Mass Effect is the first game in a long time where I am actually only hyped for the sequel to find out the rest of the story. If they replicated the gameplay like for like with no improvements I would still buy it.
Can't really put my finger on what it is about the way BioWare tells stories in video games, I think it just gets the pacing right and revels in its own cheesiness sometimes. It's like 'hey this is epic, but also a game'.
Unlike certain Kojima Productions games which firmly believe they are God's gift to narrative, and really, really are not.
More spoiler use please I didn't want to know the ending of SotC ):
Anyway I agree that the cut scene approach to gaming intensely undermines it true potential.
Also I'll add that I'm sure games could benefit from better writers but what they probably need much more strongly are good designers. Designers that give a game as much thought as an Architect would a house or a dress maker would a beautiful dress. I know that a good designer is harder to define but somebody who is capable of really thinking about how a game is going to make the player feel or how certain concepts need to run through the game etc. would be very helpful.
Different designers can also bring different vibes to games, e.g. an architecturally trained designer might have an excellent knack for making an engaging ego shooter where as a graphic designer may excell at giving puzzle games that visual flair.
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.
Such as?
By compromising the storyline to fit it into our expectations. We're playing a video game, not watching a film or reading a novel, and if the gameplay and storytelling are in any way disconnected by our need for input, the weaker of the two becomes a glorified intermission.
Again, I'm not saying this can't be good, just that it's never best. Italics.
Falstaff on
Still verbing the adjective noun.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited October 2008
As someone mentioned earlier, why is one style objectively better than another? It's the quality that matters, not the specific style or method of storytelling.
I'm not really pushing any single style, but rather stating that I think the best of any medium will play to its strengths whenever possible. With video games, that strength is the immersive qualities of interaction.
Mass Effects story bored me to tears. I didn't care about any of the characters or what happened. I probably quite about half way into the game.
On the other hand, I love the story in the half-life games. Showing instead of telling is much more interesting to me, I guess.
The important thing is that I have your money.
I kid, I kid!
No game is going to suit everybody. Half-Life does a much better job of telling the story ambiently and with much less control taken away from the player. I think that there are also things that Mass Effect does better, but they may not be things you care about (or want to see in a game during moments when you could be shooting stuff in the face). Mileage is always gonna vary, which is why games need to vary as well.
Mass Effects story bored me to tears. I didn't care about any of the characters or what happened. I probably quite about half way into the game.
On the other hand, I love the story in the half-life games. Showing instead of telling is much more interesting to me, I guess.
The game doesn't pick up until more than halfway through. I stuck with the tedium of the first part of the game and found the later part of the game to be fucking amazing.
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.
Such as?
By compromising the storyline to fit it into our expectations. We're playing a video game, not watching a film or reading a novel, and if the gameplay and storytelling are in any way disconnected by our need for input, the weaker of the two becomes a glorified intermission.
Again, I'm not saying this can't be good, just that it's never best. Italics.
Maybe that's the problem. It could even be your problem... See, we call them games. But that's just as much of a disservice in some instances. Why the hell can't we consider games to be multi-hour, animated movies that include interaction from the audience. It is something only a handful of films have ever attempted. But now it's possible to tell a story and the experience can be one unique to the viewer. Maybe the story never changes, but it affects people in different ways.
But we call them games instead. Some expect them to be interactive to, or even past, a certain point. They aren't given any leeway or credit. The medium itself, though awash with money, is very young and perhaps the storytelling itself hasn't matured yet. But expecting the game to fit your view on what would make a compelling or engrossing experience also compromises it. Now you have put the game into a place it can never leave simply because it wasn't created to your satisfaction. Or it didn't meet with your expectation...
I asked for an example of what would make Max Payne 2 a better experience and the only response was that the final product wasn't good enough somehow. Well, maybe it was never meant to be more than a graphic pulp novel with animated action sequences. Just as movies and books are meant to be something by the creators, they can be changed slightly by the consumption of the viewer. Maybe it was a certain time or place that attracted the viewer in the first place, but it becomes 'special' to them. Even if it is in a way that wasn't originally intended.
People liked Max Payne 2 and how it was presented. And it was not compromised because to them, it was precisely the best way to tell the story.
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.
Such as?
By compromising the storyline to fit it into our expectations. We're playing a video game, not watching a film or reading a novel, and if the gameplay and storytelling are in any way disconnected by our need for input, the weaker of the two becomes a glorified intermission.
Again, I'm not saying this can't be good, just that it's never best. Italics.
Maybe that's the problem. It could even be your problem... See, we call them games. But that's just as much of a disservice in some instances. Why the hell can't we consider games to be multi-hour, animated movies that include interaction from the audience. It is something only a handful of films have ever attempted. But now it's possible to tell a story and the experience can be one unique to the viewer. Maybe the story never changes, but it affects people in different ways.
But we call them games instead. Some expect them to be interactive to, or even past, a certain point. They aren't given any leeway or credit. The medium itself, though awash with money, is very young and perhaps the storytelling itself hasn't matured yet. But expecting the game to fit your view on what would make a compelling or engrossing experience also compromises it. Now you have put the game into a place it can never leave simply because it wasn't created to your satisfaction. Or it didn't meet with your expectation...
I asked for an example of what would make Max Payne 2 a better experience and the only response was that the final product wasn't good enough somehow. Well, maybe it was never meant to be more than a graphic pulp novel with animated action sequences. Just as movies and books are meant to be something by the creators, they can be changed slightly by the consumption of the viewer. Maybe it was a certain time or place that attracted the viewer in the first place, but it becomes 'special' to them. Even if it is in a way that wasn't originally intended.
People liked Max Payne 2 and how it was presented. And it was not compromised because to them, it was precisely the best way to tell the story.
Oh. I thought you were asking for a general example of what is sacrificed by sticking to a heavily cinematic presentation of a game's story. I'll admit I can't come up with a superior script for a Max Payne 2 movie, graphic novel, or book right now. You've got me there.
But I really and truly believe that one of them could be done. This might be just me, sure, and I've said that there will always be a place for this type of storytelling in video games when done well enough. And yes, stories in every medium are interpreted in different ways by the readers or viewers - although that has nothing to do with my point. I don't really see the meaningful link between interactivity as a vehicle for engaging the gamer and how reader response alters our perception of novels.
My take is that we're dealing method of storytelling unique to the medium, which should be central to its stories unless you're willing to make some artistic sacrifice by not using a more fitting medium. I believe we'll see more and more games take this direction as techniques improve, but I can't really prove it.
From what I know of Portal (never actually played it) it works because it has a great narrator with a very strong character and personality in Glados, and without it there really wouldn't be a story at all.
Antihippy on
PSN: Antiwhippy
0
Options
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
From what I know of Portal (never actually played it) it works because it has a great narrator with a very strong character and personality in Glados, and without it there really wouldn't be a story at all.
Yellowed for "You Whaaa?!"
Alright, I can kind of accept that there are still people who've managed to avoid the game, but you can't realistically then proceed to talk about the narrative in said game.
You're right to an extent, GLaDOS is a big part of the narrative. However much of the narrative is also constantly coming through in the setting and environments of the game, and I can't really explain more without going into spoiler territory.
I still need a Windows license for Bootcamp and PC gaming goodness.
The Orange Box is the first game I'm getting though, believe me.
Well, that or STALKER. Can't decide.
Orange Box. Stalker's good, but if it's the first game you play when you re-introduce yourself to PC gaming the bugs will throw you right back out again.
I think part of the greatness in Portal is lost by reading about it beforehand. When I played it, all I had seen was that promo youtube video and I thought it was just going to be a puzzle game and not that it would actually have dialogue/story to it.
The main difference between Halflife 'cutscenes' and metal gear type 'cutscenes' is that Halflife's are well written cases of showing without telling, whereas MGS style cutscenes are pretty much all tell and no show. If you show me a world, make it self-evident without the need to explain itself in ham-fisted "LOOK IM CONTEXTUALIZING THE GAMEPLAY" terms, and create believable characters within that world, I'll gladly enjoy the 'cutscene'.
I still think there is a lack of focus on story-telling, even in story heavy games.
I want a game that rivals the impact of a film narrative, not one that apes it. For instance, if you took Alien and made it into a game, it would be a 20 hour slog through levels and baddies with a clear sense of "progression" to completion.
What if the ship was only small? And there were no 'levels' or progression. What if instead of a thousand enemies you have one single detailed and spectacular enemy, mysterious and terrifying? What if instead of mission objectives you have your crew mates simply doing their thing, and expecting you to do your thing? And if you ignore your duties, the ship doesnt start, and they get on your ass about it.
With a smaller environment and only 1 enemy (for example), you could make the world so vivid and real that it would be utterly convincing, and the entities of the world so detailed that the lines between "scripted" and "free-roaming ai" are blurred enough to convince you that you are within an unfolding narrative, which is what games should ultimately achieve, the one thing they can do with narratives that films cannot.
Prohass on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited October 2008
The thing is, it is much, much, harder to have a non-linear and strong story, because of the resources it takes to write just one thread, much less several.
Yeah, I've never really understood the preoccupation with non-linear stories. As long as I feel like I'm actually driving the narrative, it doesn't matter how many endings the game has.
Yeah, I've never really understood the preoccupation with non-linear stories. As long as I feel like I'm actually driving the narrative, it doesn't matter how many endings the game has.
I agree; I think "non-linearity" is a red herring. The strength of games as a narrative medium lies in its ability to immerse the player through interactivity, and "interactivity" can happen without having every little thing the player does influence the story in a major way.
Yeah, I've never really understood the preoccupation with non-linear stories. As long as I feel like I'm actually driving the narrative, it doesn't matter how many endings the game has.
I agree; I think "non-linearity" is a red herring. The strength of games as a narrative medium lies in its ability to immerse the player through interactivity, and "interactivity" can happen without having every little thing the player does influence the story in a major way.
This is fair, Planescape: Torment after all had only what, three endings?
The great part about that game wasn't that the endings were significantly different, it's that your choices within the game made the meaning of the ending uniquely yours.
Good lord, a videogame storytelling thread on this forum that's only hit five pages in a couple of days, doesn't tout Final Fantasy 6 as the pinnacle of the medium, isn't full of people defending Metal Gear Solid and argues on occasion for the virtues of linearity? I'm scared. Hold me. Where were you people when I did my dissertation?
Random comments: Max Payne 2, whilst telling one of the best stories in videogaming thus far, was a mediocre third-person shooter with terrible level design and a poorly implemented gimmick relying far too much on trial and error (shootdodge into a room, headbutt a wall, die in a red mist while flailing in all directions, reload quicksave, try again). But that's the only reason it's a less than stellar game. The linearity of the story has little or nothing to do with it.
Planescape Torment is arguably the pinnacle of the medium as far as writing goes, and Chris Avellone is like unto a god, pretty much. KOTOR 2, broken and half-finished as it is, is so much better than the original KOTOR's kiss-the-puppy-kill-the-puppy nonsense it's not even funny.
Mass Effect is still better than most, yes. It's also still a strong case for arguing Bioware can't write decent moral grey areas.
Writers do not need to go through some arcane, lengthy rite of passage in order to produce material appropriate for videogames. It'd help, sure, but the vast majority of games released in the last twenty years, linear or otherwise, could have been hugely improved simply by getting any half-decent writer in to go over the dialogue.
Thank God for the death - or decline, I guess - of the traditional adventure and its tiresome insistence everything has to be fucking funny. >_< Now someone hurry up and kill it again, so we can stop using comedy as a lame excuse to skimp on detail, logic, plausibility, believable character relations...
Eight Rooks on
<AtlusParker> Sorry I'm playing Pokemon and vomiting at the same time so I'm not following the conversation in a linear fashion.
Good lord, a videogame storytelling thread on this forum that's only hit five pages in a couple of days, doesn't tout Final Fantasy 6 as the pinnacle of the medium, isn't full of people defending Metal Gear Solid and argues on occasion for the virtues of linearity? I'm scared. Hold me. Where were you people when I did my dissertation?
Random comments: Max Payne 2, whilst telling one of the best stories in videogaming thus far, was a mediocre third-person shooter with terrible level design and a poorly implemented gimmick relying far too much on trial and error (shootdodge into a room, headbutt a wall, die in a red mist while flailing in all directions, reload quicksave, try again). But that's the only reason it's a less than stellar game. The linearity of the story has little or nothing to do with it.
Planescape Torment is arguably the pinnacle of the medium as far as writing goes, and Chris Avellone is like unto a god, pretty much. KOTOR 2, broken and half-finished as it is, is so much better than the original KOTOR's kiss-the-puppy-kill-the-puppy nonsense it's not even funny.
Mass Effect is still better than most, yes. It's also still a strong case for arguing Bioware can't write decent moral grey areas.
Writers do not need to go through some arcane, lengthy rite of passage in order to produce material appropriate for videogames. It'd help, sure, but the vast majority of games released in the last twenty years, linear or otherwise, could have been hugely improved simply by getting any half-decent writer in to go over the dialogue.
Thank God for the death - or decline, I guess - of the traditional adventure and its tiresome insistence everything has to be fucking funny. >_< Now someone hurry up and kill it again, so we can stop using comedy as a lame excuse to skimp on detail, logic, plausibility, believable character relations...
I'm mention that Portal is an example of how comedy can work without crippling story, but this is otherwise spot-on.
Oh, I'm not against comedy full stop, far from it. Not even in point-and-clickers; I loved Toonstruck, going back a ways. I just think people took the old text adventures and the earlier graphic adventures as a gold standard in part because they didn't know any better, and that now no-one wants to suggest or even debate anything like that not least because early Lucasarts in particular is seen as something sacred and inviolate.
Eight Rooks on
<AtlusParker> Sorry I'm playing Pokemon and vomiting at the same time so I'm not following the conversation in a linear fashion.
From what I know of Portal (never actually played it) it works because it has a great narrator with a very strong character and personality in Glados, and without it there really wouldn't be a story at all.
Yellowed for "You Whaaa?!"
Alright, I can kind of accept that there are still people who've managed to avoid the game, but you can't realistically then proceed to talk about the narrative in said game.
You're right to an extent, GLaDOS is a big part of the narrative. However much of the narrative is also constantly coming through in the setting and environments of the game, and I can't really explain more without going into spoiler territory.
I gave this some thought, and I think that it would be possible to get most of the story out of Portal without Glados' dialogue. Most of the story is given by visual cues anyway, her ranting just reinforces the AI's insanity. Most of the key "storytelling" points of the game (except possibly the last few areas) would go over just fine without her talking.
Oh, I'm not against comedy full stop, far from it. Not even in point-and-clickers; I loved Toonstruck, going back a ways. I just think people took the old text adventures and the earlier graphic adventures as a gold standard in part because they didn't know any better, and that now no-one wants to suggest or even debate anything like that not least because early Lucasarts in particular is seen as something sacred and inviolate.
I think there were some good, serious adventure games back in the day, just not as high profile or as many. Like you said, LucasArts became the template. But then you also had games like Beneath a Steel Sky, and the really excellent Blade Runner game.
I also don't think that adventure games have "died" as such, they've just become a niche genre. There are actually lots of really awesome adventure games coming out these days if you know where to look.
No, Beneath A Steel Sky and most of Revolution's games were still blighted by shitty comedy that blatantly felt shoehorned in because the genre demanded it (lazy ethnic stereotypes, nudge-nudge wink-wink jokes, done-to-death nerd culture archetypes) and dear me, God forbid a videogame actually take itself seriously, etc., etc.
Blade Runner's a good choice, though. Still had a few of the usual cliches, but overall it was a tragedy more games didn't go in a similar direction. And of course The Longest Journey/Dreamfall had their moments, even if neither game is anything like as accomplished as the hardcore make out.
Eight Rooks on
<AtlusParker> Sorry I'm playing Pokemon and vomiting at the same time so I'm not following the conversation in a linear fashion.
Valve's silent protagonists allowing us to completely imprint our own personalities and values upon them, the fact that key story elements unfold through actions we have direct involvement with means that we essentially are that character, doing what they do and reacting with genuine emotion as a hybrid of us and them.
yeah because books with a protagonist with zero personality really root me in the story
the author keeps talking about how if your avatar reacts differently to a situation than you would you lose immersion
which is clearly bullshit
Nuzak on
0
Options
augustwhere you come from is goneRegistered Userregular
Well, silent protagonists can sometimes root me in the story. No problem with Halflife here, The Suffering, some of the Ace Combat games to cite a few examples (I have a soft spot for that particular barrel of Namco's cheese, and #4 is actually pretty good, objectively).
On the other hand the idea this means the reverse is always true too is ludicrous, I agree, and people wheel out Halflife as the reason why every avatar should stop talking far too often.
Eight Rooks on
<AtlusParker> Sorry I'm playing Pokemon and vomiting at the same time so I'm not following the conversation in a linear fashion.
The silent protagonist defense is used because 'too cheap to implement a real voice' doesn't sound as good. Games with silent protagonists can be good, for sure. But, on their own, they are no better or worse than a PC with a clear voice and personality. The PC is the 'vessel' for the player to interact with the world. An avatar. How they identify with it doesn't matter. Just so long as they do in even the smallest way. It'd be a pretty rare thing to see a game succeed where the player simply hates the PC and wishes for the worst of the worst to happen to it.
I think many problems with current videogame stortelling could be solved by removing cutscenes completely. Half-Life 2 did it.
The trick would now be to avoid the "stop talking I'm already jumping around like an idiot because I'm bored" thing. Maybe it would be better to reduce exposition to tiny bits. Let the landscape talk, have the baddies destroy a puppy orphanage in the background so that you know you gotta beat 'em up on the next screen, or if you want tough ethical choices, don't set up some bullshit situation, just have one guy suddenly yell that he's giving up, weapon thrown away and all. In that situation, you as a player are immersed in the world; you aren't somebody in front of a TV screen who's being told that nanomachines do this and that and ohletsshowsnakewalkingdownacorridor.
If there absolutely HAVE to be complex story threads, either make them optional- the scans of Metroid Prime come to mind, scanning for death causes was terrifying and awesome at the same time- or make the context abstract enough to understand the situation, background being given at another occasion.
In other words, have videogames get as far away from movies (and books!) as possible. It's nice if you want that kind of thing, but it's not nice if you want to play. Seriously, that is my only complaint about Planescape Torment. I just couldn't put up with the aweful game while enjoying the incredible world at the same time. But I know I'm pretty much alone there, so that's okay.
I'd like to mention Knytt Stories here too. If you ask me, this little gem offers minimalistic storytelling almost on par with Shadow of the Colossus.
But then again, I'm probably part of the crowd who never saw anything wrong with fable-and-fairy-tale-stories. Oh well.
I'm interested in Farcry 2 for how story is going to be presented. Supposedly shit is truly persistent. If you burn down a village that village stays burned down, if you put a knife in a NPC's eye and then want to go back and do a mission for him, well you can't, cuz of the whole knife in the eye thing. This, theoretically, could have huge consequences for the narrative and story. Of course this could also just be gimmicky and useless bt it has lots of potential.
More random thoughts: videogaming as an art form rather than a commercial concern needs, needs, needs to stop with the idea that as the technology progresses with regards to storytelling, ultimately developers will be able to keep everyone happy all of the time. I detest the champions of non-linear storytelling for the way they insist you can't force the player to do anything. Bullshit you can't - railroading is a staggeringly powerful narrative device that shouldn't be excluded from any creative medium. Don't like the way Shadow of the Colossus ends up? Too bad - it's a story about being forced to choose, and the fact that in theory you've got no choice to make, and whatever alternative you could imagine would not be as powerful as the purely linear way the narrative progresses. Can't bring yourself to play it? Then turn around and ride away; I want to play a game that gives me a kick in the pants and says "Not much fun, is it? Too bad - it's either this or die wondering, now get on with with it". You don't? Fair enough! Go play something else - there's plenty out there.
Eight Rooks on
<AtlusParker> Sorry I'm playing Pokemon and vomiting at the same time so I'm not following the conversation in a linear fashion.
Posts
Can't really put my finger on what it is about the way BioWare tells stories in video games, I think it just gets the pacing right and revels in its own cheesiness sometimes. It's like 'hey this is epic, but also a game'.
Unlike certain Kojima Productions games which firmly believe they are God's gift to narrative, and really, really are not.
Well, in my case, it was in the nebulous region between the latter and the former.
I enjoyed playing it, but it wasn't exactly a magical experience.
Anyway I agree that the cut scene approach to gaming intensely undermines it true potential.
Also I'll add that I'm sure games could benefit from better writers but what they probably need much more strongly are good designers. Designers that give a game as much thought as an Architect would a house or a dress maker would a beautiful dress. I know that a good designer is harder to define but somebody who is capable of really thinking about how a game is going to make the player feel or how certain concepts need to run through the game etc. would be very helpful.
Different designers can also bring different vibes to games, e.g. an architecturally trained designer might have an excellent knack for making an engaging ego shooter where as a graphic designer may excell at giving puzzle games that visual flair.
By compromising the storyline to fit it into our expectations. We're playing a video game, not watching a film or reading a novel, and if the gameplay and storytelling are in any way disconnected by our need for input, the weaker of the two becomes a glorified intermission.
Again, I'm not saying this can't be good, just that it's never best. Italics.
Mass Effects story bored me to tears. I didn't care about any of the characters or what happened. I probably quite about half way into the game.
On the other hand, I love the story in the half-life games. Showing instead of telling is much more interesting to me, I guess.
The important thing is that I have your money.
I kid, I kid!
No game is going to suit everybody. Half-Life does a much better job of telling the story ambiently and with much less control taken away from the player. I think that there are also things that Mass Effect does better, but they may not be things you care about (or want to see in a game during moments when you could be shooting stuff in the face). Mileage is always gonna vary, which is why games need to vary as well.
The game doesn't pick up until more than halfway through. I stuck with the tedium of the first part of the game and found the later part of the game to be fucking amazing.
Not right now though, too many good things are coming out right now!
Maybe that's the problem. It could even be your problem... See, we call them games. But that's just as much of a disservice in some instances. Why the hell can't we consider games to be multi-hour, animated movies that include interaction from the audience. It is something only a handful of films have ever attempted. But now it's possible to tell a story and the experience can be one unique to the viewer. Maybe the story never changes, but it affects people in different ways.
But we call them games instead. Some expect them to be interactive to, or even past, a certain point. They aren't given any leeway or credit. The medium itself, though awash with money, is very young and perhaps the storytelling itself hasn't matured yet. But expecting the game to fit your view on what would make a compelling or engrossing experience also compromises it. Now you have put the game into a place it can never leave simply because it wasn't created to your satisfaction. Or it didn't meet with your expectation...
I asked for an example of what would make Max Payne 2 a better experience and the only response was that the final product wasn't good enough somehow. Well, maybe it was never meant to be more than a graphic pulp novel with animated action sequences. Just as movies and books are meant to be something by the creators, they can be changed slightly by the consumption of the viewer. Maybe it was a certain time or place that attracted the viewer in the first place, but it becomes 'special' to them. Even if it is in a way that wasn't originally intended.
People liked Max Payne 2 and how it was presented. And it was not compromised because to them, it was precisely the best way to tell the story.
Oh. I thought you were asking for a general example of what is sacrificed by sticking to a heavily cinematic presentation of a game's story. I'll admit I can't come up with a superior script for a Max Payne 2 movie, graphic novel, or book right now. You've got me there.
But I really and truly believe that one of them could be done. This might be just me, sure, and I've said that there will always be a place for this type of storytelling in video games when done well enough. And yes, stories in every medium are interpreted in different ways by the readers or viewers - although that has nothing to do with my point. I don't really see the meaningful link between interactivity as a vehicle for engaging the gamer and how reader response alters our perception of novels.
My take is that we're dealing method of storytelling unique to the medium, which should be central to its stories unless you're willing to make some artistic sacrifice by not using a more fitting medium. I believe we'll see more and more games take this direction as techniques improve, but I can't really prove it.
We'll just have to wait and see.
If so, yeah, we're still years away from it.
Heavy Rain is a really interesting step towards that goal though.
Plus, you can always combine the two. Think about Deus Ex and it's ability to let the player fuck around with the story
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
Yellowed for "You Whaaa?!"
Alright, I can kind of accept that there are still people who've managed to avoid the game, but you can't realistically then proceed to talk about the narrative in said game.
You're right to an extent, GLaDOS is a big part of the narrative. However much of the narrative is also constantly coming through in the setting and environments of the game, and I can't really explain more without going into spoiler territory.
The Orange Box is the first game I'm getting though, believe me.
Well, that or STALKER. Can't decide.
Orange Box. Stalker's good, but if it's the first game you play when you re-introduce yourself to PC gaming the bugs will throw you right back out again.
I'm OK with bugs, believe me.
I still think there is a lack of focus on story-telling, even in story heavy games.
I want a game that rivals the impact of a film narrative, not one that apes it. For instance, if you took Alien and made it into a game, it would be a 20 hour slog through levels and baddies with a clear sense of "progression" to completion.
What if the ship was only small? And there were no 'levels' or progression. What if instead of a thousand enemies you have one single detailed and spectacular enemy, mysterious and terrifying? What if instead of mission objectives you have your crew mates simply doing their thing, and expecting you to do your thing? And if you ignore your duties, the ship doesnt start, and they get on your ass about it.
With a smaller environment and only 1 enemy (for example), you could make the world so vivid and real that it would be utterly convincing, and the entities of the world so detailed that the lines between "scripted" and "free-roaming ai" are blurred enough to convince you that you are within an unfolding narrative, which is what games should ultimately achieve, the one thing they can do with narratives that films cannot.
I agree; I think "non-linearity" is a red herring. The strength of games as a narrative medium lies in its ability to immerse the player through interactivity, and "interactivity" can happen without having every little thing the player does influence the story in a major way.
This is fair, Planescape: Torment after all had only what, three endings?
The great part about that game wasn't that the endings were significantly different, it's that your choices within the game made the meaning of the ending uniquely yours.
Also: Lolz Metal Gear Solid cutscenes.
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
Random comments: Max Payne 2, whilst telling one of the best stories in videogaming thus far, was a mediocre third-person shooter with terrible level design and a poorly implemented gimmick relying far too much on trial and error (shootdodge into a room, headbutt a wall, die in a red mist while flailing in all directions, reload quicksave, try again). But that's the only reason it's a less than stellar game. The linearity of the story has little or nothing to do with it.
Planescape Torment is arguably the pinnacle of the medium as far as writing goes, and Chris Avellone is like unto a god, pretty much. KOTOR 2, broken and half-finished as it is, is so much better than the original KOTOR's kiss-the-puppy-kill-the-puppy nonsense it's not even funny.
Mass Effect is still better than most, yes. It's also still a strong case for arguing Bioware can't write decent moral grey areas.
Writers do not need to go through some arcane, lengthy rite of passage in order to produce material appropriate for videogames. It'd help, sure, but the vast majority of games released in the last twenty years, linear or otherwise, could have been hugely improved simply by getting any half-decent writer in to go over the dialogue.
Thank God for the death - or decline, I guess - of the traditional adventure and its tiresome insistence everything has to be fucking funny. >_< Now someone hurry up and kill it again, so we can stop using comedy as a lame excuse to skimp on detail, logic, plausibility, believable character relations...
Read my book. (It has a robot in it.)
Read my book. (It has a robot in it.)
I gave this some thought, and I think that it would be possible to get most of the story out of Portal without Glados' dialogue. Most of the story is given by visual cues anyway, her ranting just reinforces the AI's insanity. Most of the key "storytelling" points of the game (except possibly the last few areas) would go over just fine without her talking.
I think there were some good, serious adventure games back in the day, just not as high profile or as many. Like you said, LucasArts became the template. But then you also had games like Beneath a Steel Sky, and the really excellent Blade Runner game.
I also don't think that adventure games have "died" as such, they've just become a niche genre. There are actually lots of really awesome adventure games coming out these days if you know where to look.
Blade Runner's a good choice, though. Still had a few of the usual cliches, but overall it was a tragedy more games didn't go in a similar direction. And of course The Longest Journey/Dreamfall had their moments, even if neither game is anything like as accomplished as the hardcore make out.
Read my book. (It has a robot in it.)
yeah because books with a protagonist with zero personality really root me in the story
the author keeps talking about how if your avatar reacts differently to a situation than you would you lose immersion
which is clearly bullshit
Okay.
We get it.
Some of us do like it.
On the other hand the idea this means the reverse is always true too is ludicrous, I agree, and people wheel out Halflife as the reason why every avatar should stop talking far too often.
Read my book. (It has a robot in it.)
The trick would now be to avoid the "stop talking I'm already jumping around like an idiot because I'm bored" thing. Maybe it would be better to reduce exposition to tiny bits. Let the landscape talk, have the baddies destroy a puppy orphanage in the background so that you know you gotta beat 'em up on the next screen, or if you want tough ethical choices, don't set up some bullshit situation, just have one guy suddenly yell that he's giving up, weapon thrown away and all. In that situation, you as a player are immersed in the world; you aren't somebody in front of a TV screen who's being told that nanomachines do this and that and ohletsshowsnakewalkingdownacorridor.
If there absolutely HAVE to be complex story threads, either make them optional- the scans of Metroid Prime come to mind, scanning for death causes was terrifying and awesome at the same time- or make the context abstract enough to understand the situation, background being given at another occasion.
In other words, have videogames get as far away from movies (and books!) as possible. It's nice if you want that kind of thing, but it's not nice if you want to play. Seriously, that is my only complaint about Planescape Torment. I just couldn't put up with the aweful game while enjoying the incredible world at the same time. But I know I'm pretty much alone there, so that's okay.
I'd like to mention Knytt Stories here too. If you ask me, this little gem offers minimalistic storytelling almost on par with Shadow of the Colossus.
But then again, I'm probably part of the crowd who never saw anything wrong with fable-and-fairy-tale-stories. Oh well.
Read my book. (It has a robot in it.)