Knowing that you will beat the Joker isn't going to negate the chance of having a game. It negates the chance of having the kind of game you want to play, maybe, but, not the chance of having a game.
Yes, but you are ignoring what I am saying in order to make your point. The focus of the game can be on whatever you like, but some level of unknown variables are required to make that focus a
game (rather than storytelling).
If I want my game to be about what choices the player has to make between various sacrifices in order to defeat the Joker, then that's my game. I could totally see a game focusing on the sacrifices the Batman is forced to choose between.
Me too, but les us examine:
Does he use deadly force, thus sacrificing his humanity?
What would Batman's motive be in using deadly force, if he knows that he will win if he does not use deadly force?
Does he sacrifice an innocent bystander?
What would Batman's motive be in sacrificing an innocent bystander, if he knows that he will win if he does not sacrifice an innocent bystander?
Does he give up a love interest?
What would Batman's motive be in giving up a love interest, if he knows that he will win if he does not give up a love interest?
Does he give up something else of importance?
What would Batman's motive be in giving up anything, if he knows that he will win if he does not give up anything?
Neither you nor I need to be interested in the finale; my point has nothing to do with being interested in the finale. It has to do with the logical prerequisites to the questions above having meaning. Even within the frame of a story, the questions have meaning because, although the reader knows Batman will win,
Batman does not.
Within the context of a game where a player takes Batman's POV, the uncertainty about what parameters allow him to succeed gives meaning to the questions asked above.
As an obvious example, sacrificing an innocent now might make it easier to stop the Joker sooner, saving more innocents in the long run. If Batman knows what will happen in either direction (sacrifice/don't sacrifice), then there is no game -- there is only a math problem or a moral question to be answered.
In fact, allowing Batman to know the answer aforehand removes all possibility of really exploring the question, as it absolves Batman of the possibility of accidently making a wrong choice. It is necessary for Batman to be able to choose to commit murder, without that murder being of any actual help, that raises the stakes of the question from a theoretical non-game on/off switch to something that can lead to actual exploration and poignent roleplaying.
Even a game that allows the players to choose the stakes they are gambling with (is this scene worth potentially dying for?) are founded upon the principle that the unknown variables create the tension required for the activity to be a game. Not raising the stakes might mean losing, after all, and that is what makes raising or not raising the stakes into an actual (rather than an illusory) choice.
Were I to design a computer chess simulator which always made the same moves in the same order, as soon as the human player became aware of the lack of variables, it would cease to be a game. Which is why a choose-your-own-adventure book doesn't lead to unlimited RPG satisfaction.
RC
