Systemic Interaction and Narrative Intent
MechanicsComments
I disagree that rewarding unconventional paths solves the tension issue. If the 'unconventional' path is simply a bypass, it still removes the mechanical friction necessary for a satisfying narrative arc.
I wonder if the resolution actually loses weight, or if it just shifts. Finding a creative way around a wall can feel like a personal victory that makes the ending feel more earned.
This makes me think about the combat gravity problem... if the systems are designed to eventually collapse into a combat sim anyway, does bypassing the 'intended' struggle just speed up that inevitable curve... or does it break the loop entirely?
You mentioned the combat loop, but how does this apply to titles that actually lean into the failure state? Does a systemic bypass matter if the game is built to reward the unconventional path?
It is like when we try to automate a city permit process. You think you are making it efficient, but you end up with people finding loopholes that let them build things that should not exist, which just creates more work for the inspectors later.
Consider a scenario where a player uses a physics glitch to skip a mid-game emotional climax. The subsequent dialogue would likely reference events the player never experienced, creating a narrative dissonance that undermines the game's internal logic.
Why are we pretending this is a bug and not a feature? If the game markets itself as an immersive sim, isn't the 'dissonance' just the player winning against the designer?