall Out 4 or Witcher 3, I do have to agree on the overall idea that the article presents. The concept that violence and combat systems being heavily reliant on the narrative drive of the story is a bit redundant. The author did bring up Bloodborne, a game I so lovingly adored over the summer of my sophomore year. I never realized how right they were about the battle system and always resulting in violence was the only way to advance or push forward the narrative plot. Bloodborne had a lot of fun times, but it was only because it was calling to my more crazed and violent tendencies. There was not much about a passive or an alternative way to complete missions without having to fight. The author does keep out of the article that there are many different types of players and sometimes there are players who would prefer a challenging battle over a peaceful mission. But when building an environment and a “life like” world is what makes a narrative game more engaging. There is a good and bad. A reward and consequence. It becomes engaging when you realize that what you do really makes an impact on what is happening around you and how the story will progress. Bloodborne did have a hint of a reward and consequence in it, but it only test whether you were blood thirsty and decided to kill an NPC (the doll for example) and then miss out on certain things or missions (not being able to level up any skills at all throughout the rest of the game because once they are dead, they are dead forever.) But games where you do have control and the choice of a passive or aggressive action and has a reward or consequence really does make a big difference in designing a player experience.
Game Mechanics: The game mechanics work on people playing their roles. Ghost or the Psychics. And the ghost communicates to the Psychics about their death. A sort of who-dun-it kind of thing. And the goal is to interpret what the ghost is trying to tell you though the cards they give you. It took a bit to get into. And we didn’t get into the end phase of the round, but it was fun while we got to it.
how important are the player’s decisions to the story’s outcome: The player’s decisions heavily depend on the progression on the story and the game. So if the ghost or the psychics cannot properly convey their opinions and “visions” productively, there is no progression in the game.
How satisfying is the overall experience of the game: Overall, for what we got into during class it was pretty fun. It took a while to understand the long set up and the how to play, but I feel like once we get into the whole thing with playing a full 2 rounds it would get really fun.
what changes would I make to improve the overall story: Not really sure. We didn’t get to the “end game phase” and I didn’t really understand it when I read through the rules, but I feel like this game is heavily dependent on the end phase.