|
I can understand your point about diving into pure game mechanics and that being the point of the medium. That makes sense to me.
DJ: Yeah.
But does it have to be done through the medium of combat?
DJ: Does it have to be? No, of course not. Not at all. But in this case, we chose to express it that way. I think Skyrim is another great example of a game that does the same.
Skyrim, everyone talks about it in the same way that you watch a great actor, and then they're a character you believe in, and then you meet him in real life, you're like, "Holy shit. You're nothing like that." It's like, "Well, yeah, I'm an actor. I'm a professional. There's a craft here that you're not supposed to recognize."
Well, a lot of people look at Skyrim and they say, "Oh, the graphics" -- or the music or the sound effects -- "that's what makes it immersive." And sure, that's true to an extent. It is a combat game, there's fighting, but it's more of a simulation of an experience. So is Twisted Metal, but it's more of a simulation, like, live this character's life.
In [Skyrim], your brain is engaged in so much stuff that still speaks to what we're talking about, which is the language of interactivity. Walking through the forest, going "I need to get this shit back to the armorer, so I can sell it, so I can make money, so I can go on this side quest I've been trying to earn enough shit to go on successfully, but I can't go much faster because if I pick up another item, I'm going to be going really slow, and I'm going to get my ass killed going through this forest, getting back to town. How do I deal with that?"
The fact that your brain is engaged, and it's a wonderful engagement, is not that different than the brain in Twisted Metal going, "Okay, I need to kill these three guys in Last Man Standing. I'm going to plan a remote bomb," which in this game, yeah, you can sticky it to someone like a sticky bomb, but if you plant it on the environment it does three times the damage, and if you allow it to cook it does more damage, and if you can lead the enemy into that space, altogether you're going to take out three guys at once.
So, "Shit, I'm about to die. They know it. Let me go over there and make them think, 'Oh shit, you saw me. Let me run.' And let me fire some weapons backwards while they're chasing me so they use up their shields, and lead them into this narrow alleyway where I've planted this remote bomb. Suddenly, we go through the alleyway, I shield, I take them all out because they've set that up and I've had a payoff." My brain has just had a shit-ton of shit firing, going "I feel fucking good," and I'm speaking to the player, and the player is being communicated through the language of interactivity.
Versus going, "Let me show you the movie I want to make." I think that's great. Those games are wonderful, but for me personally, you ask me what I learned, it's that there's a purer way to those pleasure centers of the brain to really speak to the player and make them love games, and it's about choices.
It's not about using cinematic techniques to express that. It's about using interactive language to express that. I'm saying this because it's Gamasutra, and I know your readers, they know game design and stuff. So, hopefully this isn't too "What the fuck are you smoking, Jaffe?" That's kind of where my brain's at these days.
Twisted Metal
It seems like you're also talking about tactical complexity.
DJ: Absolutely. Yeah.
Is that what you think is at the core?
DJ: Choice is at the core. I was using the remote bomb as an example of something that's kind of our take on sort of that Skyrim situation where it's like "Okay, this is kind of a deep scenario."
Contingent decisions.
DJ: That's right. You can have quicker, simpler choices of... In Twisted Metal, "Do I run or do I not run? Do I fire this missile, or do I fire that shotgun?" Or the shotgun, everybody knows in games or in life -- it's real life -- you get closer with a shotgun, you're going to do more damage. But even in Twisted Metal, if you get close enough with a shotgun to the driver-side windshield, you get a point blank. So even a simpler choice like that, all that's built in from the surface, shallow end of the pool down to the depths.
Now I've never done a game, and Scott [Campbell]'s [co-founder, Eat Sleep Play] never had a game that's had this much, and it's been hard to do. I'm not saying we've successfully done it. I'm just saying that this is what we love about games now, and this is what we believe in. It doesn't mean I'll never... I totally want to do a story game next, but I want to do it through mechanics more than cutscenes.
So, are we good at it? I don't fucking know. But I know it feels honest. It feels right. Versus... a lot of people say, "Do another story game like God of War," and I would love to, but at that point, I'm like, "I'll just write a book." I might not be good at writing a book, but that's that language. There's already a medium that does that really well. I'd rather, if I'm just going to try to hold your hand and say "This is the story I want to tell", use the medium that exists that's better at it.
|
Printer-Friendly Version
I'm afraid it makes very little sense to me, and I'm not sure that's the point Jaffe is making. The game part of videogames is just a structure for meaning, like story is a structure for meaning. Surely structures that you *insert* into some medium are not the "point" of the medium, right? Please tell me I'm not alone in this basic, logical conclusion.
In most cases, you insert an act-based story structure into theatre, but that doesn't mean story is the "point" of theatre. You can find stories in all sorts of media.
And you can find games in all sorts of media.
That would suggest any "point" of a medium lies outside of both games and stories. Seems obvious to me...
Actually, the game part is a structure for decisions, not meaning. The meaning of those decisions can then be reflected by the story. The point is that the story should reflect the player's decisions not dictate them.
Agree with him or not, it is always interesting to have a person take a stand on a very polarizing issue to hear discussions and rebuttals from both sides.
My interpretation of Mr. Jaffe's stance is that games are about interactivity (that is what defines them as a medium and games apart from other medium.) Movies, paintings, books, comics, plays, music... and most other mediums we have historically viewed as "art" have always been observational (not interactive) in nature.
Observational media stimulates certain parts of the brain and can allow a wide range of emotions to be communicated and "felt/experienced" in the audience. (utilizing the human beings unique ability for empathy).
Interactive media has historically been great at stimulating the "problem solving","decision making", and "motor skills" part of the brain. (think chess, 100 meter dash, go).
Each type of media is unique and great in it's own way. If we as authors intend on communicating a narrative todescribes the human experience, perhaps the best medium to do so is through an observational type of medium.
Rigid borders between the procedural and declarative media area may allow for quick categorization. However, superficial delineation sacrifices a huge amount of gradient territory that can be explored. The full surface area of cinema is not in contact with the full surface area of video game design.
uh wtf?
EDIT: Thanks LOL
This first sentence however "From an evolution of behavior perspective storytelling is a way to communicate information about problems" seems to be very limited on what the purpose of storytelling is...(isn't this a limited and "quick categorization?" of what stories are).
Most stories are not told to communicate information about problems, some are to tell history, some are to explain morality, but all of these things are moot unless the story itself is entertaining. (I would argue the best stories illicit a sense of empathy which communicates the human condition, emotions, conflict, etc.)
There are ways to illicit emotions and describe the human condition in games that we haven't explored. I think Mr. Jaffe (agree with him or not) believes that we (as the video game industry) have put an exorbitant amount of time and energy trying to infuse narratives into games, and we haven't really innovated much in the last decade or so. (Has our ability to communicate a narrative in games really improved in the last 10-15 years?)
Alternatively, if you look at advancements in interactivity, there have been huge advancements (touch screens, motion controls, voice recognition, MMOs...) in the last 10-15 years.
I agree with your premise (Games don't have to be about any one person's view of what a games "purpose"... they don't need to be rigidly defined.) We will find more interesting ways to communicate narrative as the medium evolves, in addition we have a vast area of unexplored interactivity to explore, and we shouldn't overlook this area for the sake of trying to ONLY communicate a narrative.
Yes, it's a schematic description from an pseudo evolutionary biology perspective. One of the leading evolution of language theorists suggests that wild animals have selection pressure to keep their vocalizations very basic. Domestic animals have less selection pressure and expand their vocalization into more complex patterns.
Your story purposes can be interpreted within the form described in my schematic. Stories about morality would fall into communicating information about social cognition problems. Such problems would be very important/interesting to humans (where sorting out social ambiguities is high up in cognitive hierarchy).
I see reduction (this or that classifications) as being valuable for quick decisions, which is important for marketing in physical retail space. A physical object can only exist in on bin.
If it fails too, then add Achievements and Trophies, I'm pretty sure it won't remain boring after that. Or maybe one shouldn't be making videogames despite what his Game Design instructor might have told him.
Story is a plus, gameplay is a need.
Article:Interactivity, he says, is the core of what makes the medium tick, and all of that storytelling that's shoehorned in.
"Story is a plus, gameplay is a need. "
If it's a good game, story and gameplay are wedded. You couldn't separate them because one couldn't be understood without the other. The only game I play that doesn't have a story is Free Cell, and that's about the level games are without a story. Fun, but it doesn't really pull me in emotionally.
It's the story game that people remember for a long time. Game play gets trashed by the next toy, because that's all it is, a toy.
Those emotions you are talking about are base emotions. It's not love, greed, betrayal, compassion, or any of the things that make a higher story. Those emotions are like taking a roller coaster ride. That's not story. The reason a story is needed is because those things are too shallow. They don't engage us at an intellectual level. You can only play in a sand box for so long, which is aptly named btw.
As far as you only play it once. I haven't played one of these games all the way through in ages because they don't have a decent story. So one time through seems like quite a bit.
That's my point. Game play centered games are one option only. I don't want to get trapped into that. I like story games, and I like a few game play centered games if they are done well and aren't too long and repetitive. Yes, I can make my own somewhat basic story with them, but it's coloring book creativity and I would rather have lower participation in a more engaging story than be given some crayolas and paint between the lines and put my "masterpiece" on the hard drive refrigerator. That's why I make games, because playing most of them doesn't allow enough creativity. I don't need that level, some do. It's like playing guitar hero or playing the guitar. I play the guitar, and I enjoy hearing a master play the guitar. I don't need that particular go-between. Some people that lack enough skill and creativity, need that, but I think they will always also enjoy a master ply his trade, like Bioshock or something. There's gameplay there, but the story is paramount and the game play revolves around it. The player doesn't create it, he discovers it.
Personally, I think when I play a game where I don't decide what the character will look like when I start, I will know that games have matured. Dress me up Barbie will be in the past, or in children's games, where they belong.
When you can recognize that there are various reasons for playing games, then you will be better off.
Bioshock is an exemple of immersive videogame-way narrative, with the exceptions being the introductory cutscene, the encounter with Andrew Ryan and the multiple ending scenes.
You said it: "The player doesn't create it, he discovers it". Watching or being told is passive, exploring and discovering is interactive. It's the difference of listening to a conversation and having a conversation.
"Language of Interactivity" means it's intended to communicate, which includes telling stories. The goal is not cutting off communication, but getting rid of the interpreters.
On that level, I agree, but I don't think Jaffe is really saying that from his story has to be shoe-horned in statement. Any game has to be interactive, whether it's a story game or an open sandbox game. I don't mind reading narrative, but it better be good and short. I'm not reading a book, I'm playing a game. Which, btw, is another peeve of mine with sandbox games that give you this boring book to read with some of the most atrocious writing imaginable.
"I guess that I could consider to some degree a purist, but I play and buy mostly every game. Appreciate, study them... "
And so do many people who are not purists.
You are starting to sound like a guy that doesn't like story in games especially with your last post.
When I talk about story in games I am mostly referring to cutscenes or long background narrative drivel from npcs whether it is in text or voiced.
I find the two to be just as annoying and non-needed. Seems you aren't far from that.
That being said I couldn't get into Bioshock. I loved the atmosphere. But the gameplay didn't hook me. Just seemed like another hallway shooter. I didn't have the patience to go through the gameplay in order to get to the story. But I wished that I could watch a movie based on the world or at least skip the gameplay sequences when they held little appeal.
That is why, for me, there is almost always a disconnection between the narrative and gameplay.
I have liked fps games that give you story nuggets or background info on tapes or in computers through their world. But that wore off for me after I got a few under my belt.
It wasn't new anymore.
I don't mind something like Half Life 2. Little more human because of their lip synching and in game presentation. Also fairly concise if I remember correctly. Still i don't think I can tell you what happened story wise. I can recall many of the gameplay sequences however. And the overall look and feel of the world and game.
My interest did fall off with the episodes. Story wasn't enough. Gameplay wasn't as fresh.
Games are the ultimate choose your own adventure book.
Go left or right?
Go left:
You fall through a trap door and are sucked into a worlpool. end.
Go Right:
You marry the ogre queen. end.
Cut scenes can be very powerful tools with many applications. One application that's exciting is their use as placeholders for game engine capabilities that don't exist yet. In general, game avatars are not as expressive as mimes, silent film comedians, acrobats, puppets, or regular people. Chatbot NPCs do not have complex motivations generated by emulating several hundred brain structures working in parallel (millions of heuristics, deep semantic webs etc). NPC Chatbots don't even have convincing reduced natural language speech synthesis. As computational drama gradually becomes more sophisticated, many placeholder cut scenes will be replaced with interactive content.
For starters the basis for this issue seems to be "dude, this is kool, it's the roots of gaming"
Peanut butter is better than chocolate. You can have peanut butter without chocolate, but not the other way around.
So a medium that is only chocolate, isn't a game. But chocolate added to peanut butter makes peanut butter cups or narrative only games.
Want my opinion?
The underlying issue isn't which is more important, but that both are rather underwhelming lately. Especially together. And antoher poster commented that it's even far worse in the multiplayer online arena and I agree.
Everything from WoW to Bioshock to FPS to Facebook games.
Some are getting close to a merger of the 2 like EAs ME3 Demo, and Deus Ex Human Revolution (which is moreso a revisit actually). These hit as close to the mark as I've seen.
This doesn't mean that mixing peanut butter and chocolate is going to make reeces peanut butter cups, or that there even close to the best experience in a video game possible.
Some games are revisiting a mish mosh of older game platforms that work well, very very well like Terraria.
But to simply come out and state that " interactivity " is the true zen of gaming, is hogwash.
Interactivity comes in a variety of shapes colours and sizes, and we as people best express those ideas through story telling. If you can mime a story without words or sound or missing parts of the picture, very very kool. But nonetheless you are telling a story, albeit a fairly shallow one with an only gun toting psychotic 1UP your buddy game.