The scene in the cubicles was fine. Dream sequences that actually can kill you was a fine addition. But the best use of the evil dust mites was during the interview with carla. If you don't hit the reaction buttons, he stays calm, and doesn't wildly jump from hallucinations. If that actually had an effect on the plot, that would have been awesome, but the scene was entirely linear, which was too bad.
Wait. That was a dream? I have not played it since it came out. But seeing the giant dust mites just made me think "Oh great. This is going to from ultra-realism to third-grade bullshit."
Okay, can I ask? What exactly is bullshit about a game that takes place from the perspective (albeit, outside the body) of one of four characters and then showing what that particular character is seeing/experiencing? Especially since anybody who had been in his position before simply when insane and killed themselves or others.
You want to call bullshit on Purple Clans, ancient Incan voodoo, midi-chlorian exposure, Matrix fights, high concept zombie sex, and yes, even the idea of super-natural experiences in a real world setting... Then fine. Want to say they were too ambitious and had to cut a lot of planned content for time/money reasons and it just didn't work? Again, fine. Want instead to just declare that you bought into the hype and were disappointed? You're not alone there.
But can we please ratchet back the hyperbole just a bit when discussing what frankly makes sense within the world the game presents? What would have been better? A QTE style game but only showing what it looked like to everybody else? Interesting, sure. Funny, maybe. Expected? Try again. I know hating on and ridiculing Indigo Prophecy is the thing right now and there is plenty of material to mine from. But frankly, despite certain gameplay elements the story narative held up fairly well. At least until it collapsed under it's own weight*.
I liked the game for it's potential. The games industry needs more devs willing to try new things with both gameplay and story or else it will stagnate and produce nothing but sequels until they all merge into one big conglomeration.
*It either breaks down when
Lucas dies and comes back
or a little later when
the Purple Clan show up without any previous indication they existed.
Depending, of course, on how far you're willing to go with it. For me it was the second one.
If they learn from Fahrenheit it could be incredible.
I'm so looking forward to this one that I pray to whatever walking upright God I can think of that it makes it over to the 360. I can't justify the buying a PS3 for a single game, but I might buy the game and see what happens later.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Slow down!
Seriously, I loved this game. The demo made it day one buy for me. And I really enjoyed the different people I got to play as and the way the game worked. I just wish it followed through.
What I was saying was that the moment with the Dust Mites was the moment I started to get nervous. Like when the zombies showed up in Wolf3d. I just felt like "This was a game about stuff that is real and now it isn't." It had previously felt like a bit of David Lynch and a bit of Kafka. But from that point I thought we were getting too crazy...like Bruckheimer crazy. If it had been a single jump or part of a series of strange events grounded in reality I would not have picked that point as the beginning of the end for me. But I got the chills of nervousness in that moment and was really let down when the game kept going with it.
At the end of the game they are tying up plot lines that I never even touched on earlier. Because of the choices I made, I never got to see some of the subplots until Ending Exposition at which point it made no damn sense.
edit: I mean, I understand what you are saying. But I honestly, not based on any hype or backlash (I actually played this game when I was in a bit of a non-internet state of mind), picked the Dust Mite moment as the turning point for me. Like I said, I've not played it in a while but since that is my memory of starting to feel repelled by the game, that is going to be the moment I choose. Honestly, it doesn't really matter, I guess. But I do look forward to more games like this.
What would you say to someone who told you that games have universally terrible stories?
Chris Avellone: I'd say game stories can be a little formulaic at times and a little unpolished, but then I would point up at the sky and say, "Holy s***, look at that!" And when they do, I would punch them in the gut, and while they were gasping for breath, I would lean down and go, "You are wrong. There are several games with compelling stories, stories that achieve greater strength because it's a story you can interact with. Thus, the experience is even more personal than reading a novel, where you are basically watching the characters go about their adventures without any participation from you except flicking your eyes across the page." At this point, the person would be about to get up, so I would kick them in the shins and then run.
I will also say that people tended to denounce comics and graphic novels for quite some time, but I think some of the best stories I've ever read have come from graphic novels--DC's Vertigo line comes to mind, which really put Neil Gaiman, Garth Ennis, and Grant Morrison into the limelight. Graphic novels are a lot like games in some respects, considering it's a fusion of art and story without the interactive element that technology provides.
Oh Chris, you devious little ragamuffin.
subedii on
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Yes, I know you guys are all into Redwall and Firefly.
I don't think you got my subtlety, but we're talking comparisons here. Novels and movies are irrelevant; Torment may still be the best game ever written. If you'd like to stay on topic and offer examples in the vein of Condemned 2 that are unintentionally brilliant, I'd genuinely like to hear them because it sounds like my kind of engaging humor.
Yes, I know you guys are all into Redwall and Firefly.
And Chaucer and Thoreau you arrogant Krunky bastard.
I don't even know what Redwall is.
I suck at this geek thing.
Isn't that the effect in an FPS when you shoot a dude against a wall and it turns red behind them? It's supposed to add context to the situation or something, I'm sure.
Redwall is a series of young adult novels by some guy or other. It's all anthropomorphic animals. None of the books are really connected that strongly. Their mostly just set in different parts or time periods in the same world. They tend to be formulaic, but their pretty good YA reading.
The first one was about the Abbey of Redwall being attacked by an army, and the people inside holding them off. Hence, the "series" of sorts is called Redwall.
shryke on
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Yes, I know you guys are all into Redwall and Firefly.
And Chaucer and Thoreau you arrogant Krunky bastard.
I don't even know what Redwall is.
I suck at this geek thing.
Isn't that the effect in an FPS when you shoot a dude against a wall and it turns red behind them? It's supposed to add context to the situation or something, I'm sure.
*has no idea what Redwall is either*
Aw Sweet Jesus. I've just exposed myself.
-Edit-
I know that I come across as a bit harsh, but honestly, I can only put up with the overly-dramatic, super-serious stories in a lot of games for so long. I'm really tired of completely forced exposition by characters, or writing that fails to grasp basic human psychology. Or writing that thinks quantity is by far the best quality.
So many games nowadays try so hard to have an "epic" story, and just fall flat. I figure, if you're not going to do anything interesting, or hire decent writers, don't bother. Especially if you plan on creating a game with writing as a large component. What gets me is that so many games have incredibly long, detailed dialogue - and that's OK - but it seems like every game adds story in as an afterthought. Personally, I just don't think that a story can really get the attention it needs if it doesn't come before the game.
I think this is why I like games like Super Metroid or Diablo. There's a skeletal structure of the story presented in the game. You aren't spending 90% of your time listening to NPC #34472 tell you their backstory at the drop of a dime.
I did like Fallout. But that game is pretty kitschy.
I think alot of games have had good presentation and atmosphere and such. But I wouldn't say any of them had anything better then a half-decent story.
Totally unlike books, films and other media then?
Yes. Books, Films, TV, Graphic Novels, etc. All have had stories I'd consider excellent. Many of them.
Of course, their all older mediums too.
I haven't seen a game with anything close to as good a story as you can find in the best book/film/etc.
But, as I said, it's not always necessary to have a great story to make a great game. A very basic story with great presentation works just as well. Look at something like Shadow of the Colossus or Half-Life 2. Very basic story, but presented REALLY well.
Yes, I know you guys are all into Redwall and Firefly.
And Chaucer and Thoreau you arrogant Krunky bastard.
I don't even know what Redwall is.
I suck at this geek thing.
Isn't that the effect in an FPS when you shoot a dude against a wall and it turns red behind them? It's supposed to add context to the situation or something, I'm sure.
Yes, I know you guys are all into Redwall and Firefly.
And Chaucer and Thoreau you arrogant Krunky bastard.
I don't even know what Redwall is.
I suck at this geek thing.
Isn't that the effect in an FPS when you shoot a dude against a wall and it turns red behind them? It's supposed to add context to the situation or something, I'm sure.
I think alot of games have had good presentation and atmosphere and such. But I wouldn't say any of them had anything better then a half-decent story.
Totally unlike books, films and other media then?
Yes. Books, Films, TV, Graphic Novels, etc. All have had stories I'd consider excellent. Many of them.
Of course, their all older mediums too.
I haven't seen a game with anything close to as good a story as you can find in the best book/film/etc.
But, as I said, it's not always necessary to have a great story to make a great game. A very basic story with great presentation works just as well. Look at something like Shadow of the Colossus or Half-Life 2. Very basic story, but presented REALLY well.
I agree with this.
I just hate games that try to create atmosphere by shoving it down your throat via dialogue. I mean, who are you going to believe? The guy that tells you he has a 12" cock? Or are you going to believe the guy that shows you his 12" cock?
If a game wants to have atmosphere and backstory, do it in a tangible fashion. Create atmosphere that permeates every aspect of the game. Make it inescapable. Don't shoe-horn it into the game by making everything about walls of text.
A game's story should be more interesting than some guy just telling you about it.
KrunkMcGrunk on
0
David_TA fashion yes-man is no good to me.Copenhagen, DenmarkRegistered Userregular
I think alot of games have had good presentation and atmosphere and such. But I wouldn't say any of them had anything better then a half-decent story.
Totally unlike books, films and other media then?
Yes. Books, Films, TV, Graphic Novels, etc. All have had stories I'd consider excellent. Many of them.
Of course, their all older mediums too.
I haven't seen a game with anything close to as good a story as you can find in the best book/film/etc.
But, as I said, it's not always necessary to have a great story to make a great game. A very basic story with great presentation works just as well. Look at something like Shadow of the Colossus or Half-Life 2. Very basic story, but presented REALLY well.
Therein lies the problem though. In an interactive medium it's difficult if not downright impossible to make direct comparisons of storyline. Outside of every 100% scripted scene and event the storyline flows through the interactions of the player.
It's going to be different every time, but more importantly, it's likely going to be be more personal to that player every time as well. Short of shooting your own film this is not something that can be done easily in a non-interactive medium. I would argue that presentation and delivery of the story is part and parcel of the story. The method of delivery is always key. Otherwise fundamentally there are only ever few truly original stories in the world.
It's like Chris Avelloone said, Graphic novels used to be treated in a similar fashion. However, you cannot simply divorce the story and dialogue from the actual visuals on the page and say that it doesn't compare. They are a fundamental part of the story, without which it loses it's meaning. Arguably the purest form of story is probably the written story. So if I were to take the text from the screenplay of "The Godfather", add in some well written descriptive text, and then slap it on a page, can I say that this is the same value artistically? Better? Worse?
I think this is why I like games like Super Metroid or Diablo. There's a skeletal structure of the story presented in the game. You aren't spending 90% of your time listening to NPC #34472 tell you their backstory at the drop of a dime.
I did like Fallout. But that game is pretty kitschy.
...
If a game wants to have atmosphere and backstory, do it in a tangible fashion. Create atmosphere that permeates every aspect of the game. Make it inescapable. Don't shoe-horn it into the game by making everything about walls of text.
You should go play S.T.A.L.K.E.R., but take any ADD meds on hand first so you don't get upset at the game mechanics and bugs.
I think alot of games have had good presentation and atmosphere and such. But I wouldn't say any of them had anything better then a half-decent story.
Totally unlike books, films and other media then?
Yes. Books, Films, TV, Graphic Novels, etc. All have had stories I'd consider excellent. Many of them.
Of course, their all older mediums too.
I haven't seen a game with anything close to as good a story as you can find in the best book/film/etc.
But, as I said, it's not always necessary to have a great story to make a great game. A very basic story with great presentation works just as well. Look at something like Shadow of the Colossus or Half-Life 2. Very basic story, but presented REALLY well.
Therein lies the problem though. In an interactive medium it's difficult if not downright impossible to make direct comparisons of storyline. Outside of every 100% scripted scene and event the storyline flows through the interactions of the player.
It's going to be different every time, but more importantly, it's likely going to be be more personal to that player every time as well. Short of shooting your own film this is not something that can be done easily in a non-interactive medium. I would argue that presentation and delivery of the story is part and parcel of the story. The method of delivery is always key. Otherwise fundamentally there are only ever few truly original stories in the world.
It's like Chris Avelloone said, Graphic novels used to be treated in a similar fashion. However, you cannot simply divorce the story and dialogue from the actual visuals on the page and say that it doesn't compare. They are a fundamental part of the story, without which it loses it's meaning. Arguably the purest form of story is probably the written story. So if I were to take the text from the screenplay of "The Godfather", add in some well written descriptive text, and then slap it on a page, can I say that this is the same value artistically? Better? Worse?
Shit, I'd say it's much worse.
Anyhow, I think you've touched on what my problems are with video game stories.
Developers want to treat it like it's a book, or a movie. It's not! It's interactive. You can do so much more with a video game, but so many development houses fall back onto the same old formulas that you would see in a book or a movie. They haven't realized that you don't have to have tomes and tomes of text to tell a story. You don't need a monologue at the beginning of the game. You don't have to thoroughly explain character motivation. Leave that to books.
If any of you are into films, you can see the jump between modern film and early film. A lot of early film used methods that were very prevalent in stage acting. Those films weren't bad, but they weren't really all that great. Movies in America really came into their own during the 60s and 70s when filmmakers realized that films are a completely different medium from anything before it. Video games still need to make this realization.
In my experience, I've never heard anyone complain about not knowing how Mario feels about killing legions of turtles. In fact, I'd say that sort of thing would detract from Super Mario. How shitty would it be to have Mario go on and on about how he hates killing, and how he never agreed with the war brought onto the Mushroom Kingdom?
Most games can do with a vague framework. You don't need to play a novel.
I think this is why I like games like Super Metroid or Diablo. There's a skeletal structure of the story presented in the game. You aren't spending 90% of your time listening to NPC #34472 tell you their backstory at the drop of a dime.
I did like Fallout. But that game is pretty kitschy.
...
If a game wants to have atmosphere and backstory, do it in a tangible fashion. Create atmosphere that permeates every aspect of the game. Make it inescapable. Don't shoe-horn it into the game by making everything about walls of text.
You should go play S.T.A.L.K.E.R., but take any ADD meds on hand first so you don't get upset at the game mechanics and bugs.
I think alot of games have had good presentation and atmosphere and such. But I wouldn't say any of them had anything better then a half-decent story.
Totally unlike books, films and other media then?
Yes. Books, Films, TV, Graphic Novels, etc. All have had stories I'd consider excellent. Many of them.
Of course, their all older mediums too.
I haven't seen a game with anything close to as good a story as you can find in the best book/film/etc.
But, as I said, it's not always necessary to have a great story to make a great game. A very basic story with great presentation works just as well. Look at something like Shadow of the Colossus or Half-Life 2. Very basic story, but presented REALLY well.
Therein lies the problem though. In an interactive medium it's difficult if not downright impossible to make direct comparisons of storyline. Outside of every 100% scripted scene and event the storyline flows through the interactions of the player.
It's going to be different every time, but more importantly, it's likely going to be be more personal to that player every time as well. Short of shooting your own film this is not something that can be done easily in a non-interactive medium. I would argue that presentation and delivery of the story is part and parcel of the story. The method of delivery is always key. Otherwise fundamentally there are only ever few truly original stories in the world.
It's like Chris Avelloone said, Graphic novels used to be treated in a similar fashion. However, you cannot simply divorce the story and dialogue from the actual visuals on the page and say that it doesn't compare. They are a fundamental part of the story, without which it loses it's meaning. Arguably the purest form of story is probably the written story. So if I were to take the text from the screenplay of "The Godfather", add in some well written descriptive text, and then slap it on a page, can I say that this is the same value artistically? Better? Worse?
Shit, I'd say it's much worse.
As would I.
Anyhow, I think you've touched on what my problems are with video game stories.
Developers want to treat it like it's a book, or a movie. It's not! It's interactive. You can do so much more with a video game, but so many development houses fall back onto the same old formulas that you would see in a book or a movie. They haven't realized that you don't have to have tomes and tomes of text to tell a story. You don't need a monologue at the beginning of the game. You don't have to thoroughly explain character motivation. Leave that to books.
If any of you are into films, you can see the jump between modern film and early film. A lot of early film used methods that were very prevalent in stage acting. Those films weren't bad, but they weren't really all that great. Movies in America really came into their own during the 60s and 70s when filmmakers realized that films are a completely different medium from anything before it. Video games still need to make this realization.
In my experience, I've never heard anyone complain about not knowing how Mario feels about killing legions of turtles. In fact, I'd say that sort of thing would detract from Super Mario. How shitty would it be to have Mario go on and on about how he hates killing, and how he never agreed with the war brought onto the Mushroom Kingdom?
Most games can do with a vague framework. You don't need to play a novel.
With respect, different genres call for different things, and different games are trying to achieve different effects with the player. The fundamental capability of the game to be interactive doesn't limit it solely to the play mechanics of Mario.
Shadow of the Colossus adapts a LOT of its artistic design and meaning and atmosphere and environment from other artistic media. In some ways this makes it like an interactive painting. Camera angles are specifically chosen to make scenes more picturesque and dramatic. In some ways this makes it like an interactive animated feature.
Likewise, Planescape: Torment is a very text heavy game. However, it's the only game I've ever played where I've truly felt as if I was given the moral control of a characters decisions to make. Most other games limit you to a simple "Yes / No" binary of abject good or sheer unadulterated evil. It borrows from storybooks, but fundamentally allows you to make your choices within that framework.
Silent Hill? How many conventions did that borrow from psychological thrillers and horror films? Heck, even pulp novels and comics?
How many dramatic conventions from musical works and usage of music in film has gaming made use of to date?
Media borrows and makes use of conventions from other media. Like you said, film borrowed from stage, it STILL borrows from stage, the difference is that it's been adapted better over time, but that doesn't change the fact that ultimately a lot of the conventions come from theatre.
Likwise, games are a fundamentally visual medium, so they incorporate from the visual arts. But it can also be a textual medium. If you want to you can stop and read a newspaper. Does this inherently destroy the gameplay and narrative, or can it be used as a vehicle to push things further? The ability to go at a slower pace and allow the player to look and observe at their own pace can be akin to standing in a gallery observing a painting.And yet, I can argue right now that there is ABSOLUTELY NO SCENE in a game like Shadow of the Colossus or Half Life 2, or Crysis that is worthy of the artistic works you can seen in five minutes in an art gallery. And yet there have been times that I have genuinely stopped and stared in amazement at the world around me. Part of the power of the world is the interactivity, the fact that you're taking part in it. The power of it being part of a whole, the context. All these things add up to make an experience.
It's not that games shouldn't make use of conventions created by other media. It's a question of how those conventions are implemented, or even if they're appropriate at all. This comes down to implementation, and fundamentally in some cases, trial and error. This is still a relatively new medium.
So yes, gaming makes use of conventions from film, music, even literature. Of COURSE it does. It's a question of refining those now.
subedii on
0
Zen VulgarityWhat a lovely day for teaSecret British ThreadRegistered Userregular
What if Indigo Prophecy/Fahrenheit had kept the ancient Myan cult, but never presented any actual magick? Have it be regular hypnotism that make you kill, and work the suspense themes with more (generously) timed sequences like the arrival of the police in the opening sequence? Keep all the magical events purely as hallucinations resulting from some herbal drug given to make you susceptible to the hypnotism. The endings worked pretty well with hiding the effects of whatever went on, so they should have had that be the way the game was played. Keep everything ambiguous as to if the Myan cult's powers are real or fully able to be explained with science. Make the final boss not a Dragonball test of button mashing, but something that twists your gut with one unfortunate moral dilemma after another. Make a game of choices, not super powers. That was their strong point, and they wasted it.
Arguably the purest form of story is probably the written story. So if I were to take the text from the screenplay of "The Godfather", add in some well written descriptive text, and then slap it on a page, can I say that this is the same value artistically? Better? Worse?
I'm not sure I get your point here. The movie was based on a novel. I'm not disagreeing or anything, but I didn't quite follow this part.
Arguably the purest form of story is probably the written story. So if I were to take the text from the screenplay of "The Godfather", add in some well written descriptive text, and then slap it on a page, can I say that this is the same value artistically? Better? Worse?
I'm not sure I get your point here. The movie was based on a novel. I'm not disagreeing or anything, but I didn't quite follow this part.
I know it was based off a novel. But a novel works differently form the film doesn't it?
In terms of comparison, you can't just say the story of the film is better or worse than the book on its own. Part of it is in the setting and delivery. Part of it is in the camera-work. Part of it is in Al Pacino's acting. Re-transcribing it from film to book doesn't leave the story unaffected. My argument is that the story is affected by its delivery. Likewise you can't just judge a game story purely on its own purely textual merits, you need to look at the style, context and delivery.
Shawshank Redemption was also based off of a novel. But as a story told to people, does this inherently make the film an inferior version to the novella? There's less "descriptive text" after all. Probably less dialogue too. And I'd willing to bet the dialogue in the novella had it's own impact.
Okay, that makes more sense. Can I assume you've read or are familiar with "Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man" by Marshall McLuhan, where he coined the famous quote, "the medium is the message"? He argues the same thing, and I think he's exactly right, to a degree most people never even realize.
Okay, that makes more sense. Can I assume you've read or are familiar with "Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man" by Marshall McLuhan, where he coined the famous quote, "the medium is the message"? He argues the same thing, and I think he's exactly right, to a degree most people never even realize.
Posts
And don't talk about my love that way.
Well that's one way to look at it.
One incredibly retarded way in my opinion, but go for it!
You've clearly never read a truly mediocre fantasy novel.
Hell, Torment had better writing than all of the actual Planescape novels, so there's that.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Slow down!
Seriously, I loved this game. The demo made it day one buy for me. And I really enjoyed the different people I got to play as and the way the game worked. I just wish it followed through.
What I was saying was that the moment with the Dust Mites was the moment I started to get nervous. Like when the zombies showed up in Wolf3d. I just felt like "This was a game about stuff that is real and now it isn't." It had previously felt like a bit of David Lynch and a bit of Kafka. But from that point I thought we were getting too crazy...like Bruckheimer crazy. If it had been a single jump or part of a series of strange events grounded in reality I would not have picked that point as the beginning of the end for me. But I got the chills of nervousness in that moment and was really let down when the game kept going with it.
At the end of the game they are tying up plot lines that I never even touched on earlier. Because of the choices I made, I never got to see some of the subplots until Ending Exposition at which point it made no damn sense.
edit: I mean, I understand what you are saying. But I honestly, not based on any hype or backlash (I actually played this game when I was in a bit of a non-internet state of mind), picked the Dust Mite moment as the turning point for me. Like I said, I've not played it in a while but since that is my memory of starting to feel repelled by the game, that is going to be the moment I choose. Honestly, it doesn't really matter, I guess. But I do look forward to more games like this.
Subjective subjective LOL. Also:
http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6120427/p-6.html
Oh Chris, you devious little ragamuffin.
And Chaucer and Thoreau you arrogant Krunky bastard.
I don't even know what Redwall is.
I suck at this geek thing.
Isn't that the effect in an FPS when you shoot a dude against a wall and it turns red behind them? It's supposed to add context to the situation or something, I'm sure.
*has no idea what Redwall is either*
The first one was about the Abbey of Redwall being attacked by an army, and the people inside holding them off. Hence, the "series" of sorts is called Redwall.
Yeah I was responding to Firefly, I never heard of redwall
Totally unlike books, films and other media then?
Aw Sweet Jesus. I've just exposed myself.
-Edit-
I know that I come across as a bit harsh, but honestly, I can only put up with the overly-dramatic, super-serious stories in a lot of games for so long. I'm really tired of completely forced exposition by characters, or writing that fails to grasp basic human psychology. Or writing that thinks quantity is by far the best quality.
So many games nowadays try so hard to have an "epic" story, and just fall flat. I figure, if you're not going to do anything interesting, or hire decent writers, don't bother. Especially if you plan on creating a game with writing as a large component. What gets me is that so many games have incredibly long, detailed dialogue - and that's OK - but it seems like every game adds story in as an afterthought. Personally, I just don't think that a story can really get the attention it needs if it doesn't come before the game.
I think this is why I like games like Super Metroid or Diablo. There's a skeletal structure of the story presented in the game. You aren't spending 90% of your time listening to NPC #34472 tell you their backstory at the drop of a dime.
I did like Fallout. But that game is pretty kitschy.
Yes. Books, Films, TV, Graphic Novels, etc. All have had stories I'd consider excellent. Many of them.
Of course, their all older mediums too.
I haven't seen a game with anything close to as good a story as you can find in the best book/film/etc.
But, as I said, it's not always necessary to have a great story to make a great game. A very basic story with great presentation works just as well. Look at something like Shadow of the Colossus or Half-Life 2. Very basic story, but presented REALLY well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redwall
I have no idea if this is the correct source as the bulk of my lit revolves around H.P. Lovecraft.
Bingo.
I agree with this.
I just hate games that try to create atmosphere by shoving it down your throat via dialogue. I mean, who are you going to believe? The guy that tells you he has a 12" cock? Or are you going to believe the guy that shows you his 12" cock?
If a game wants to have atmosphere and backstory, do it in a tangible fashion. Create atmosphere that permeates every aspect of the game. Make it inescapable. Don't shoe-horn it into the game by making everything about walls of text.
A game's story should be more interesting than some guy just telling you about it.
Therein lies the problem though. In an interactive medium it's difficult if not downright impossible to make direct comparisons of storyline. Outside of every 100% scripted scene and event the storyline flows through the interactions of the player.
It's going to be different every time, but more importantly, it's likely going to be be more personal to that player every time as well. Short of shooting your own film this is not something that can be done easily in a non-interactive medium. I would argue that presentation and delivery of the story is part and parcel of the story. The method of delivery is always key. Otherwise fundamentally there are only ever few truly original stories in the world.
It's like Chris Avelloone said, Graphic novels used to be treated in a similar fashion. However, you cannot simply divorce the story and dialogue from the actual visuals on the page and say that it doesn't compare. They are a fundamental part of the story, without which it loses it's meaning. Arguably the purest form of story is probably the written story. So if I were to take the text from the screenplay of "The Godfather", add in some well written descriptive text, and then slap it on a page, can I say that this is the same value artistically? Better? Worse?
Don't try to tame a wild stallion, baby.
Shit, I'd say it's much worse.
Anyhow, I think you've touched on what my problems are with video game stories.
Developers want to treat it like it's a book, or a movie. It's not! It's interactive. You can do so much more with a video game, but so many development houses fall back onto the same old formulas that you would see in a book or a movie. They haven't realized that you don't have to have tomes and tomes of text to tell a story. You don't need a monologue at the beginning of the game. You don't have to thoroughly explain character motivation. Leave that to books.
If any of you are into films, you can see the jump between modern film and early film. A lot of early film used methods that were very prevalent in stage acting. Those films weren't bad, but they weren't really all that great. Movies in America really came into their own during the 60s and 70s when filmmakers realized that films are a completely different medium from anything before it. Video games still need to make this realization.
In my experience, I've never heard anyone complain about not knowing how Mario feels about killing legions of turtles. In fact, I'd say that sort of thing would detract from Super Mario. How shitty would it be to have Mario go on and on about how he hates killing, and how he never agreed with the war brought onto the Mushroom Kingdom?
Most games can do with a vague framework. You don't need to play a novel.
haha
Already got it.
As would I.
With respect, different genres call for different things, and different games are trying to achieve different effects with the player. The fundamental capability of the game to be interactive doesn't limit it solely to the play mechanics of Mario.
Shadow of the Colossus adapts a LOT of its artistic design and meaning and atmosphere and environment from other artistic media. In some ways this makes it like an interactive painting. Camera angles are specifically chosen to make scenes more picturesque and dramatic. In some ways this makes it like an interactive animated feature.
Likewise, Planescape: Torment is a very text heavy game. However, it's the only game I've ever played where I've truly felt as if I was given the moral control of a characters decisions to make. Most other games limit you to a simple "Yes / No" binary of abject good or sheer unadulterated evil. It borrows from storybooks, but fundamentally allows you to make your choices within that framework.
Silent Hill? How many conventions did that borrow from psychological thrillers and horror films? Heck, even pulp novels and comics?
How many dramatic conventions from musical works and usage of music in film has gaming made use of to date?
Media borrows and makes use of conventions from other media. Like you said, film borrowed from stage, it STILL borrows from stage, the difference is that it's been adapted better over time, but that doesn't change the fact that ultimately a lot of the conventions come from theatre.
Likwise, games are a fundamentally visual medium, so they incorporate from the visual arts. But it can also be a textual medium. If you want to you can stop and read a newspaper. Does this inherently destroy the gameplay and narrative, or can it be used as a vehicle to push things further? The ability to go at a slower pace and allow the player to look and observe at their own pace can be akin to standing in a gallery observing a painting.And yet, I can argue right now that there is ABSOLUTELY NO SCENE in a game like Shadow of the Colossus or Half Life 2, or Crysis that is worthy of the artistic works you can seen in five minutes in an art gallery. And yet there have been times that I have genuinely stopped and stared in amazement at the world around me. Part of the power of the world is the interactivity, the fact that you're taking part in it. The power of it being part of a whole, the context. All these things add up to make an experience.
It's not that games shouldn't make use of conventions created by other media. It's a question of how those conventions are implemented, or even if they're appropriate at all. This comes down to implementation, and fundamentally in some cases, trial and error. This is still a relatively new medium.
So yes, gaming makes use of conventions from film, music, even literature. Of COURSE it does. It's a question of refining those now.
This thread is well over the 100 page limit by now.
I know it was based off a novel. But a novel works differently form the film doesn't it?
In terms of comparison, you can't just say the story of the film is better or worse than the book on its own. Part of it is in the setting and delivery. Part of it is in the camera-work. Part of it is in Al Pacino's acting. Re-transcribing it from film to book doesn't leave the story unaffected. My argument is that the story is affected by its delivery. Likewise you can't just judge a game story purely on its own purely textual merits, you need to look at the style, context and delivery.
Shawshank Redemption was also based off of a novel. But as a story told to people, does this inherently make the film an inferior version to the novella? There's less "descriptive text" after all. Probably less dialogue too. And I'd willing to bet the dialogue in the novella had it's own impact.
And before you wonder, it's not awful because it's children's literature. It's just awful.
Never heard of it.
Although I do largely agree with the quote.
Handmade Jewelry by me on EtsyGames for sale
Me on Twitch!