@ BenevolentCow. Indeed, art is art, and it's difficult to pin the process down with a "how to make good games" formula. Often, games with pre-existing stories come out quite good.
Still, it does seem like very good advice to make plans around the tools you have at your disposal (the mechanics) before deciding on what your final product will be. You may want to sculpt a statue of david, but if all you have are oil paints, slavishly sticking to your original plan might be a poor idea.
Developers typically have their specialties. Some are good with FPS games, others with puzzlers. They don't decide on the types of games they make based on what stories they find most attractive but on what mechanic they are best at delivering. Remember that games are an interactive media where the mechanics specifically are what sets it apart from other art-forms.
"Most people would sooner die than think... In fact, they do so." ~Bertrand Russel
EC has historically had content worth watching, but it seems like the quality of the more recent episodes has dropped in recent times. For example, this episode spends *twice* as much time telling people what not to do than what the right way is.
A more compelling episode could be created by focusing on what to do. Start with an abstract description, discuss a concrete example or two in detail, then summarize.
In this episode, you'd start with the idea that you want to explore with the video--how to construct a narrative.
Next, you could discuss a game (perhaps modeled from James' classroom experience), describing the mood and some mechanics that you might choose to communicate that mood. You might embellish it with some features of the game world that could facilitate those mechanics. Do this twice, if you have the resources to do so.
The 2nd example could take a postmortem from Gamasutra that highlights how a pro team applied this technique. Keep in mind your audience is casual folks that don't design games professionally, so distill the professional work to key elements, as described in prior episodes.
Finally, blend each aspect of the presentation together and summarize your major points. Be constructive with your message. Offer concrete examples to anchor the idea. Illustrate the process by extracting key elements from "toy" and real-world examples. Your program will be better for it.
EC has historically had content worth watching, but it seems like the quality of the more recent episodes has dropped in recent times. For example, this episode spends *twice* as much time telling people what not to do than what the right way is.
A more compelling episode could be created by focusing on what to do. Start with an abstract description, discuss a concrete example or two in detail, then summarize.
In this episode, you'd start with the idea that you want to explore with the video--how to construct a narrative.
Next, you could discuss a game (perhaps modeled from James' classroom experience), describing the mood and some mechanics that you might choose to communicate that mood. You might embellish it with some features of the game world that could facilitate those mechanics. Do this twice, if you have the resources to do so.
The 2nd example could take a postmortem from Gamasutra that highlights how a pro team applied this technique. Keep in mind your audience is casual folks that don't design games professionally, so distill the professional work to key elements, as described in prior episodes.
Finally, blend each aspect of the presentation together and summarize your major points. Be constructive with your message. Offer concrete examples to anchor the idea. Illustrate the process by extracting key elements from "toy" and real-world examples. Your program will be better for it.
this is exactly what I wanted to hear because I am always making this point when I talk of games and no one listens to me....but Extra Credits will be listened too! bwahhah! I love thinking of unique mechanics first, and then how a story goes into that.
Also at the beginning of this video they stated they got this question a lot. Those questions where probably from people who haven't made games yet or at least not many. The comments here mention that starting with a story is doable and I agree. But, I think EC's way of starting a game would be great for people making their first or second game. To get the hang of actually making a game ( not just knowing the process) By the time you get around to wanting to start with story you already have an idea of the process you are going to go through which would give you a better idea of how your story would be displayed through mechanics, setting, etc.
I can see parallels here with the film world. James Cameron's Avatar was very much built around the mechanics of the cameras and CGI he had available. Jurassic Park from twenty years earlier is another example. But...
Is anyone here going to buy Half Life 3 for anything OTHER than story? (If/when it comes out.) Sure it will look extremely pretty, and may feature some origonal physics, but that's not the reason you're going to buy it, is it? You want to know how the story continues, and/or ends.
Mechanical considerations are much less important if you're creating genre fiction. At that point story tends to matter more. Available locations, budget, and SFX cost still figure into things, but they frame the problem, not define it. Say you want to make, or are comissioned to make, an FPS. 90% of your decisions are already made for you. There's little left but plot, and style. And given the number of samey shooters out there, one of those two has to really stick out to be noticed.
I think this is totally wrong. Of course, there are pitfalls with starting with a story, but WAY too many games these days are graphics-obsessed generic pieces wherein people talk more about how the FPS could be better instead of how much they enjoyed the story. It's epidemic. Look at any game box these days and you'll find absolutely no information about the game's content (because there isn't any), but talk about the engine its running, or the different online multiplayer options...yawn. Bo-ring. Instead of trying to trick out an engine, more game designers need to think back to the days where an interesting story had to carry you through an 8-bit universe. I'd rather have an interesting story and play Earthbound on the SNES than to play some generic shooter that has realistic graphics and weaponry.... that's just stupid.
I see a lot of people in the comments saying things like, "WELL HALFLIFE 3'S STORY IS GOING TO BE MADE FIRST!" and "FINAL FANTASY <insert entry> STORY WAS WRITTEN FIRST!"
You guys are 100% completely missing the point. The title of this episode is "How to start your Game Narrative" not "How to continue your game narrative." Of course a lot of these ideas will not apply to the second or third entry of the game, however if you are just breaking out with your first game you need to have a barebones idea of your game with out specific details then you can use gameplay to help you flush out those details. And i don't mean "Gameplay will tell the story."
I mean, fairly late into development your designers may discover a way to pull off some awesome amazing moves quite fluidly. This can allow you to do something like introduce a new character that allows you to show you how to do those attacks via conveyance and stuff.
If you have a story already planned out, you are less likely to do this, or you need to gut it to include it in a certain place.
Long story short you'll end up with a movie game where there is a massive disconnect.
Funny, I just finished a game that I think is a really good example of this sort of thing: 9 Hours, 9 Persons, 9 Doors (or Zero Escape 1 if you prefer). Being as narrative-driven and text-heavy as you would expect an interactive novel game to be, you would think that it would counter EC's argument here. Rather, it actually enforces it - going into any real detail would be an absolutely massive spoiler, but you know how these games tend to stick with the idea of multiple endings based on choices you make throughout the narrative? Well, this game embraces that gameplay element and manages to weave it into the story incredibly well - in fact the lead designer of the game specifically mentions in an interview that the actual story was written *after* the characters, setting and main 'twist' of the story was thought up. In other words: the story was made to fit how the characters, setting and even the type of game told it.
@Rupert: Actually, the Final Fantasy series is an interesting example. First off, each game in the series is distinct from one another, so the whole "starting a story" topic does in fact apply (with a couple notable exceptions, but let's just leave those out).
But even in the Final Fantasies you can see how the gameplay and the narrative are interwoven, starting with VI, where the characters each have a unique ability that ties into their personality and expertise, and the espers the players eventually equip are key to the story. In that case, they had the "prototype base" of the gameplay from past iteration and built the story structure on top of that. Although it's unclear whether they took the characters and gave them elements to work in the system, or if they built an extension to the system and molded the characters into that, the point the EC guys are making is that it's a lot harder to do the former than the latter, not that it's impossible. (But also the basic Final Fantasy framework is incredibly extensible compared to other game frameworks.)
Still, it becomes more clear when you look at the controversial XIII, at least in my mind: both the gameplay and the narrative spring from the same conceit of fatalism. The first (quite a few) hours into the game is all about how the characters are unable to escape their fate, and this manifests itself in the gameplay as linear growth paths and narrow hallways, and the players can share in the experience of the characters' as they are desperate but unable to break free from the path laid out for them. (It didn't turn out as well as people would have liked, but that's besides the point.) The point being that they didn't start with a fully fleshed-out story and then built the mechanics into it, they built the mechanics from the same core they built the story from.
1. The idea that having a story planned out before they start designing the mechanics somehow stops game designers from abandoning ideas that don't work, does not make much sense.
2. The consumer not finding the story engaging is always a risk in any medium. Your logic implies that no artist should start any product with a story in any medium.
3. This is my biggest problem with this video. What does it even mean for mechanics to tell a story? How does anyone know what a given mechanic or set thereof means?
4. I am not against starting with a fundamental emotion or concept per-say. Nevertheless, the arguments for it in this video don't hold up under any scrutiny.
@sewblon, dammit, I was going to counter you but then I realized that in an earlier episode they pointed out that stories often suck when the writers are brought in too late to the design process. I guess this video implies that bringing the writing team too early into the design process is also bad.
So I suppose there's a sweet spot where the writing is brought in that makes the most of the story.
Oh, but I do have an example of mechanics telling the story. Fallout 3, and probably 1 and 2. This will probably be an example you with shoot down with great skill and finesse but here goes.
At its best and most canon, Fallout is a game set in a post apocolyptic wasteland. Fallout 3 was a first person game but lacking shooter elements. Surviving the game meant using the character's abilities and developed skill points to gather supplies and weapons and live longer. You aren't a super soldier with regenerating health that can hide behind a wall and be back in the fight (although instant health back break that).
Your guns and ammo aren't fresh off the line in Kansas. They are leftovers and remnants buried in trash and refuse. You never find one in perfect condition (damn uniques, proving me wrong) and will often spend a lot of time repairing (in a broken repair system) and parts to keep them working.
No mass produced clothing (but repeated models)
People are few and far between (except when they respawn)
All these things tell the story almost as well as the cutscenes and the backstory. If these mechanics weren't good at telling the story (or fucked up more than they did) then playing the game would break the suspension of disbelief we have when we play (playing with a wikia open in one window will do the same).
@RoyceSraphim I am going to focus on what you said about Fallout 3 since that is the only game in the franchise that I played for more than a few hours.
First, what do you mean by "lacking shooter elements?" Fallout 3 does have shooter elements in the sense that you have the option to aim at and shoot your enemies in real-time, even if it is not always tactically optimal.
About how the player character of Fallout 3 is not a "super soldier", maybe this is just because I maximized my character's starting intelligence and endurance, but by the time I reached the final stage of the main story quest, my character was so much more powerful than the opposition that he might as well have been a super soldier with state of the art weapons. The way my character turned out negates the desperation that a post-apocalyptic narrative depends on.
To be fair, I was playing the game with the greenworld mod which makes all the outdoor environments in the game appear lush and green. So I negated the "post apocalyptic wasteland" aesthetic by choice. But still, I don't recall anything in the basic mechanics of Fallout 3 that made me think of any kind of wasteland or aftermath of an apocalypse independent from the art and sound design.
I remember the core mechanics, the character building, conversation and combat mechanics, being pretty neutral on setting and theme. That is why the mission where you get into a virtual reality machine and take part in a simulation of the war between the U.S. and China in Alaska worked.
Finally and most importantly, since Fallout 3 is so expansive and has so many side-quests that it is easy to forget all the details of the story, and the main appeal is exploration rather than narrative, it is probably a bad example of using mechanics to tell a story. Bear in mind it has been at least a year since I played Fallout 3 so I probably got some details wrong, but I think that my basic argument is valid.
until you have had experience in this industry, please stop talking as if you know anything about it. no, no; don't give me your credentials; for i do not care to give mine; i'd rather remain anon. I'm simply stating that if you DIDN'T WORK ON THE GAMES IN QUESTION, NO MATTER HOW MANY DOCUMENTARIES YOU THINK YOU'VE WATCHED ON THE SUBJECT YOU ACTUALLY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING.
OK enough caps, but my point is valid; if you currently do not work for the companies in question, then shut up, sit down, AND TAKE NOTES. The rest of us are desperately trying to glean any knowledge we can from what is said. if you aren't, then WHY are you HERE?
No no no. Sorry to say this, but you have it wrong. It is very possible to start with a story, but in that case you have to be open let go of gameplay mechanics that won't work with the story. It is a matter of starting with your intellect, or your instinct. If you got a good feeling about a story, than starting with a story for a game is not a bad idea. The problem is where you start to think to fast about details and what kind of game play is required in each section of the story. Keep those things seperate for as much as possible, and try to prototype different things to figure out if it could work. And also in the end: Even think about if you want to make a game, maybe it is an "experience" you want to create instead?
The problem with stories and play is that stories are oftentimes linear sequences, whereas play is the opposite: You play around without purpose or goals. You just have to be clear about what parts of the game you want your player to PLAY and where you want the player to just follow the story. Don't rule out anything at start if you want to make a good game, and good game stories don't have to die early. It is simply a matter of choosing between Vorthos or Melvin, ifyouknowwhatimean.
I know I'll buy HL3 for the mechanics. I have a fun time moving around and shooting enemies and I even played through HL2 a second time trying to mix up my combat style and was greatly rewarded. The mechanics of the game are sound and an excellent vessel for telling the story of Gordon Freeman defeating enemies and in HL2 they had a neat squad mechanic to give the feel of leading a revolution.
They didn't say outright to not start with story, but rather you should avoid it. I agree with this because there are a bunch of games that are "story based" but don't really use mechanics to support the story (mostly from the JRPG angle but I'm certain we can find plenty of examples.)
Also, I definitely think that they are assuming when people say they have a "story" they mean a very detailed plot with specific events, places, and actions that can be too big for them to handle.
The point of view illustrated in the video is quite interesting, and I'm inclined to (or am I just hoping to?) think they made their point so bluntly just to try and get it thru our thick skulls.
But let me share my brief experience: I've been developing something (small, indie, pre-alpha stage, irrelevant mostly) and I started purely focusing on the mechanics. Then I got to a point in which I couldn't really wrap toghether certain aspects of the design, they just didn't fit. It was the moment where the story came along and saved me: I started thinking about the world in wich the game would be set, how it's society works, how they technology got developed, and suddenly it all made sense, some mechanics where easily thrown away, others were adjusted, very few added and an even smaller group of elements remaind unchanged and it was solely thanks to the proccess of thinking up a story (not writing down, merely just daydreaming about it) that revealed to me what the real core of my game idea was, and why it was unique and how it will (hopefully) work.
I think, therefore, that the real key here is knowing when and how to prioritize story or mechanics, you should just lay down and think about the first thing that pops into your mind, and then keep on building and developing that idea, but each time something gets confusing or needlessly complicated swap your view around and don't try to justify things, just try to have them make sense in your head, perhaps then try and write them down, but if it doesn't feel right, it couldn't possibly be good, could it?
The point of view illustrated in the video is quite interesting, and I'm inclined to (or am I just hoping to?) think they made their point so bluntly just to try and get it thru our thick skulls.
But let me share my brief experience: I've been developing something (small, indie, pre-alpha stage, irrelevant mostly) and I started purely focusing on the mechanics. Then I got to a point in which I couldn't really wrap toghether certain aspects of the design, they just didn't fit. It was the moment where the story came along and saved me: I started thinking about the world in wich the game would be set, how it's society works, how they technology got developed, and suddenly it all made sense, some mechanics where easily thrown away, others were adjusted, very few added and an even smaller group of elements remaind unchanged and it was solely thanks to the proccess of thinking up a story (not writing down, merely just daydreaming about it) that revealed to me what the real core of my game idea was, and why it was unique and how it will (hopefully) work.
I think, therefore, that the real key here is knowing when and how to prioritize story or mechanics, you should just lay down and think about the first thing that pops into your mind, and then keep on building and developing that idea, but each time something gets confusing or needlessly complicated swap your view around and don't try to justify things, just try to have them make sense in your head, perhaps then try and write them down, but if it doesn't feel right, it couldn't possibly be good, could it?
love it. I'm not a games designer, but I am a gamer. I run the IT projects portfolio for a large European central bank and pretty much if you replace the word "Story" with "project Scope" you've got the Agile Methodology argument. And my entire board has a lot of stories they have already decided they want to tell.....
This episode reminds me of what my friends wanted to make over the previous summer. They wanted to make a game, and I was going to be one of the programmers on my spare time. However, they then spent over a month saying "wait until we get the story done", and spent that time making such an elaborate world and plot and character concepts and races and everything you can think of, then nobody had an idea of where to start. The head of the group of story makers/world builders, who has absolutely no idea on how programming works, wanted to enforce certain mechanics to be in there, and by "mechanics" i mean "It should have an awesome story as well as awesome combat."
In the end, I am REALLY happy I didn't have to program anything for that game. It was going to be my own, personal hell. If the project revives, I'm going to send them this video and slap them across the face.
I'm not sure if I understood the video correctly, maybe I just wrapped it in my head to better accommodate my views and opinions, but what I think they were trying to say is:
It's a great thing to have a vague story in mind - such as "the game is going to be about a few people that are locked inside of a prison and trying to escape, we find out more about them and realize that there is something strange going on."
Starting from a vague idea means you are flexible, you can make your story parts shape mechanics and vice versa. You can make both story and mechanics reinforce themselves and make something that is incredible in its entirety.
If you start out with a fully fleshed out story and aren't flexible for change than you limit yourself a lot and it is hard to come up with a mechanics that are interwoven with the story as you would have if you started with a flexible vague idea.
That's why most games made from movies tend to be horrible - you have story set in stone and are trying to come up with mechanics while not changing the story.
I'm not saying that it's impossible to make an incredible game from a relatively fixed story, just that it takes much more skill and work to do it properly.
And yes, story is incredibly important, story is the reason I love RPGs. Story is why I decided to work in the games industry. But there is a lot more involved in making great games than just coming up with a great story. Coming up with a great story idea and than fleshing it out along the way to make it interconnected with game mechanics is one great way to do it. An alternative way is coming up with great mechanics and then fleshing out a story around it that can be just as great. Though we usually see exactly the route the developers took because the latter tend to focus on gameplay and make a shallow story for the purpose of justifying the mechanics. While former tend to make a limited shallow mechanics just so the game would be classified as a "RPG" rather than a visual novel.
If the game is done right you won't be able to tell if the developers started with a story idea or a mechanic! That is the entire point. Both reinforcing one another to the point where you can't distinguish them.
Posts
Still, it does seem like very good advice to make plans around the tools you have at your disposal (the mechanics) before deciding on what your final product will be. You may want to sculpt a statue of david, but if all you have are oil paints, slavishly sticking to your original plan might be a poor idea.
Developers typically have their specialties. Some are good with FPS games, others with puzzlers. They don't decide on the types of games they make based on what stories they find most attractive but on what mechanic they are best at delivering. Remember that games are an interactive media where the mechanics specifically are what sets it apart from other art-forms.
A more compelling episode could be created by focusing on what to do. Start with an abstract description, discuss a concrete example or two in detail, then summarize.
In this episode, you'd start with the idea that you want to explore with the video--how to construct a narrative.
Next, you could discuss a game (perhaps modeled from James' classroom experience), describing the mood and some mechanics that you might choose to communicate that mood. You might embellish it with some features of the game world that could facilitate those mechanics. Do this twice, if you have the resources to do so.
The 2nd example could take a postmortem from Gamasutra that highlights how a pro team applied this technique. Keep in mind your audience is casual folks that don't design games professionally, so distill the professional work to key elements, as described in prior episodes.
Finally, blend each aspect of the presentation together and summarize your major points. Be constructive with your message. Offer concrete examples to anchor the idea. Illustrate the process by extracting key elements from "toy" and real-world examples. Your program will be better for it.
A more compelling episode could be created by focusing on what to do. Start with an abstract description, discuss a concrete example or two in detail, then summarize.
In this episode, you'd start with the idea that you want to explore with the video--how to construct a narrative.
Next, you could discuss a game (perhaps modeled from James' classroom experience), describing the mood and some mechanics that you might choose to communicate that mood. You might embellish it with some features of the game world that could facilitate those mechanics. Do this twice, if you have the resources to do so.
The 2nd example could take a postmortem from Gamasutra that highlights how a pro team applied this technique. Keep in mind your audience is casual folks that don't design games professionally, so distill the professional work to key elements, as described in prior episodes.
Finally, blend each aspect of the presentation together and summarize your major points. Be constructive with your message. Offer concrete examples to anchor the idea. Illustrate the process by extracting key elements from "toy" and real-world examples. Your program will be better for it.
Also at the beginning of this video they stated they got this question a lot. Those questions where probably from people who haven't made games yet or at least not many. The comments here mention that starting with a story is doable and I agree. But, I think EC's way of starting a game would be great for people making their first or second game. To get the hang of actually making a game ( not just knowing the process) By the time you get around to wanting to start with story you already have an idea of the process you are going to go through which would give you a better idea of how your story would be displayed through mechanics, setting, etc.
Which is why they are constantly recommending games like Every Day the Same Dream and I Wish I Were the Moon.
Is anyone here going to buy Half Life 3 for anything OTHER than story? (If/when it comes out.) Sure it will look extremely pretty, and may feature some origonal physics, but that's not the reason you're going to buy it, is it? You want to know how the story continues, and/or ends.
Mechanical considerations are much less important if you're creating genre fiction. At that point story tends to matter more. Available locations, budget, and SFX cost still figure into things, but they frame the problem, not define it. Say you want to make, or are comissioned to make, an FPS. 90% of your decisions are already made for you. There's little left but plot, and style. And given the number of samey shooters out there, one of those two has to really stick out to be noticed.
P.S. Earthbound and Half-Life are both games where the story is conveyed in the gameplay...which is what they are talking about.
You guys are 100% completely missing the point. The title of this episode is "How to start your Game Narrative" not "How to continue your game narrative." Of course a lot of these ideas will not apply to the second or third entry of the game, however if you are just breaking out with your first game you need to have a barebones idea of your game with out specific details then you can use gameplay to help you flush out those details. And i don't mean "Gameplay will tell the story."
I mean, fairly late into development your designers may discover a way to pull off some awesome amazing moves quite fluidly. This can allow you to do something like introduce a new character that allows you to show you how to do those attacks via conveyance and stuff.
If you have a story already planned out, you are less likely to do this, or you need to gut it to include it in a certain place.
Long story short you'll end up with a movie game where there is a massive disconnect.
But even in the Final Fantasies you can see how the gameplay and the narrative are interwoven, starting with VI, where the characters each have a unique ability that ties into their personality and expertise, and the espers the players eventually equip are key to the story. In that case, they had the "prototype base" of the gameplay from past iteration and built the story structure on top of that. Although it's unclear whether they took the characters and gave them elements to work in the system, or if they built an extension to the system and molded the characters into that, the point the EC guys are making is that it's a lot harder to do the former than the latter, not that it's impossible. (But also the basic Final Fantasy framework is incredibly extensible compared to other game frameworks.)
Still, it becomes more clear when you look at the controversial XIII, at least in my mind: both the gameplay and the narrative spring from the same conceit of fatalism. The first (quite a few) hours into the game is all about how the characters are unable to escape their fate, and this manifests itself in the gameplay as linear growth paths and narrow hallways, and the players can share in the experience of the characters' as they are desperate but unable to break free from the path laid out for them. (It didn't turn out as well as people would have liked, but that's besides the point.) The point being that they didn't start with a fully fleshed-out story and then built the mechanics into it, they built the mechanics from the same core they built the story from.
2. The consumer not finding the story engaging is always a risk in any medium. Your logic implies that no artist should start any product with a story in any medium.
3. This is my biggest problem with this video. What does it even mean for mechanics to tell a story? How does anyone know what a given mechanic or set thereof means?
4. I am not against starting with a fundamental emotion or concept per-say. Nevertheless, the arguments for it in this video don't hold up under any scrutiny.
So I suppose there's a sweet spot where the writing is brought in that makes the most of the story.
Oh, but I do have an example of mechanics telling the story. Fallout 3, and probably 1 and 2. This will probably be an example you with shoot down with great skill and finesse but here goes.
At its best and most canon, Fallout is a game set in a post apocolyptic wasteland. Fallout 3 was a first person game but lacking shooter elements. Surviving the game meant using the character's abilities and developed skill points to gather supplies and weapons and live longer. You aren't a super soldier with regenerating health that can hide behind a wall and be back in the fight (although instant health back break that).
Your guns and ammo aren't fresh off the line in Kansas. They are leftovers and remnants buried in trash and refuse. You never find one in perfect condition (damn uniques, proving me wrong) and will often spend a lot of time repairing (in a broken repair system) and parts to keep them working.
No mass produced clothing (but repeated models)
People are few and far between (except when they respawn)
All these things tell the story almost as well as the cutscenes and the backstory. If these mechanics weren't good at telling the story (or fucked up more than they did) then playing the game would break the suspension of disbelief we have when we play (playing with a wikia open in one window will do the same).
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
First, what do you mean by "lacking shooter elements?" Fallout 3 does have shooter elements in the sense that you have the option to aim at and shoot your enemies in real-time, even if it is not always tactically optimal.
About how the player character of Fallout 3 is not a "super soldier", maybe this is just because I maximized my character's starting intelligence and endurance, but by the time I reached the final stage of the main story quest, my character was so much more powerful than the opposition that he might as well have been a super soldier with state of the art weapons. The way my character turned out negates the desperation that a post-apocalyptic narrative depends on.
To be fair, I was playing the game with the greenworld mod which makes all the outdoor environments in the game appear lush and green. So I negated the "post apocalyptic wasteland" aesthetic by choice. But still, I don't recall anything in the basic mechanics of Fallout 3 that made me think of any kind of wasteland or aftermath of an apocalypse independent from the art and sound design.
I remember the core mechanics, the character building, conversation and combat mechanics, being pretty neutral on setting and theme. That is why the mission where you get into a virtual reality machine and take part in a simulation of the war between the U.S. and China in Alaska worked.
Finally and most importantly, since Fallout 3 is so expansive and has so many side-quests that it is easy to forget all the details of the story, and the main appeal is exploration rather than narrative, it is probably a bad example of using mechanics to tell a story. Bear in mind it has been at least a year since I played Fallout 3 so I probably got some details wrong, but I think that my basic argument is valid.
until you have had experience in this industry, please stop talking as if you know anything about it. no, no; don't give me your credentials; for i do not care to give mine; i'd rather remain anon. I'm simply stating that if you DIDN'T WORK ON THE GAMES IN QUESTION, NO MATTER HOW MANY DOCUMENTARIES YOU THINK YOU'VE WATCHED ON THE SUBJECT YOU ACTUALLY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING.
OK enough caps, but my point is valid; if you currently do not work for the companies in question, then shut up, sit down, AND TAKE NOTES. The rest of us are desperately trying to glean any knowledge we can from what is said. if you aren't, then WHY are you HERE?
The problem with stories and play is that stories are oftentimes linear sequences, whereas play is the opposite: You play around without purpose or goals. You just have to be clear about what parts of the game you want your player to PLAY and where you want the player to just follow the story. Don't rule out anything at start if you want to make a good game, and good game stories don't have to die early. It is simply a matter of choosing between Vorthos or Melvin, ifyouknowwhatimean.
I know I'll buy HL3 for the mechanics. I have a fun time moving around and shooting enemies and I even played through HL2 a second time trying to mix up my combat style and was greatly rewarded. The mechanics of the game are sound and an excellent vessel for telling the story of Gordon Freeman defeating enemies and in HL2 they had a neat squad mechanic to give the feel of leading a revolution.
They didn't say outright to not start with story, but rather you should avoid it. I agree with this because there are a bunch of games that are "story based" but don't really use mechanics to support the story (mostly from the JRPG angle but I'm certain we can find plenty of examples.)
Also, I definitely think that they are assuming when people say they have a "story" they mean a very detailed plot with specific events, places, and actions that can be too big for them to handle.
But let me share my brief experience: I've been developing something (small, indie, pre-alpha stage, irrelevant mostly) and I started purely focusing on the mechanics. Then I got to a point in which I couldn't really wrap toghether certain aspects of the design, they just didn't fit. It was the moment where the story came along and saved me: I started thinking about the world in wich the game would be set, how it's society works, how they technology got developed, and suddenly it all made sense, some mechanics where easily thrown away, others were adjusted, very few added and an even smaller group of elements remaind unchanged and it was solely thanks to the proccess of thinking up a story (not writing down, merely just daydreaming about it) that revealed to me what the real core of my game idea was, and why it was unique and how it will (hopefully) work.
I think, therefore, that the real key here is knowing when and how to prioritize story or mechanics, you should just lay down and think about the first thing that pops into your mind, and then keep on building and developing that idea, but each time something gets confusing or needlessly complicated swap your view around and don't try to justify things, just try to have them make sense in your head, perhaps then try and write them down, but if it doesn't feel right, it couldn't possibly be good, could it?
But let me share my brief experience: I've been developing something (small, indie, pre-alpha stage, irrelevant mostly) and I started purely focusing on the mechanics. Then I got to a point in which I couldn't really wrap toghether certain aspects of the design, they just didn't fit. It was the moment where the story came along and saved me: I started thinking about the world in wich the game would be set, how it's society works, how they technology got developed, and suddenly it all made sense, some mechanics where easily thrown away, others were adjusted, very few added and an even smaller group of elements remaind unchanged and it was solely thanks to the proccess of thinking up a story (not writing down, merely just daydreaming about it) that revealed to me what the real core of my game idea was, and why it was unique and how it will (hopefully) work.
I think, therefore, that the real key here is knowing when and how to prioritize story or mechanics, you should just lay down and think about the first thing that pops into your mind, and then keep on building and developing that idea, but each time something gets confusing or needlessly complicated swap your view around and don't try to justify things, just try to have them make sense in your head, perhaps then try and write them down, but if it doesn't feel right, it couldn't possibly be good, could it?
In the end, I am REALLY happy I didn't have to program anything for that game. It was going to be my own, personal hell. If the project revives, I'm going to send them this video and slap them across the face.
It's a great thing to have a vague story in mind - such as "the game is going to be about a few people that are locked inside of a prison and trying to escape, we find out more about them and realize that there is something strange going on."
Starting from a vague idea means you are flexible, you can make your story parts shape mechanics and vice versa. You can make both story and mechanics reinforce themselves and make something that is incredible in its entirety.
If you start out with a fully fleshed out story and aren't flexible for change than you limit yourself a lot and it is hard to come up with a mechanics that are interwoven with the story as you would have if you started with a flexible vague idea.
That's why most games made from movies tend to be horrible - you have story set in stone and are trying to come up with mechanics while not changing the story.
I'm not saying that it's impossible to make an incredible game from a relatively fixed story, just that it takes much more skill and work to do it properly.
And yes, story is incredibly important, story is the reason I love RPGs. Story is why I decided to work in the games industry. But there is a lot more involved in making great games than just coming up with a great story. Coming up with a great story idea and than fleshing it out along the way to make it interconnected with game mechanics is one great way to do it. An alternative way is coming up with great mechanics and then fleshing out a story around it that can be just as great. Though we usually see exactly the route the developers took because the latter tend to focus on gameplay and make a shallow story for the purpose of justifying the mechanics. While former tend to make a limited shallow mechanics just so the game would be classified as a "RPG" rather than a visual novel.
If the game is done right you won't be able to tell if the developers started with a story idea or a mechanic! That is the entire point. Both reinforcing one another to the point where you can't distinguish them.