I don't know why most games even bother anymore. It's really a pain.
I do think games should start focusing on their strengths, and stop trying to be something else. For 99% of games the story is just an excuse or motivator to beat up bad guys or just blow things up, and the instant the story gets in the way of these core game elements then it has failed and needs to be removed.
But I know I'll be in the minority again. I look at games almost purely from a competion and gameplay perspective, because I think that's what games can do that no other entertainment media can, and I think that's what games should focus on doing first and always.
My perspective has always been that if you can play through all of a game's interactive parts without being able to gather at least the main themes of its story, it is bad storytelling. Of course, this model condemns nearly every JRPG ever made, but I think it's fair nonetheless.
I mean, if a given story could be told just as clearly without the gameplay, then surely there are better ways to tell it. For example, Final Fantasy 7: the Novel would have almost certainly been more engrossing, complete and concise than the game itself, assuming the writing was actually good. Conversely, Portal's story would have been nearly impossible to tell well in writing; it'd barely fill a pamphlet. Keep in mind that we're talking about storytelling, and that the plot itself is irrelevant.
This is why exploration and horror based games make for so much more unified experiences, while the more cerebral stuff usually comes off as either more important than the game itself or just superfluous.
I definitely wouldn't want to do this in most other games, but I really like the way you can piece together the story for yourself based on the bits and pieces of evidence they give you, or even the scans that straight up give you a good chunk of story. Not to mention scanning dead space pirates and imagining how they died.:P
I think this is why the cut-scenes bother me so much in the 3rd one. Scanning to figure out the story in the original Prime heavily amplified the sense of aloneness and immersion in the world, and there were rare cut-scenes to disrupt that (even though they could have still trimmed those away). MP3 uses so many cut-scenes to try and force that epic, cinematic feel that I can't feel immersed at all.
METAzraeL on
dream a little dream or you could live a little dream
sleep forever if you wish to be a dreamer
0
augustwhere you come from is goneRegistered Userregular
I don't remember and I never played it much, but did Myst have cutscenes? I think one of the differences between film and games, is that the delivery of the content is fundamentally different. Stories in film have to be shown, or at least that's the only medium possible. Games are largely free to only supply the framework.
Afterall, I've played civilization plenty of times and there was tons of "story" created. But that story was my own making. I had an 'epic' war with the bablyonians etc. This is even more true in multiplayer where there is more opportunity for a 'story' to form between two 'players'.
Myst was sort of strange, there were parts preformed by live actors, but they were placed into the environment, so you would, for instance, walk up to Atrus sitting there and he'd have a few words with you and then you could walk away, and if you came back he'd be looping in the same book writing animation.
Actually, I think it was Myst III that had a loop of a lady playing with a baby, but instead of just making it a looping animation they had it play in reverse afterwards and it came off as pretty funny looking.
That said, I do really enjoy the Myst style of storytelling, where a lot of what you learn is in small notes and books that you find around that help explain bits of the storylines. However Myst doesn't really have a very compelling plot; it's almost all setting.
i wonder what the fuck eli thinks when i jump on the table and crouch on his face and bunny hop around
apparently he's fine with it, just gordon being a 5 year old again
that kind of thing is a mark against half life's method as well
Yes, you can break your own immersion if you want to.
Point taken that it's still a linear scene, though, and there's nothing you can do to change what happens. I think the technology is still lacking for the sort of AI that could procedurally react to your shenanigans, though, but I would love to see that in the future.
I don't expect any video game to come out in my life time where I can't break the immersion and realism of the game. However, I don't think how the actor is nothing like his character in real life when I watch a movie. You have to suspend your disbelief for any medium.
So basically, what I get out of this, is that the games with the best storytelling are the ones that create a detailed, intricate setting, with lots of implied backstory, and let the user run around in them.
Re: Half-life 2 and cutscenes: I've long felt that the 'no cutscenes' aspect of the HL games is kind of a red herring. If all you're doing is standing there waiting for people to finish talking, it doesn't make a big difference if you're viewing it from first or third person. Either way I'm waiting for the jabbering to end and the game to begin.
How common is the mentality that sees folks spamming the A button or the spacebar to skip cutscenes just to get back into the action? Whether that's a result of years of poor storytelling or because the player has no patience for any break in the action I guess would be a bigger part of this debate.
Personally, I'd prefer even the most basic, but coherent, storyline. Even if it's presented poorly (bad VO, scripting, pacing, etc.). I'd like to think that even if it isn't very satisfying, that the whole point of the exercise had more to it than 'See that? Kill it!'.
How common is the mentality that sees folks spamming the A button or the spacebar to skip cutscenes just to get back into the action? Whether that's a result of years of poor storytelling or because the player has no patience for any break in the action I guess would be a bigger part of this debate.
Personally, I'd prefer even the most basic, but coherent, storyline. Even if it's presented poorly (bad VO, scripting, pacing, etc.). I'd like to think that even if it isn't very satisfying, that the whole point of the exercise had more to it than 'See that? Kill it!'.
A game like Yoshi's Island conveys its world better with personality and art than most games with cutscenes. Especially FPS games with cutscenes.
Ditto on say, Morrowind vs. Oblivion.
Cutscenes are entirely unnecessary. I only watched them back in the days when CGI graphics were new and impressive, like in the old warcraft games and Diablo 1 and 2 and whatnot.
How common is the mentality that sees folks spamming the A button or the spacebar to skip cutscenes just to get back into the action? Whether that's a result of years of poor storytelling or because the player has no patience for any break in the action I guess would be a bigger part of this debate.
Personally, I'd prefer even the most basic, but coherent, storyline. Even if it's presented poorly (bad VO, scripting, pacing, etc.). I'd like to think that even if it isn't very satisfying, that the whole point of the exercise had more to it than 'See that? Kill it!'.
A game like Yoshi's Island conveys its world better with personality and art than most games with cutscenes. Especially FPS games with cutscenes.
Ditto on say, Morrowind vs. Oblivion.
Cutscenes are entirely unnecessary. I only watched them back in the days when CGI graphics were new and impressive, like in the old warcraft games and Diablo 1 and 2 and whatnot.
And what happens for games where the entirety of the story relies on the player either finding all the in-game info or being in the right location at the right time to trigger an 'event'? How satisfying is it if the player doesn't get the whole story?
How common is the mentality that sees folks spamming the A button or the spacebar to skip cutscenes just to get back into the action? Whether that's a result of years of poor storytelling or because the player has no patience for any break in the action I guess would be a bigger part of this debate.
Personally, I'd prefer even the most basic, but coherent, storyline. Even if it's presented poorly (bad VO, scripting, pacing, etc.). I'd like to think that even if it isn't very satisfying, that the whole point of the exercise had more to it than 'See that? Kill it!'.
A game like Yoshi's Island conveys its world better with personality and art than most games with cutscenes. Especially FPS games with cutscenes.
Ditto on say, Morrowind vs. Oblivion.
Cutscenes are entirely unnecessary. I only watched them back in the days when CGI graphics were new and impressive, like in the old warcraft games and Diablo 1 and 2 and whatnot.
And what happens for games where the entirety of the story relies on the player either finding all the in-game info or being in the right location at the right time to trigger an 'event'? How satisfying is it if the player doesn't get the whole story?
Thats called "replayability". Trying to avoid people missing things is why modern RPGs all suck nuts.
Actually, is anybody here interested in the upcoming Heavy Rain?
I find that the way they are trying to branch out the story interesting.
I'm interested in Heavy Rain. I'll probably buy a copy even since I don't have a PS3. You can argue over the quality of Indigo Prophecy's story, but I want more games in that vein.
I think it’s pretty self evident that videogames can support both forms. The idea that there’s an inherent inability to have a dichotomy in videogames storytelling techniques is quite clearly ridiculous. As for cut scenes, they are not going to go away, I can guarantee they’ll still be there by the time we have fully functioning true a.i. They are also not necessarily a bad thing; borrowing from film is a good thing, not something to be escaped from. Videogames can learn many storytelling forms from there and integrate them into the medium, as they are now doing. We can have our ‘epic’ or ‘cinematic’ games and as the medium matures we will get better writers, and specific writers for the medium of a high calibre. Hell this process is already occurring to a notable degree, look at Halos’ story line and compare it to doom and its contemporaries. Can you honestly tell me the difference isn’t night and day? Yes Halo is at best akin to a blockbuster movie, but look at what we used to have – stories written by programmers on the back of a napkin. However process such as this take time, shall we take a gander at the time it took for film to be taken seriously as a medium?
In regards to immersion, this is not the be all and end all. Art can never be entirely immersive and should not necessarily even attempt such. Also tries to do this such as mute characters or what boil down to cut scenes with a shitty camera in your control, can destroy immersion in a way a cinematic never will. The constraints and siphoning you down a path, and lack of interactivity serve as a constant reminder that you’re merely seeing and doing exactly what they’ve scripted you too.
Also agreeng with Santa, the shittiest story that makes the dregs of fanfiction.net look like literary canon is till better then no story at all. I need a motivation and reason behind what I'm doing for single player games, however poor.
How common is the mentality that sees folks spamming the A button or the spacebar to skip cutscenes just to get back into the action? Whether that's a result of years of poor storytelling or because the player has no patience for any break in the action I guess would be a bigger part of this debate.
Personally, I'd prefer even the most basic, but coherent, storyline. Even if it's presented poorly (bad VO, scripting, pacing, etc.). I'd like to think that even if it isn't very satisfying, that the whole point of the exercise had more to it than 'See that? Kill it!'.
A game like Yoshi's Island conveys its world better with personality and art than most games with cutscenes. Especially FPS games with cutscenes.
Ditto on say, Morrowind vs. Oblivion.
Cutscenes are entirely unnecessary. I only watched them back in the days when CGI graphics were new and impressive, like in the old warcraft games and Diablo 1 and 2 and whatnot.
And what happens for games where the entirety of the story relies on the player either finding all the in-game info or being in the right location at the right time to trigger an 'event'? How satisfying is it if the player doesn't get the whole story?
Thats called "replayability". Trying to avoid people missing things is why modern RPGs all suck nuts.
Oh, you're one of those kind of gamers... Yeah, sometimes, not every game is worth another playthrough. And since when did RPG become the only form of game that could tell a story?
How common is the mentality that sees folks spamming the A button or the spacebar to skip cutscenes just to get back into the action? Whether that's a result of years of poor storytelling or because the player has no patience for any break in the action I guess would be a bigger part of this debate.
Personally, I'd prefer even the most basic, but coherent, storyline. Even if it's presented poorly (bad VO, scripting, pacing, etc.). I'd like to think that even if it isn't very satisfying, that the whole point of the exercise had more to it than 'See that? Kill it!'.
A game like Yoshi's Island conveys its world better with personality and art than most games with cutscenes. Especially FPS games with cutscenes.
Ditto on say, Morrowind vs. Oblivion.
Cutscenes are entirely unnecessary. I only watched them back in the days when CGI graphics were new and impressive, like in the old warcraft games and Diablo 1 and 2 and whatnot.
And what happens for games where the entirety of the story relies on the player either finding all the in-game info or being in the right location at the right time to trigger an 'event'? How satisfying is it if the player doesn't get the whole story?
Thats called "replayability". Trying to avoid people missing things is why modern RPGs all suck nuts.
Oh, you're one of those kind of gamers... Yeah, sometimes, not every game is worth another playthrough. And since when did RPG become the only form of game that could tell a story?
If its not worth replaying, it wasn't worth playing to begin with.
If you look at all good games that tell stories, like Max Payne 2, you'll notice that there are tons of hidden things to discover. Max Payne 2 still had cutscenes, which of course weren't needed, but its the little things in game that make the story.
And at what point does a player discover a game isn't worth playing once, let alone playing again? How sizable is the group of consumers who buy a game and then rush through it to get maximum return on trade-in value or just rent a game instead of buying? I doubt story is a compelling issue for them, but I'd bet that every one of them would find a way to complain about how bad the story actually was.
And no matter how hidden shit was in Max Payne 2, the story was delivered in cutscenes.
And at what point does a player discover a game isn't worth playing once, let alone playing again? How sizable is the group of consumers who buy a game and then rush through it to get maximum return on trade-in value or just rent a game instead of buying? I doubt story is a compelling issue for them, but I'd bet that every one of them would find a way to complain about how bad the story actually was.
And no matter how hidden shit was in Max Payne 2, the story was delivered in cutscenes.
Yes, I get it, you want dumb games, designed for dumb people, with b-movie grade acting and stories that are as subtle as a club to the head.
And at what point does a player discover a game isn't worth playing once, let alone playing again? How sizable is the group of consumers who buy a game and then rush through it to get maximum return on trade-in value or just rent a game instead of buying? I doubt story is a compelling issue for them, but I'd bet that every one of them would find a way to complain about how bad the story actually was.
And no matter how hidden shit was in Max Payne 2, the story was delivered in cutscenes.
Yes, I get it, you want dumb games, designed for dumb people, with b-movie grade acting and stories that are as subtle as a club to the head.
Wow, and you had to even edit your post to get it that coherent. Can't you just be satisfied that you already get the games you want to play and allow that other people might actually enjoy playing games with cinematics?
And at what point does a player discover a game isn't worth playing once, let alone playing again? How sizable is the group of consumers who buy a game and then rush through it to get maximum return on trade-in value or just rent a game instead of buying? I doubt story is a compelling issue for them, but I'd bet that every one of them would find a way to complain about how bad the story actually was.
And no matter how hidden shit was in Max Payne 2, the story was delivered in cutscenes.
Yes, I get it, you want dumb games, designed for dumb people, with b-movie grade acting and stories that are as subtle as a club to the head.
Wow, and you had to even edit your post to get it that coherent. Can't you just be satisfied that you already get the games you want to play and allow that other people might actually enjoy playing games with cinematics?
Cinematics aren't necessary, but aren't necessarily bad. They are more of a symptom of a problem than a problem themselves.
I'm more amazed by your comment that you should be able to catch everything in one playthrough of a game. Thats the type of thinking that leads to 60 bucks for 6 hour games.
The edit was "designed for dumb people", if you were wondering.
And at what point does a player discover a game isn't worth playing once, let alone playing again? How sizable is the group of consumers who buy a game and then rush through it to get maximum return on trade-in value or just rent a game instead of buying? I doubt story is a compelling issue for them, but I'd bet that every one of them would find a way to complain about how bad the story actually was.
And no matter how hidden shit was in Max Payne 2, the story was delivered in cutscenes.
Yes, I get it, you want dumb games, designed for dumb people, with b-movie grade acting and stories that are as subtle as a club to the head.
And at what point does a player discover a game isn't worth playing once, let alone playing again? How sizable is the group of consumers who buy a game and then rush through it to get maximum return on trade-in value or just rent a game instead of buying? I doubt story is a compelling issue for them, but I'd bet that every one of them would find a way to complain about how bad the story actually was.
And no matter how hidden shit was in Max Payne 2, the story was delivered in cutscenes.
Yes, I get it, you want dumb games, designed for dumb people, with b-movie grade acting and stories that are as subtle as a club to the head.
Wait.
Are you insulting Max payne 2's story?
Somebody hold me back.
No, see my comment above.
Max Payne 2's story? Pretty good. What made the game? All the little touches.
I don't expect a single playthrough to provide everything. But if I'm playing a game and then finish it and I'm wondering at the end what the fuck was going on, then I discover that I missed triggering a cutscene or finding the right notebook or something (the Rosetta Stone, if you will) that will make it all come together... And all because it was deemed that having cutscenes would be an unecessary drain on the story/gameplay itself... Well, I don't think I'd be interested in playing again unless the gameplay itself was fucking amazing. I could just as easily find a walkthrough or read a synopsis to get the story and never have to concern myself with trying to find the hidden nuggets.
Cinema offers an interesting comparison to gaming. The little touches effect your immersion, and the qualities and personalities of the characters involved can draw you in or turn you away. The difference lies in the controllable protagonist, and the challenge lies in creating the staggering array of dialog/real time decisions a developer would have to write for a player to feel any semblance of ownership over the character.
Dialog Trees aren't enough for me. Linear storytelling makes sense in novels and movies, given that there is no audience participation. It tends to fall flat when you don't sympathize with the preconceived choices your character makes, or the denizens of the inhabited world not validating your identity in a meaningful way. Example: Dragon Quest series; I don't want to save the princess. I have to save the princess regardless of what I want. Vice-Versa: Morrowind/Oblivion; I want to have meaningful and deep conversations (a la Planescape) with interesting NPC's I encounter, and I want the choices I've made throughout the game to effect these conversations. Divayth Fyr and Vivec, the two most interesting characters in the game, don't give a fuck what you've done or who you are. They have dialog trees that you have to click through. Unfortunate.
I want the depth of setting and character development of Planescape Torment.
I want the level of physical control and heightened sense of danger and excitement the Half Life series espouses.
I want the character customization of Oblivion.
I don't think the story even matters that much. Developers (Final Fantasy) get too wrapped up in having your character explore every facet of their created world and interact with essentially every interesting person. Good stories can be jarringly simple to summarize, and often are. The complexity lies in the characters, usually. Try it out, developers.
This is largely self-evident, but it's always gonna vary from game to game. The degree to which the story is part of the gameplay depends on the designer's goal, and the manner in which the story is presented is pretty much a question of the skills and tools the designers have.
BioWare is good at dialog, relative to most video-game companies. With Mass Effect, we had film-school graduates working as designers, getting the camera angles right in conversations and doing all those little touches that absolutely wouldn't have mattered when BioWare games were all about text-boxes.
The downside to being good at dialog is that it's really easy to use dialog as an all-purpose solution, adding in another conversation when really, the best way to convey the story would have been a couple of art placeables. (I'm remembering playing Bioshock and hearing the distraught parents on the recording, then walking into their apartment and seeing two corpses, a bottle of wine, and some pills. That hit me a whole lot harder than "more talking" ever could have.)
Inside the office, one of the benchmarks for the company was Virmire, which used a lot of short ambient lines that didn't interrupt gameplay, combined with relatively few but important conversations saved for where they would do the most good (usually for important decisions). Virmire was one of people's favorite planets storywise, and people seem to think that the mix of "ambients that don't stop you from running around and killing stuff" and "cinematic conversations where they will really help" is a good idea. (A larger budget for art placeables and a faster pipeline for making those placeables would also help us tell stories more easily.)
It's interesting to see companies hiring screenwriters or contract writers who are really, you know, writers -- the Heavenly Sword people hiring Pratchett, for example. I think that's going to be valuable. I also think that as video games as a genre get older, you'll see more people who grow up wanting to write for them, instead of wanting to write stories and then running into video-games rather late and trying to adapt to that mode of thinking. While BioWare is popular as a "not good writing" company in the opinions of many, we're not just sitting around thinking of new ways to suck. I've watched the company aggressively try to hire new writers, and the number of people who a) can write at a professional level, b) can write nonlinear branching dialog to create reactive storylines, and c) are willing to likely make less money by moving to Edmonton or Austin instead of doing screenwriting in L.A. or programming anywhere in the country (given that the skillset to do this level of writing means that you could probably do one, if not both, instead) is fairly tiny.
takyris on
0
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
So basically, what I get out of this, is that the games with the best storytelling are the ones that create a detailed, intricate setting, with lots of implied backstory, and let the user run around in them.
Re: Half-life 2 and cutscenes: I've long felt that the 'no cutscenes' aspect of the HL games is kind of a red herring. If all you're doing is standing there waiting for people to finish talking, it doesn't make a big difference if you're viewing it from first or third person. Either way I'm waiting for the jabbering to end and the game to begin.
I disagree entirely
If a game specifically sets out you immerse you and to make you feel like a part of what is happening, then viewing it from first person is far more effective than viewing it in third
It's like the cinematography in Children of Men. It wasn't just great because it had nice long takes and few cutaways, it also drew you in because it felt like the camera was an active entity in the world. There's a moment where blood flies onto the lens and doesn't go away for a good minute or so. That was probably the best shot in whole movie
Of course now we're getting into the comparison between film and games again
I disagree with you in that Max Payne 2 doesn't need cutscenes, but that's only because I can't think of any other way it could be done.
You're right: the game couldn't have existed without the story. The story could certainly have existed without the game though, and could probably have been made even better without the constraints of the medium. So, though it was good storytelling, it wasn't the best way to tell the story.
Don't get me wrong, I think there'll always be a place for cinematics-driven plots in video games; but I also think a lot is sacrificed in this approach.
I disagree with you in that Max Payne 2 doesn't need cutscenes, but that's only because I can't think of any other way it could be done.
You're right: the game couldn't have existed without the story. The story could certainly have existed without the game though, and could probably have been made even better without the constraints of the medium. So, though it was good storytelling, it wasn't the best way to tell the story.
Don't get me wrong, I think there'll always be a place for cinematics-driven plots in video games; but I also think a lot is sacrificed in this approach.
If its not worth replaying, it wasn't worth playing to begin with.
I strongly disagree with that statement. I can think of so many games that were fantastic games the first time and yet I have no particular desire to replay: Shadow of the Colossus, Xenogears, Persona 3, Psychonauts, Professor Layton & the Curious Village, Phoenix Wright, etc, etc. Not every game needs to be replayable.
If its not worth replaying, it wasn't worth playing to begin with.
I strongly disagree with that statement. I can think of so many games that were fantastic games the first time and yet I have no particular desire to replay: Shadow of the Colossus, Xenogears, Persona 3, Psychonauts, Professor Layton & the Curious Village, Phoenix Wright, etc, etc. Not every game needs to be replayable.
I actually replay the Phoenix Wright games on long airplane flights.
Once you know the end of each case, the games take only a few hours.
If its not worth replaying, it wasn't worth playing to begin with.
I strongly disagree with that statement. I can think of so many games that were fantastic games the first time and yet I have no particular desire to replay: Shadow of the Colossus, Xenogears, Persona 3, Psychonauts, Professor Layton & the Curious Village, Phoenix Wright, etc, etc. Not every game needs to be replayable.
I actually replay the Phoenix Wright games on long airplane flights.
Once you know the end of each case, the games take only a few hours.
I think the idea is that you want a game to be replayable in that you look forward to playing it again.
For example:
'I remember playing Shenmue around Christmas time and when the game clock switched to Christmas it was just magical. I play it every year!'
vs.
'Geez! I'm going to be bored for a while. I guess I pick this game.'
Not every game affects gamers the same way, but some games are just a sort of 'I liked it. I finished it. I'm done.'
If its not worth replaying, it wasn't worth playing to begin with.
I strongly disagree with that statement. I can think of so many games that were fantastic games the first time and yet I have no particular desire to replay: Shadow of the Colossus, Xenogears, Persona 3, Psychonauts, Professor Layton & the Curious Village, Phoenix Wright, etc, etc. Not every game needs to be replayable.
I can think of a fair few films and books that I wouldn't read/watch again but I thought were good. Requiem for a Dream anyone?
I definitely think it is time to expand some of the narrative techniques in gaming. So many are just of the form "let's make people feel like they are playing X", where X might be a movie, graphic novel (XIII, max payne), tabletop rpg, japanese mythological brush painting or whatever. In this paradigm, the storytelling techniques of the medium are merged with the interactive elements to create something that's a bit like the original form. This isn't a bad thing by any means, which is why "cinematic" is considered something good about a game.
Cutscenes are just a technique, they can be teeth grindingly bad, or actually pretty amazing and motivating (Blizzard).
What I would like to see more are games written without the constrictions of another medium, where the writing forms an integral part of the design of the interaction.
As an example, Watchmen used many different techniques available to printed media to tell an effective and compelling story. It didn't rely solely on traditional graphic novel or comic storytelling.
Posts
I want to punch him right now
I do think games should start focusing on their strengths, and stop trying to be something else. For 99% of games the story is just an excuse or motivator to beat up bad guys or just blow things up, and the instant the story gets in the way of these core game elements then it has failed and needs to be removed.
But I know I'll be in the minority again. I look at games almost purely from a competion and gameplay perspective, because I think that's what games can do that no other entertainment media can, and I think that's what games should focus on doing first and always.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
I mean, if a given story could be told just as clearly without the gameplay, then surely there are better ways to tell it. For example, Final Fantasy 7: the Novel would have almost certainly been more engrossing, complete and concise than the game itself, assuming the writing was actually good. Conversely, Portal's story would have been nearly impossible to tell well in writing; it'd barely fill a pamphlet. Keep in mind that we're talking about storytelling, and that the plot itself is irrelevant.
This is why exploration and horror based games make for so much more unified experiences, while the more cerebral stuff usually comes off as either more important than the game itself or just superfluous.
apparently he's fine with it, just gordon being a 5 year old again
that kind of thing is a mark against half life's method as well
dream a little dream or you could live a little dream
sleep forever if you wish to be a dreamer
Yes, you can break your own immersion if you want to.
Myst was sort of strange, there were parts preformed by live actors, but they were placed into the environment, so you would, for instance, walk up to Atrus sitting there and he'd have a few words with you and then you could walk away, and if you came back he'd be looping in the same book writing animation.
Actually, I think it was Myst III that had a loop of a lady playing with a baby, but instead of just making it a looping animation they had it play in reverse afterwards and it came off as pretty funny looking.
That said, I do really enjoy the Myst style of storytelling, where a lot of what you learn is in small notes and books that you find around that help explain bits of the storylines. However Myst doesn't really have a very compelling plot; it's almost all setting.
Point taken that it's still a linear scene, though, and there's nothing you can do to change what happens. I think the technology is still lacking for the sort of AI that could procedurally react to your shenanigans, though, but I would love to see that in the future.
*sigh*
Re: Half-life 2 and cutscenes: I've long felt that the 'no cutscenes' aspect of the HL games is kind of a red herring. If all you're doing is standing there waiting for people to finish talking, it doesn't make a big difference if you're viewing it from first or third person. Either way I'm waiting for the jabbering to end and the game to begin.
Personally, I'd prefer even the most basic, but coherent, storyline. Even if it's presented poorly (bad VO, scripting, pacing, etc.). I'd like to think that even if it isn't very satisfying, that the whole point of the exercise had more to it than 'See that? Kill it!'.
A game like Yoshi's Island conveys its world better with personality and art than most games with cutscenes. Especially FPS games with cutscenes.
Ditto on say, Morrowind vs. Oblivion.
Cutscenes are entirely unnecessary. I only watched them back in the days when CGI graphics were new and impressive, like in the old warcraft games and Diablo 1 and 2 and whatnot.
I find that the way they are trying to branch out the story interesting.
And what happens for games where the entirety of the story relies on the player either finding all the in-game info or being in the right location at the right time to trigger an 'event'? How satisfying is it if the player doesn't get the whole story?
Thats called "replayability". Trying to avoid people missing things is why modern RPGs all suck nuts.
I'm interested in Heavy Rain. I'll probably buy a copy even since I don't have a PS3. You can argue over the quality of Indigo Prophecy's story, but I want more games in that vein.
In regards to immersion, this is not the be all and end all. Art can never be entirely immersive and should not necessarily even attempt such. Also tries to do this such as mute characters or what boil down to cut scenes with a shitty camera in your control, can destroy immersion in a way a cinematic never will. The constraints and siphoning you down a path, and lack of interactivity serve as a constant reminder that you’re merely seeing and doing exactly what they’ve scripted you too.
Also agreeng with Santa, the shittiest story that makes the dregs of fanfiction.net look like literary canon is till better then no story at all. I need a motivation and reason behind what I'm doing for single player games, however poor.
Oh, you're one of those kind of gamers... Yeah, sometimes, not every game is worth another playthrough. And since when did RPG become the only form of game that could tell a story?
If its not worth replaying, it wasn't worth playing to begin with.
If you look at all good games that tell stories, like Max Payne 2, you'll notice that there are tons of hidden things to discover. Max Payne 2 still had cutscenes, which of course weren't needed, but its the little things in game that make the story.
And no matter how hidden shit was in Max Payne 2, the story was delivered in cutscenes.
Yes, I get it, you want dumb games, designed for dumb people, with b-movie grade acting and stories that are as subtle as a club to the head.
Wow, and you had to even edit your post to get it that coherent. Can't you just be satisfied that you already get the games you want to play and allow that other people might actually enjoy playing games with cinematics?
Cinematics aren't necessary, but aren't necessarily bad. They are more of a symptom of a problem than a problem themselves.
I'm more amazed by your comment that you should be able to catch everything in one playthrough of a game. Thats the type of thinking that leads to 60 bucks for 6 hour games.
The edit was "designed for dumb people", if you were wondering.
Wait.
Are you insulting Max payne 2's story?
Somebody hold me back.
No, see my comment above.
Max Payne 2's story? Pretty good. What made the game? All the little touches.
I disagree with you in that Max Payne 2 doesn't need cutscenes, but that's only because I can't think of any other way it could be done.
Plus the comic presentation was lovely.
Dialog Trees aren't enough for me. Linear storytelling makes sense in novels and movies, given that there is no audience participation. It tends to fall flat when you don't sympathize with the preconceived choices your character makes, or the denizens of the inhabited world not validating your identity in a meaningful way. Example: Dragon Quest series; I don't want to save the princess. I have to save the princess regardless of what I want. Vice-Versa: Morrowind/Oblivion; I want to have meaningful and deep conversations (a la Planescape) with interesting NPC's I encounter, and I want the choices I've made throughout the game to effect these conversations. Divayth Fyr and Vivec, the two most interesting characters in the game, don't give a fuck what you've done or who you are. They have dialog trees that you have to click through. Unfortunate.
I want the depth of setting and character development of Planescape Torment.
I want the level of physical control and heightened sense of danger and excitement the Half Life series espouses.
I want the character customization of Oblivion.
I don't think the story even matters that much. Developers (Final Fantasy) get too wrapped up in having your character explore every facet of their created world and interact with essentially every interesting person. Good stories can be jarringly simple to summarize, and often are. The complexity lies in the characters, usually. Try it out, developers.
BioWare is good at dialog, relative to most video-game companies. With Mass Effect, we had film-school graduates working as designers, getting the camera angles right in conversations and doing all those little touches that absolutely wouldn't have mattered when BioWare games were all about text-boxes.
The downside to being good at dialog is that it's really easy to use dialog as an all-purpose solution, adding in another conversation when really, the best way to convey the story would have been a couple of art placeables. (I'm remembering playing Bioshock and hearing the distraught parents on the recording, then walking into their apartment and seeing two corpses, a bottle of wine, and some pills. That hit me a whole lot harder than "more talking" ever could have.)
Inside the office, one of the benchmarks for the company was Virmire, which used a lot of short ambient lines that didn't interrupt gameplay, combined with relatively few but important conversations saved for where they would do the most good (usually for important decisions). Virmire was one of people's favorite planets storywise, and people seem to think that the mix of "ambients that don't stop you from running around and killing stuff" and "cinematic conversations where they will really help" is a good idea. (A larger budget for art placeables and a faster pipeline for making those placeables would also help us tell stories more easily.)
It's interesting to see companies hiring screenwriters or contract writers who are really, you know, writers -- the Heavenly Sword people hiring Pratchett, for example. I think that's going to be valuable. I also think that as video games as a genre get older, you'll see more people who grow up wanting to write for them, instead of wanting to write stories and then running into video-games rather late and trying to adapt to that mode of thinking. While BioWare is popular as a "not good writing" company in the opinions of many, we're not just sitting around thinking of new ways to suck. I've watched the company aggressively try to hire new writers, and the number of people who a) can write at a professional level, b) can write nonlinear branching dialog to create reactive storylines, and c) are willing to likely make less money by moving to Edmonton or Austin instead of doing screenwriting in L.A. or programming anywhere in the country (given that the skillset to do this level of writing means that you could probably do one, if not both, instead) is fairly tiny.
I disagree entirely
If a game specifically sets out you immerse you and to make you feel like a part of what is happening, then viewing it from first person is far more effective than viewing it in third
It's like the cinematography in Children of Men. It wasn't just great because it had nice long takes and few cutaways, it also drew you in because it felt like the camera was an active entity in the world. There's a moment where blood flies onto the lens and doesn't go away for a good minute or so. That was probably the best shot in whole movie
Of course now we're getting into the comparison between film and games again
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
How are those relevant to narrative form? I wasn't talking about storytelling quality.
You're right: the game couldn't have existed without the story. The story could certainly have existed without the game though, and could probably have been made even better without the constraints of the medium. So, though it was good storytelling, it wasn't the best way to tell the story.
Don't get me wrong, I think there'll always be a place for cinematics-driven plots in video games; but I also think a lot is sacrificed in this approach.
Such as?
I strongly disagree with that statement. I can think of so many games that were fantastic games the first time and yet I have no particular desire to replay: Shadow of the Colossus, Xenogears, Persona 3, Psychonauts, Professor Layton & the Curious Village, Phoenix Wright, etc, etc. Not every game needs to be replayable.
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
I actually replay the Phoenix Wright games on long airplane flights.
Once you know the end of each case, the games take only a few hours.
I think the idea is that you want a game to be replayable in that you look forward to playing it again.
For example:
'I remember playing Shenmue around Christmas time and when the game clock switched to Christmas it was just magical. I play it every year!'
vs.
'Geez! I'm going to be bored for a while. I guess I pick this game.'
Not every game affects gamers the same way, but some games are just a sort of 'I liked it. I finished it. I'm done.'
I can think of a fair few films and books that I wouldn't read/watch again but I thought were good. Requiem for a Dream anyone?
I definitely think it is time to expand some of the narrative techniques in gaming. So many are just of the form "let's make people feel like they are playing X", where X might be a movie, graphic novel (XIII, max payne), tabletop rpg, japanese mythological brush painting or whatever. In this paradigm, the storytelling techniques of the medium are merged with the interactive elements to create something that's a bit like the original form. This isn't a bad thing by any means, which is why "cinematic" is considered something good about a game.
Cutscenes are just a technique, they can be teeth grindingly bad, or actually pretty amazing and motivating (Blizzard).
What I would like to see more are games written without the constrictions of another medium, where the writing forms an integral part of the design of the interaction.
As an example, Watchmen used many different techniques available to printed media to tell an effective and compelling story. It didn't rely solely on traditional graphic novel or comic storytelling.