"If you try to build emotional scenes in the same way movies do it, you will fail," said Yager's Jorg Friedrich, whose Spec Ops: The Line recently raised the bar for storytelling in shooters, at a packed session at GDC Europe.
The distinction between games and films, he argued, is simple. When you watch characters in films, "we feel with them, because we have time for it," he said. "During a game... we are constantly trying to solve and overcome problems. This changes the way we empathize with characters on screen."
As an example, he pointed to the scene in The Empire Strikes Back where Luke Skywalker finds out Darth Vader is his father, at the height of a pitched battle. It's moving -- but in a game context, you'd be so busy trying to defeat Darth Vader, "instead of sympathizing with Luke, you'd look for a weak spot in Vader's attack pattern."
Good game choices, in contrast, are those such as Heavy Rain's sequence in which main character Ethan Mars is asked to cut off his finger to save his kidnapped son, argued Friedrich. "It doesn't just make you feel with the character; it makes you feel like him."
Dark moments in stories are needed to make the victories matter, he argued. "The death of Aerith is still the number one memorable gaming moment on many game websites," said Friedrich, of 1997's Final Fantasy VII. This is despite the fact that it is a down moment in a game that, like most, is about winning overall. "Did you ever think about how many memorable events are tied to negative emotions?" he asked.
"You need to sometimes break design rules," he said, to involve the player. "Like a punch line of a good joke," he said, a truly meaningful choice "needs the proper framing or it will become stale." You can't break the rules all the time, in other words, but you can do it for effect at the right narrative moment. Yager's Rules to Break1. Never let the player choose between bad and worse
"Sometimes there is no good choice," he said, but that's okay -- even good. That's because in real life, "sometimes there is no way out without getting hurt; sometimes there is no way out at all." You can use that to your advantage in games.
But these kind of tough decisions "can only work within a narrative context; without that, it's just frustrating," he said. A choice between two crappy loot items is not an important "bad and worse" choice; a choice between two bad possibilities within a game's story is potentially emotionally devastating.
2. The outcome of a choice has to be forecasted
"You can disguise the outcome of a choice if you want the player to become lost, uncertain, and confused," said Friedrich. Just like in real life, when you come home and flip the light switch and the room stays dark, an unexpected effect creates tension for players. When you get it right, "the player will feel a strong tension and need to act," he said. "This will break through the player's strategic thinking."
On the other hand, if a light switch is, for example, instead rigged to a mechanism that launches a rocket, it'll feel forced. "It is important it still makes sense and is comprehensible in the context of the game," he said. "If the choice doesn't make sense, players will stop experiencing the story and start playing the system instead."
3. The player's choice needs to be rewarded or punished
"This is a really tricky one; I think all choices should have consequences," said Friedrich. However, most people who say this, he says, are talking about "real gameplay consequences", which "means that all player choices should be followed by some benefit or disadvantages, and I disagree."
"Moral decisions that give different in-game rewards disconnect the player by giving them motivations within the game; it's a tactical or strategic decision," he argues. He dislikes games that have dark/light sides with reward mechanics tied to them, such as those in many RPGs, as the players aim for gameplay rewards rather than making real moral choices.
In contrast, there's a scene in Spec Ops where one of your squadmates is killed by civilians in retaliation for the destruction of their water supply -- and they come after you next. "The choice can be solved in multiple ways, either by using deadly force or scaring them away; you can solve it so that no civilian is hurt. You can also take revenge," said Friedrich.
"We intentionally did not add any rewards to the player choice -- we wanted players to decide for personal reasons. We wanted a moral choice that is not tied to any in-game currency, but plays out only in the player's mind."
Gamasutra is in Cologne, Germany this week covering GDC Europe. For more GDC Europe coverage, visit our official event page. (UBM TechWeb is parent to both Gamasutra and GDC events.)
|
This is my major beef with the idea of presenting "moral" choices in games as moral instead of mechanical; it isn't immoral to kill NPCs in a video game. You're not in the mindset of "do I end these human lives", your thinking "am I supposed to kill these NPCs to avoid a Game Over?" especially if it is compounded with "I only have a gun and I've been given the "hard choice" between doing classically evil things to avoid a Game Over already so I guess I'm going to shoot these NPCs".
Also see "No Russian" in MW2
Exactly!
I don't think some designers recognize the folly or flaw in their thinking.
One of the things that I liked about Heavy Rain was that there was no 'game over' screen. Since that was something I was never concerned with, I felt free to make decisions based on what I wanted, rather than constantly being paranoid that the game would end.
I would argue that those choices were mechanical since they had an impact on the game (and not just on your gag reflex).
When I played Spec Ops, and got to the mob turning on you, I very clearly made a moral stance.
I tried running through the crowd but they pushed me back. I made a decision then and there that I wasn't going to shoot at them at any cost. If they killed me, so be it.
Being at a loss regarding what to do in that moment, I believe they started flinging shit at me which intensified the need for me to act. So in the end I just started shooting in the air.
That seemed to make them disperse.
The key decision was really to make a stand and say that I would not shoot at them because it would conflict with;
a) My moral values as I internalized what was happening in the game within the context of the story (you're a US soldier shooting the place up on foreign soil, you and your friends deserve everything that's coming to them)
b) The values I perceived and projected onto the main character. Because he moped and talked so much about wanting to save people throughout the game (and being scarred by the fact he phosphor'd a bunch of civillians), I felt it would be in line and within context of his actions not to open fire on a civilian population, given the choice.
Funny enough, both posing the conundrum above and reaching the answer took all of maybe 3-5 seconds.
It did work.
Hmmm, sounds like a lot more than just mechanical decision making, doesn't it...?
They had an impact on the game because the story and the gameplay was so tightly integrated. They impacted the story, but they didn't make your character more or less powerful (trying to let the killer get away with it is a perfectly acceptable goal in Heavy Rain, letting the enemy side win isn't a valid goal in Call of Duty).
Meanwhile many other games (even older games) feature moral choices, in a sense, they just don't call attention to it. Even a game as simple (by modern standards) as A Link to the Past presents moral choices of a fashion. For instance, you can abuse the cuccoos, and there's a consequence. I didn't discover this for years because I made the decision not to deliberately abuse the cuccoos (in essence, I made a moral decision within the game world). I found out about it from a friend, who had not hesitated to bash a cuccoo over and over for like 30 straight seconds. Or, another example from the same game, I used to think it was weird to break the pots in people's house. I never did it. Until, that is, one time later in the game when I needed some rupees (to upgrade my sword I think) and then suddenly I felt okay with breaking all the pots I saw. Interesting how in a sense that mirrors real world crime (poverty breeding theft). If there had been more in game consequences for these actions, that would be an immersive way to explore morality. You don't need a contrived system.
I would eliminate even the moral choice though.
I haven't played the game so I don't fully understand what he is talking about. But I mean if it just a small scene where you brush away 5 guys or mow them down in between shooting 1000s of people then why even include it and pretend it is a moral choice?
There is less of a moral conflict when you're shooting soldiers in a war than when you are slaughtering unarmed civilians.
I agree with you, but it's just such a hard sell.
I don't think it necessarily has to be simply a matter of having more than 2 choices, just avoiding the hard-line "black or white, no gray" scenarios.
This is coming from having just played through Infamous 2 which was a complete disaster in this regard, where both the "good" and "evil" options given to the player were frequently both laughable. Still, it's an issue in virtually all games with moral decision making.
Also:
"hell, americans solve their leadership issues with a binary choice (by and large) - if that's not an indicator of a modality problem i don't know what is. "
"Leadership issues"? That's either the biggest generalization I've heard in the last six months or I should assume you're talking about *political* leadership and the much-maligned two party system.
See what I did there?
Maybe that is a vote for I don't care for choices?
When you talk about "gosh-darned safe, 'middle ground' position(s)", it sounds like those decisions have little consequence for the player, which is a flaw in game design.
I think you might be right, in a way. The clearest example of what I'm talking about can be found in Elder Scrolls III: the player is given an option of light, medium, or heavy armor. Medium is the 'best of both worlds' statistically (and aesthetically, IMO), nobody I knew who played this game used light or heavy. This is a decision that should have a lot of consequence (taking damage vs. mobility) and seriously affect one's play style, but the choice lost it's clout with the inclusion of a middle-ground option. Subsequent TES titles have actually taken out medium armor. Not sure if it was because of what I just described, another gameplay consideration or just cutting down on content, but I was pleased. :)
In any event, I'm really interested to know whether others have witnessed this player-choice quirk or if it's just been my experience.
I still think many don't care about the choice. I always figured the developer knows which choice is better so why make me choose?
If both are equally fun then why not incorporate both into the game at different moments so I can do both? Or save one choice for the next game?
Then on top of it you figure that if they didn't do all these choices they could spend more time polishing up the one choice and making it even more interesting. I don't think a lot of players realize this tradeoff.
As a player I always feel like well this choice is ok. I wonder if the other choice is more fun.
I never approach it like well I enjoy playing this way so I will take this choice and treat it like it plays the same from game to game. No I enjoying playing interesting fun parts in games. When I see a choice I always see a designer who loves to torture players. They know what is behind door #1 and door#2, but don't want to let me know either because they love to watch the player squirm.
Yeah that is why Bioware has started making their games more action-ee to attract a bigger audience. And the only part of the article I identify with is how lame the evil vs good choices are in some of these rpgs. It is always Kick the Dog or Feed it Alpo.
@E McNeill
I heard that analogy before. It is terrible. Lyrics flow with music. Lyrics themselves are music when sung.
Story and games are at odds with each other at a fundamental level.
I think this whole thing of chasing story in games is just chasing a carrot stick. You aren't going to get there.
Yes obviously you can like whatever you want. We are the land of 100 million niches.
But I think you can discuss on a more fundamental level of why story and games don't mix or will never reach some kind of shangri la of design.
The evidence is there if you look for it.
Choose your adventure books? The appeal for these drops off a cliff after the 6th grade.
Lightning in a bottle - twice. You need a great gameplay and a great story for a story to truly succeed in a game. Even then I think you are looking at a story being bolted onto a game.
Gameplay and Story are at odds because gameplay is player controlled and story is not.
The amount of work needed to truly create a choice-based game is enormous. And for the foreseeable future not practical for AAA production values and the size of the audience.
GAmeplay frequently elicits different emotions from the player than the emotions the story is trying to elicit. More conflict.
Great story doesn't mean great gameplay and great gameplay doesn't mean great story. Again more conflict which means compromise is needed.
And ultimately if you just want the story then why struggle through crap gameplay to get it? The answer is you eventually won't do it as it is human nature. And thus these companies should be selling you CGI stories and not disquise them as games.
Fixed that for you. The problem with the whole Narratologist vs Ludologist schism is that neither side ever remembers that there is more than one type of gamer. Maria's point about Bioware is an excellent one- no one is playing any of their games for the ground breaking gameplay.
Besides, why are you jumping to the conclusion that Spec Ops' gameplay is bad? The fact that they put thought into the story inherently means that they didn't put any thought into the gameplay?
Edit--
Should have refreshed the page before commenting, because I didn't see your responses. You really should read Game Design as Narrative Architecture by Henry Jenkins.
However, even story that does take away from gameplay can be beneficial overall, if the story is worthwhile. Specops would be an example of that. Many finished the game inspite of the gameplay.
The real issue with gameplay v story, is that 99% of big budget games have truly terrible writing combined with writing that ignores the player, or treats the player as an obstruction in the way of the game's narrative. "IF onlly we didnt have to fit player actions into this, we could tell a cool story." Maybe part of that stems from the fact that most sutscenes only serve to provide unambiguous excuses for the 'good guy' to shoot people in the face.
Anyway, I think there is a place for actual good writing in games, now if only gaming companies would hire good writers and give them the freedom to write.
I am betting on human nature that consumers won't trudge through unfun gameplay just to see hear the story over the long run.
I am betting that somebody will eventually just offer up choose your adventure CGI stories maybe with some very rudimentary gameplay that is the 3d equivalent of skipping chapters in a DVD menu.
I listed all the reasons I can think of for why gaming and story are at odds.
YOu then say they aren't, but don't offer much except to say the writing sucks in AAA games.
I will agree there. But everything I listed doesn't event take into the account of the quality of the writing. Or it assumes the quality would be there.
And being at odds with each other doesn't mean the two together are impossible. It isn't impossible to be beat by your father and unloved by your mother and still turn out to be successful and a great person. Wise to go that route? Good odds?
There are certainly challenges involved with the integration of gameplay and story, but I have plenty of personal examples of stories that genuinely enhanced my game experience (and not just tacked-on stories; these stories would be worse outside of the game).
Dear Esther. Deus Ex. Final Fantasy. Braid. Mass Effect. Bastion. Portal. Dungeons & Dragons. Bioshock.
I could argue with you point-by-point, but if I know you to be wrong from personal experience, I don't see why I ought to.
I don't really agree with the lyrics vs. music analogy. Rather I think of the relationship as being like music in film. Everyone agrees that a good score enhances a film. It provides context and nudges the viewer to interpret a scene in a certain way. Everyone is familiar too with music that is too heavy handed - fairly screaming at the audience "Feel sad NOW!!" A good score is an important part of the film, but almost nobody goes to a movie primarily to hear the score (although we may come out talking about it), but then a movie with no score at all would clearly be lacking something. It is a delicate balancing act. To torture this analogy further (sorry analogy!), the extremely cinematic games of the modern era are a bit like musicals. And just like musicals, a few of them manage to be good but most of them are quite quite bad.
I agree with you 100%. I just want to add that there are, in fact, many cases where good story-writers are hired on. The problem is that by the time they are brought into development, most of the plot is pretty much written in stone, with the story-writer being hired just to "flesh out the details". The game is pretty much almost finished, so the writer is not allowed to make any decisions in the story that could have any impact on the game's already-fixed features. This results in most stories that, at best, look a little amateurish, or at worst, look like they were written by an immature adolescent.
Writers should be there from the beginning, involved with the rest of the team, not just thrown in halfway through development to tidy things up.
Having said that, there are some cases where an experienced designer also happens to be an expert in writing/storytelling. They are quite rare, in my opinion.
Hey some people like peeing on their spouses. Who am I to tell them they are wrong?
So I don't want to make this about personal tastes.
But for reasons I outlined above I believe gameplay makes the story. Not the other way around.
Ultimately ....
"Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important."
"Gameplay and Story are at odds because gameplay is player controlled and story is not.
The amount of work needed to truly create a choice-based game is enormous. And for the foreseeable future not practical for AAA production values and the size of the audience. "
This is the largest barrier to creating good story in a game. I don't have a solution on-hand, other than to say that we need to find some way of integrating gameplay and story without a branching dialogue. This is the only point I will concede, though not without saying that I believe to be a challenge that human ingenuity can overcome.
"GAmeplay frequently elicits different emotions from the player than the emotions the story is trying to elicit. More conflict."
This is just bad writing. There is no reason that I know of (please tell me if you have one) that the story necessarily has to be eliciting different emotions in the gameplay.
"Great story doesn't mean great gameplay and great gameplay doesn't mean great story. Again more conflict which means compromise is needed."
One not creating the other does not meant that they are in conflict.
"And ultimately if you just want the story then why struggle through crap gameplay to get it?"
Because gameplay and story can inform and contextualize each other in a unique way. This statement only makes sense if your idea that they are concepts which necessarily conflict with each other is taken as true.
"The answer is you eventually won't do it as it is human nature."
This is demonstrably not true. In fact, others have already demonstrated it.
I hate the human ingenuity argument. :). Some things really can't be solved. And who cares if they solve it 100 years from now. :)
At the same time it isn't like someone couldnt do a game that offered true choice. It just isn't practical. And there is always the reality that the time spent offering you a thousand choices is much better spent offering you one choice.
I can't help but think of choose your adventure books and why they aren't tearing up the Best Seller charts.
And then of course you have to ask if could do it would it even be fun?
When I say emotions in gameplay and story are at odds I am talking about frustration from dying in games, from figuring out controls, from reading HUDs, etc etc. I am also talking about the repetitive nature of games. Doing the same things over. Seeing the same npcs saynthe same things.... The story lines aren't often trying to elicit this type of response.
Great story and great gameplay conflicting is just a reflection of the differents goals of each. And how either one or both will have to be compromised for the final product. In other words just because you have a great story part doesn't mean you can turn that into fun gameplay and vice versa because a lot of stuff you do in games doesn't make for an interesting story.
Why struggle through crap gameplay? I am just saying that story ultimately won't save a game in the long run. I just think folks will go to movies/tv if that is all they are there for or developers will turn into videogame graphics movie makers since it seems like it would be a need in the market unfulfilled.
No one has demonstrated it is not true that eventually human nature won't take over and folks will stop slogging through crappy gameplay to get to story bits in games. I don't think I have demonstrated it is true either. But there have been many figures thrown around about how many people complete games. It doesnt look that pretty. We know the size of the Story based gaming audiences vs the non-story based gaming audiences and vs the motion picture/tv audiences. We also know that people don't like to do repetitive boring things if they don't have to and usually use that "human ingenuity" to find a way around it.
At the same time it isn't like someone couldnt do a game that offered true choice. It just isn't practical. And there is always the reality that the time spent offering you a thousand choices is much better spent offering you one choice.
I can't help but think of choose your adventure books and why they aren't tearing up the Best Seller charts.
And then of course you have to ask if could do it would it even be fun? "
I'm not saying that it's practical to do so right now, just that we shouldn't write it off completely. Passionate people make great advances in art when they work on problems on their own time and see things in a fundamentally different way.
Basically, right now I agree with you that it's not as feasible for AAA games. But you're going to another extreme which doesn't seem healthy for the industry.
"When I say emotions in gameplay and story are at odds I am talking about frustration from dying in games, from figuring out controls, from reading HUDs, etc etc. I am also talking about the repetitive nature of games. Doing the same things over. Seeing the same npcs saynthe same things.... The story lines aren't often trying to elicit this type of response."
Ah, I understand your point better now. I would argue that when gameplay and story are created with each other in mind, you can create them with things like this in mind, minimizing any problems that these things may cause (or better yet, finding a way to make them work together). Will it be perfect? No, but what game is? ((also, a game doesn't *have* to have repetitive NPC's))
"Great story and great gameplay conflicting is just a reflection of the differents goals of each. And how either one or both will have to be compromised for the final product. In other words just because you have a great story part doesn't mean you can turn that into fun gameplay and vice versa because a lot of stuff you do in games doesn't make for an interesting story."
And it's our job to find ways to integrate them. It isn't easy and there will be rough spots, but using them to build on each other will leave them with a different set of advantages and disadvantages than they'd have alone.
"Why struggle through crap gameplay? I am just saying that story ultimately won't save a game in the long run. I just think folks will go to movies/tv if that is all they are there for or developers will turn into videogame graphics movie makers since it seems like it would be a need in the market unfulfilled.
No one has demonstrated it is not true that eventually human nature won't take over and folks will stop slogging through crappy gameplay to get to story bits in games. I don't think I have demonstrated it is true either. But there have been many figures thrown around about how many people complete games. It doesnt look that pretty. We know the size of the Story based gaming audiences vs the non-story based gaming audiences and vs the motion picture/tv audiences. We also know that people don't like to do repetitive boring things if they don't have to and usually use that "human ingenuity" to find a way around it."
If your argument is that there is a point where gameplay can be so bad that people won't go through it, then I agree. However, good story can increase the tolerance for bad gameplay.
If shooing away enemies is not very enjoyable then the player will shoot them instead. Not based on moral, but on the fun of the gameplay.
And I suppose the opposite would be true too.
It is like all those games with sneaking. How many of those do players just shoot everything in sight because the sneaking is becomes tedious.
YOu would really have to make each choice as good as the most fun choice for the player to completely choose based on moral.
And then what? doesn't every game still mostly lead to the same watering hole anyway no matter what you do?
To truly make branching choices in a game and make it super interesting you really would need an exponential amount of development over and above a linear type of game. That is the dilemma about story choice in games that I see. That is why story choice in games is a mirage.
not me. I just finished Deus Ex, and though it did get very tough in the end, I tried not to break character and go into murder mode. I dont know why, its just the way i game. these choices are important to me. YMMV.
It's the shooting that's tedious, at least from where I'm standing. Stealth aspects are far more rewarding for me. Not that that undermines your point, but I'm not sure how useful it is to create hierarchies between various sorts of player behavior when entire genres exist to cater to subordinated "exceptions".
"Story choice in games is a mirage."
Witcher 2 is my reply.
I hear ya. The point was that I think the guy in the article hadn't thought out his #3 point terribly well. He seems to say that you don't want to introduce rewards that are just gameplay based. But introduce ones that are moral based.
The problem there though is that players aren't going to do choices if they aren't interesting and fun. So your choices are still affected by gameplay even if you aren't giving out any rewards afterwards.
@ Guerre
Well no disagreement that shooting computer bad guys gets old now. It was so much fun back in the day. Now really it is just 3d Space Invaders. And I kind of think interest will go that way eventually unless they change things up more. The problem so much money is being spent that experimentation is limited.
Now shooting human players in a game is endlessly compelling to me because of the human element. I always have fun with that. I enjoy the thrill of the hunt.
I haven't played Witcher 2 yet though it is on my radar. What kind of choice are we talking about?
I guess I know there is "choice" in games. But so far it has been a mirage. It is pretty limited. And hasn't been interesting. The cynic or bigger picture thinker in me was always saying well just give me the best choice - the most fun choice. How am I as a player supposed to know how well done your choice is until I play it. I would rather the developer use their vantage to create a fun game instead of giving me a choice of whether to Kick the Dog or Feed it Alpo. It seems like the work to create these binary choices could be better put to use making one path more polished, interesting and fun.
The talk about choice in games is always much stronger and more compelling than the reality.
That being said I have always like the choice in character classes and weapons in rpgs or in games like Civ or even something like the Sims and now Minecraft though I haven't really played either except to get the gist of it.
GAmes where you tell the story essentially. That has always been the story telling power of games from what I can see.
I have never liked too much choice in terms of weapons and character classes etc because I don't believe in the everything and the kitchen sink approach. I think a good developer can better hone in the fun and polish if they limit the scope of choice.
This discussion, and this comment in particular, makes me think of Way of Samurai. It has a true branching narrative, and as a player you have to play it over and over again to fully appreciate it, since a single play through only takes about 90 minutes. I'm not sure how many different combinations of events there are... a lot more than most games though.
Sounds interesting.
And it is exactly what has crossed my mind before. I would like to see a developer make a AAA game that is 2 hours in length but has a ton of different choices and paths and outcomes.
And thus it would be very replayable. The short length of course would allow the developer to add much more real choice. And the short length would not make the player feel like their 20 hours of gaming will be lame if they made a wrong choice. AT worst you'll have a subpar 2 hours.
And I don't just mean story choice, but branching paths and corridors. And some time element designed to keep you moving forward.
I think this length would also fit in very well with the time that some of us have to play games in one sitting.
Okay then, Bob, we can talk after you've played it, because apparently, your experience is quite limited, despite your strong assertions about players and games.
I'll have to raise my hand on that one. I have friends who have crouch-walked and archery'd their way through every dungeon in Skyrim, but I got fed up with the slow pace about halfway through the game.
I think the trick is to have the option to do either. I can rather easily imagine a scenario like the one above only reversed- the hack 'n slash player gets tired of mowing down zombies and decides sneaking might spice up their play experience. If the option to change up your gameplay isn't there, that's a 'put the controller down and never play again' moment waiting to happen.
"If shooing away enemies is not very enjoyable then the player will shoot them instead. Not based on moral, but on the fun of the gameplay."
It would be interesting to know how obvious it is there is actually an alternative in this scenario. If your game is primarily based on shooting people with your gun. Are you providing them a choice they understand or are players naturally reacting to a percieved threat in the only way the game has taught them works?
While there are games that I couldn't finish because the gameplay was so bad, there were also games that I couldn't put down, because I had to see what happened next. Final Fantasy VII is an example. While the repetitive random battles wasn't perfect (the gameplay was pretty average most of the time, with some high points here and there every once in a while), I had fallen so much in love with the characters and the plot that I had to follow it through to the end. I'm glad I did, because it now ranks as one of my top 10 all time favorite games.
"Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important."
And your FF example is the exception. A personal anecdote. Who hasn't slogged through a game just to see how the story ends? I am sure I have.
That isn't the question though. The question is do you keep doing this time and time again or do you start to wise up and realize what a feckin' waste of time it is? Did you slog through all the other FFs after that?
I think in the long run, human nature says, you can't keep this up.
That is one reason story just doesn't matter in games.
GAmeplay makes the story.
No, its not the exception. There are many times that players push through a boring part because they want to see what happens next.
Yes, I played all of the FF games after that, as did most other FF fans, only not finishing FF13 because both the story and gameplay was boring. Some people like stories in video games, so they don't see it as the "waste of time" that you do. Perhaps you need to revisit your analysis of human nature, and stop thinking that everyone thinks like you do. One would think that you would have caught on to that part by now.
So you're slogging through tens of hours of repetitive boring gameplay in FF on a consistent basis in order to view the next cutscene?
And I'm not sure FF represents an example of story in games. I thought the series was just a CGI movie spliced in between fairly standard turn-based rpg gameplay.
The strength of FF's stories was never the quality of its cutscenes. It was that the characters and the plot was interesting enough to keep players playing. And no, I'm not saying that all of the FF games were complete duds on the gameplay. I'm saying that there were times throughout the game where a design decision was made that didn't really play out well, making the game boring at that point. However, the story helped one get past those parts.
And simply dismissing FF games as "not an example of story-telling in games" lets me know how serious you are about considering people's arguments. Perhaps you can offer a coherent example of story-telling that demonstrates why you don't think that FF games tell a story?
They tend to have a completely different system each game, and often search for absolutely new narratives too. It is obviously very eastern oriented, but that doesn't make it bad. Also, if you look at final fantasy 12, there are a few cutscenes, but they are very toned down and they serve more as location overviews than anything.
I personally dont expect porn movies to have a story, so for me they are more of a mechanic exercise, probably similar to the enjoyment in mario games.
I think this is probably Carmack's problem, now that I think about it. When you look particularly at games like Rage, you can see how little emphasis was put on story. Sure, the world -seems- interesting, but there is nothing creating any believable depth.
I feel stories are absolutely necessary for games, even when there is little exposition to the player. Creating a rich universal narrative is what makes the game come to life. Story is not just cutscene or wall of text, some of those are engaging as a movie is, but there is more variation than that. It is obvious that there is no disadvantage about having a strong mythology and story it either way.
I feel that now is a good time to break the rules though. Games have come to a point in maturity where there are many expectations, and not many surprises. Breaking the obviousness and linearity of cause and effect in games is a great goal.
All other mediums have learned that the best tools for expression often lay in unexpected places for the audience.
You don't have to try and turn the discussion into a personal one.
Cutscenes stories are so independent of the games themselves. That is why I dismiss FF when talking about stories in games.. but like I said I am not very familiar with the series.
You would have to talk more about the gist of how stories and story choice in games work as I am not familiar with each and every game.
Saying that something "is what it is" doesn't prove anything, by the way. It just lets people know that you see something as "not open for discussion".
And no, cutscenes are not independent of the game. Not sure where you get that from. Cutscenes, just like other story aids, are provided to give context and added motivation to the player's actions. Depending on how and when they are implemented, they can be a success or a dud. Whether or not you like them isn't the point.
Again: can you offer a coherent example of story-telling that demonstrates why you don't think that FF games tell a story?
Lol. Come on. You are absolutely trying to make it personal. You are attacking my intentions and my experience etc instead of discussing story in games.
And whether my skin is thick or thin would not change this. Lol.
So you will have to find another dance partner. Sorry.
a.k.a. "I don't have a response".
No one wants to shuffle through hours of been there, done that gameplay to get story from games.
If the gameplay isn't fun then no one is going to get through the game.
Over the long run with a large sample size is where this will be true.
Thousands of people play obsessively Assassin's Creed, Mass Effect, Dragon age, or Skyrim. I personally find that all those game are deeply lacking in Gameplay. To me they feel stretched, bloated, unpolished and unoriginal, mainly because I can't connect to their narrative. I believe other players find the gameplay exciting mainly because they are deeply invested in the story. This is a cyclical feedback process, and denying it is illogical.
I find Shooters dull and repetitive for the most part. I found the Gameplay on Spec-Ops serviceable but fully generic, but the story made me enjoy it much more than i would have if it had a cookie cutter CoD MW2 story.
Your level of engagement obviously allows you to dig deeper in the gameplay. And your enjoyment of gameplay may cause you to look deeper in the systems, mythology or story.
Its really not so black and white.
And my assumption would be that most play games like Skyrim because they want to see that next ability or weapon etc. Not for the story.
"You said thousands of obssessive people."
No he didn't.
- Story and gameplay can be properly intervowen depending on the genre. What about graphic adventures such as Monkey Island, Day of the Tentacle, Loom...? the story drives the gameplay. Even the game play can be considered an independent system, it doesn't make sense without the context of the story.
- If story is an afterthought over the gameplay, this will be noticed soon by the players, and as time invested on creating the story will be scarce, story will be disconnected and incoherent, failing to engage the player.
- If the game designer hasn't any writing and narrative skills, he can't properly visuallize how to integrate gameplay and story to make gameplay the consequence of a good story.
- Story and gameplay can coexist as independent systems and be funny if there's a logical progression between of both. Too much story in a single take can be as harmful as having too many combats in a row, to mention a basic example.
@Bob Johnson said about players shooting everyone because sneaking can be tedious... that depends on the ability of the game designer. Batman: Arkham Asylum is a good example of how making sneaking funny.
About linearity, James Ohlen, Creative Director for SWTOR, said that in KOTOR they only branched the game thus letting players take a moral decision just one hour before reaching the game end, otherwise it would have been a nightmare creating so much content to suit different alternatives.
I don't think a linear story means it must be bad, quite the contrary. A good linear story allows the game designer to focus on creating a stronger emotional attachment between the player and the game characters. If you don't want to play the good guy in a linear game, why don't try games where you can play the bad guy like 'Dungeons'? We haven't reach a point were a real interactive storytelling can be implemented. Can you imagine designing a game for somebody whose actions clearly determine he's a schizophrenic? This would mean creating infinity of choices and respective outcomes, and would require an army of game designers that besides being writers need and Phd. in psychology! We can only mimic reality to a certaint extent, and if we want to do it right, we must specialize on a few areas to make the story believable...
This is only an opinion, don't take it seriously! =)
Either for some genres story in games matters.
Or those types of games really don't offer any gameplay so it doesn't get in the way.
I think I am going with the latter which doesn't necessarily dismiss the former.
At least for now.
Shouldn't articles on design be about really successful or well reviewed games?
But except for the people who don't want stories in their games at all (like Jaffe), which is also a legit position, a lot of people in the business realize that storytelling in games is stuck in an emotionally stunted infantile male power fantasy mode.
Call of Duty's really stepped up here, making each installment since the first Modern Warfare even stupider and more tone deaf. 'No Russian' is some guy running an emotion button pushing simulator because his mirror neurons are shot (or more likely because 'he' is a committee). People seemed to pick up on how fake this was. But there is a lot of untapped potential for powerful emotional connection if it's not mishandled.
So The Line did not excel on mechanics. It couldn't compete with other AAA shooters, and sales reflected that. Honestly, I only bought it because I'd heard the story was different - I would never have touched it otherwise. But the reviews of the story have been extremely positive. I think people realize that even if the overall game failed (sales have to matter) that this was a very good experiment. Perhaps someone else can run with it with better game mechanics.
I hope this doesn't end up with a lot of super bleak depressing stories, because that's not the lesson anyone paying attention should pick up. They're mostly the ones in the original story up top. You could use all of them in a generally positive story - I hope someone does so!
Also notice that nothing requires adding any more dialogue or cutscenes. You can even have less! If you shoot that civilian in the head everyone else might run away, but nothing else needs to be said.
Well, I can't say 'enjoyed'. It's pretty bleak. But captivated. It was the first game in a long time that's treated me like an adult, unless you count Max Payne treating me as an emotionally crippled adult.
I didn't seem to have had the problems a lot of people in the comments had in realizing that you didn't have to shoot and kill everything - it was fairly well telegraphed. Perhaps we're just too well trained. Sure, in a normal game I might have, but /I did not want to be Walker/ at that point.
I am now playing Max Payne 3, which also gives you plenty of opportunities to shoot non-combatants, and am taking extra pains not to inflict any collateral damage other than Max does just by existing. Spec Ops is half to blame for that - I wouldn't normally go after them, but I wouldn't normally be careful either.