Yes, it is true that videos/books are not interactive in the way that games are. However, the overwhelming majority of video games that have "stories" are not interactive in any worthwhile way.
A game like FFVII the story is not integrated with the game in any way. You can experience the entire story on Youtube without losing anything. Just watch the cutscenes and read some of the dialogue. Almost all games, including ones that are being used as examples, fall into this category. This is what happens when someone who failed to get into the film industry makes games. These are very popular among people who don't actually like games, but think they do because it is called a game. Great way to make a movie and charge $50 for it.
Then you have some games that are still not integrated, but are choose your own adventure style. Chrono Trigger is an example of this, but so are the Dragon Ages and Fallouts of the world. You can still watch these on YouTube, but you need to watch multiple endings and such to see everything. It will still save you a fuckton of time since you won't have to replay the entire game to see the other content. There are sometimes small changes in minor story parts of the game, but they are rather meaningless.
Then you have games with the linear story, but it is integrated. This is Half-Life, Portal, or Passage. There are no cut-scenes. There is no dialogue to read. But the story is told to the player in part through the actual game mechanics and presentation. You solve a frustrating Portal Puzzle, which gives you a particular feeling, and then GLADOS says something appropriate. In Half-Life 2, you ride a boat down a river like a Hollywood action scene at a pace and style of your choosing. In a way you are directing the story, or the game decisions you make effect the story, and watching it on Youtube is not a replacement because the feelings you have of playing the game itself are lost.
The final combination is integrated non-linear story. This is the Dwarf Fortress or the Minecraft. You make the story.
Any game that falls into category 1 or 2, which is most of the big time games, would be better off as a movie, or a straight up choose your own adventure. Occasionally these stories are attached to good games, but they are still not integrated. You may as well separate them into two separate works.
To use the example I've used 1000 times. What if I took the LotR movies and showed you one scene at a time? Then in order to see the next scene, you had to solve a puzzle. You would be fucking pissed off. So how come when a JRPG shows you one scene at a time with a "kill the monster" puzzle in between each one you think its a masterpiece?
I also find it incredibly strange that the same people who are willing to pay $50 for the privilege of suffering through hours and hours of crappy game in order to be rewarded with a tiny story are not willing to pay $20 to see a movie or TV show of amazingness, let alone invest an even lesser amount of time to read a book of even more amazingness.
I'd have to disagree with that sentiment about Dead Space. I found that the over the shoulder camera felt claustrophobic in a manufactured sense, and the moments that were supposed to be tense simply weren't. It was easy to tell when something was going to pop out, and the gameplay simply wasn't engaging with the shooting being unsatisfying.
The atmosphere was alright, too.
You disagree with my recollection of my own opinion about Dead Space? That's a little rude. I didn't say that dead space is good. Just that I like it.
Wow, someone is quite touchy. No, I didn't disagree with your recollection. You're allowed to like something. I like Twisted Metal because I have good memories of it, even though it was probably crap. What I disagreed with was the underlying sentiment, which I assumed was that Dead Space had good atmosphere and was engaging. I played it and my experience was the exact opposite.
Just because stories suck in games in comparison to other mediums does not make it an inherently worse medium for storytelling. Video games are a hell of a lot younger a medium than books.
I'm not hedging into this particular issue or conversation, but I'm reading this book, and at least part of this sounds like confirmation bias. The book itself is written in such a way that a huge amount of the exercises are specifically there to show that there's room for interpretation and complexity. Hell the introduction makes a point that the authors realize as much, and they simply feel it's a waste of energy to go into said detail at every turn.
To use the example I've used 1000 times. What if I took the LotR movies and showed you one scene at a time? Then in order to see the next scene, you had to solve a puzzle. You would be fucking pissed off. So how come when a JRPG shows you one scene at a time with a "kill the monster" puzzle in between each one you think its a masterpiece?
Sure if I went in thinking that I would watch LotR move I would be pissed, but usually I know beforehand what kind of media I'm about to consume. Thus I know to judge movies as movies and video games as video games.
I'd have to disagree with that sentiment about Dead Space. I found that the over the shoulder camera felt claustrophobic in a manufactured sense, and the moments that were supposed to be tense simply weren't. It was easy to tell when something was going to pop out, and the gameplay simply wasn't engaging with the shooting being unsatisfying.
The atmosphere was alright, too.
You disagree with my recollection of my own opinion about Dead Space? That's a little rude. I didn't say that dead space is good. Just that I like it.
Wow, someone is quite touchy. No, I didn't disagree with your recollection. You're allowed to like something. I like Twisted Metal because I have good memories of it, even though it was probably crap. What I disagreed with was the underlying sentiment, which I assumed was that Dead Space had good atmosphere and was engaging. I played it and my experience was the exact opposite.
Sorry, I didn't mean to be touchy, and I meant that to come off more humorous than admonishing.
I was just trying to say that a fair part of the problem with this sort of discussion seems people's tendency to misread personal taste as a judgement of objective quality. Be it their own or others.
Just because stories suck in games in comparison to other mediums does not make it an inherently worse medium for storytelling. Video games are a hell of a lot younger a medium than books.
I don't think anyone has said this. I will, however, agree that if you look at the video games that currently exist there are extremely few with scripted stories that are truly greats for the ages. All of the games that are greats of all time have achieved that status due to their game components, such as Tetris.
Especially if you just consider the modern AAA titles from major publishers that are story focused, almost none have a story that is worth a half a shit.
I fully believe games are capable of reaching these high levels of storytelling, but they have yet to do so in any respectable quantity. The people writing the linear stories are either not the top tier talent, or they are putting their better works into other mediums. They may also simply still be learning the medium, and are not able to utilize its full power.
The games that tell their own story are still in their infancy, e.g: Dwarf Fortress, and it will be many years until that develops.
In the mean time, the only games with legendary stories will be the tabletop RPGs.
I'd have to disagree with that sentiment about Dead Space. I found that the over the shoulder camera felt claustrophobic in a manufactured sense, and the moments that were supposed to be tense simply weren't. It was easy to tell when something was going to pop out, and the gameplay simply wasn't engaging with the shooting being unsatisfying.
The atmosphere was alright, too.
You disagree with my recollection of my own opinion about Dead Space? That's a little rude. I didn't say that dead space is good. Just that I like it.
Wow, someone is quite touchy. No, I didn't disagree with your recollection. You're allowed to like something. I like Twisted Metal because I have good memories of it, even though it was probably crap. What I disagreed with was the underlying sentiment, which I assumed was that Dead Space had good atmosphere and was engaging. I played it and my experience was the exact opposite.
Sorry, I didn't mean to be touchy, and I meant that to come off more humorous than admonishing.
I was just trying to say that a fair part of the problem with this sort of discussion seems people's tendency to misread personal taste as a judgement of objective quality. Be it their own or others.
Neat. Let's discuss Dead Space more. Does it get better as the game progresses? I only put a couple hours into it, and got pretty bored with just about everything. Maybe it's because I'm used to my scary games being more atmospheric than jumpy? Like System Shock 2. I dunno, I'm struggling to remember scary games I've played, although I know I do love them.
Just because stories suck in games in comparison to other mediums does not make it an inherently worse medium for storytelling. Video games are a hell of a lot younger a medium than books.
I don't think anyone has said this.
No one except Andrew.
Video games are a fairly poor storytelling medium.
People should stop focusing on the story aspect. I more often praise a game because it's writing rather than story, because even games with less satisfactory story can have quite good writing.
Scott not that your argument is invalid, but it falls more into the realm of psychology. I get almost no pleasure from a movie or TV show anymore, but pressing buttons and watching things happen on screen gives me more of those lovely endorphins.
These particular story-games should be viewed as a story experiencing medium and not a story-telling medium. Similarly, the life of my MMORPG characters was a story I experienced, not necessarily a story I was told or witnessed. And this obviously doesn't apply to games like a linear JRPG.
This is in some sense no different than the notion of knowing your audience, and knowing how the audience differs between a radio show, a book, a play, and a movie.
There's a meaningful difference between iterating through all possible (Dragon Age) plots and decisions and taking a single arc of decisions based on how you feel about the material at the time. You have to put yourself in a relationship closer to the audience in a live action performance to perhaps see the difference. And certainly, most attempts at this don't live up to the potential.
Wow, that is absolutely not what I argued. Go back and read it again. Or, let me dictate it specifically for you:
Me: Video games are a fairly poor storytelling medium. MATATA :That may be true but how good the medium is doesn't determine how good the story is. Me: Video game stories are pretty bad (as well).
Now, perhaps I was a bit terse with my argument, but I really don't see how you could think that I am arguing that video games are a poor story telling medium because the stories are bad.
Scott not that your argument is invalid, but it falls more into the realm of psychology. I get almost no pleasure from a movie or TV show anymore, but pressing buttons and watching things happen on screen gives me more of those lovely endorphins.
Neat. Let's discuss Dead Space more. Does it get better as the game progresses? I only put a couple hours into it, and got pretty bored with just about everything. Maybe it's because I'm used to my scary games being more atmospheric than jumpy? Like System Shock 2. I dunno, I'm struggling to remember scary games I've played, although I know I do love them.
The first one doesn't really change all that much from the first few hours. The fights get bigger, and there are a few decent "Oh god please don't let that thing living in the walls eat me" moments, but if you didn't like the beginning I doubt you'd like the rest of it.
The sequel does a better job by giving you more varied settings and enemies. The little baby suicide bombs are particularly creepy.
Neat. Let's discuss Dead Space more. Does it get better as the game progresses? I only put a couple hours into it, and got pretty bored with just about everything. Maybe it's because I'm used to my scary games being more atmospheric than jumpy? Like System Shock 2. I dunno, I'm struggling to remember scary games I've played, although I know I do love them.
The first one doesn't really change all that much from the first few hours. The fights get bigger, and there are a few decent "Oh god please don't let that thing living in the walls eat me" moments, but if you didn't like the beginning I doubt you'd like the rest of it.
The sequel does a better job by giving you more varied settings and enemies. The little baby suicide bombs are particularly creepy.
I'll give the second one a shot then, after I pick it up cheap on a Steam sale.
Video games are an inherently worse medium for story than books or movies because the amount of freedom given to a player character is inversely proportional to the authors' ability to control the story.
Video games are an inherently worse medium for story than books or movies because the amount of freedom given to a player character is inversely proportional to the authors' ability to control the story.
Furthermore, the cost/time to story ratio is significantly lower when compared to other mediums.
Neat. Let's discuss Dead Space more. Does it get better as the game progresses? I only put a couple hours into it, and got pretty bored with just about everything. Maybe it's because I'm used to my scary games being more atmospheric than jumpy? Like System Shock 2. I dunno, I'm struggling to remember scary games I've played, although I know I do love them.
The first one doesn't really change all that much from the first few hours. The fights get bigger, and there are a few decent "Oh god please don't let that thing living in the walls eat me" moments, but if you didn't like the beginning I doubt you'd like the rest of it.
The sequel does a better job by giving you more varied settings and enemies. The little baby suicide bombs are particularly creepy.
I'll give the second one a shot then, after I pick it up cheap on a Steam sale.
Good call, I really like it, but I wouldn't pay more than about $20 for it.
Wow, that is absolutely not what I argued. Go back and read it again. Or, let me dictate it specifically for you:
Me: Video games are a fairly poor storytelling medium. MATATA :That may be true but how good the medium is doesn't determine how good the story is. Me: Video game stories are pretty bad (as well).
Now, perhaps I was a bit terse with my argument, but I really don't see how you could think that I am arguing that video games are a poor story telling medium because the stories are bad.
Uhhh, I think we are misunderstanding each other because I wasn't drawing that conclusion. I was extending your point in the first post then disagreeing with you that most games have worse stories than any other medium in the second post. There are some shit movies out there that have the most groanworthy plots ever, and there are a lot of them. I wouldn't say games are the worst, I would say they have equal ground with other mediums, but it is a lot harder to tell a good story because the medium wasn't designed around storytelling.
Uhhh, I think we are misunderstanding each other because I wasn't drawing that conclusion. I was extending your point in the first post then disagreeing with you that most games have worse stories than any other medium in the second post.
You also need to read the thread. Sail was arguing (wrongly) the point I just mentioned in the quoted post.
Sorry I responded to your baiting, unclear, and terse statement
Regardless, you're still arguing that video games are inherently worse a medium for stories, and I argued that it's a lot younger a medium so it hasn't been used optimally yet. One day we'll reach the Watchmen of video games, but for now we're just looking at cave paintings and hieroglyphs.
I find the notion that "Video games are a fairly poor storytelling medium." to be blatantly ridiculous. Just because nobody has portrayed a story perfectly in it yet, doesn't mean that it can't be done or that the medium of video games is incapable of doing so.
What I will say video games are a very difficult medium to portray a story in, because it being an completely interactive medium requires additional resources and thought processes on how to portray the story. It is very difficult keeping a player engaged and following a story without making it obvious or trying to railroad them through it.
It also doesn't help that video games are a very young medium, and whose development was so far has been primarily focused on presentation and gameplay, rather than storytelling.
There are however stories for which video games are the only suitable medium. Play Spec Ops: The Line (20 bucks on steam) or The Stanley Parable (which is a free Source Mod), the story of both hinge on the fact that you as a player are actively making decisions and choosing how to interact with the game, both of which creating emotional experience which could not be created in film or literature.
He means that general lack of statefullness. Which I agree with even though I still enjoy the game intensely.
Though that didn't come from hats or even from "hats", but the sidegrade guns and weapons. Though those things came at the same time it's not the same thing.
He means that general lack of statefullness. Which I agree with even though I still enjoy the game intensely.
Probably just a typo or an errant thought, but I believe you mean the introduction of statefulness, not the lack thereof. Rym and Scott are opposed to statefulness in competitive online games.
However, for one, I don't think this is enough to make a suitable or useable game into a bad one, and secondly I'd think Rym would make that statement more clear unless he was sarcastic.
Is this meant sarcastic, or do you actually think a purely cosmetic, and completely voluntary feature can make a game "bad"?
The cosmetic features and the focus put on them caused the community to shift, so many its members were people who actually cared about hats, and would run popular servers that were primarily set up so people could get hats. Team-based gameplay took a huge hit. For a game that only works playing multiplayer, having a shitty playerbase is an objective failure.
I think there is a clash between different meanings of the word "story" here. If we take the standard meaning of the word, a story is simply a recounting of a sequence of events, and I think the points made by Jason and Andrew above are entirely valid when you take that into account.
This is not to say that the interactive experience provided by a video game doesn't have its own advantages in communicating certain concepts or emotions - it definitely does. However, while certain unique aspects of videogames can be highly effective vehicles for communication, those aspects don't really count as "story".
He means that general lack of statefullness. Which I agree with even though I still enjoy the game intensely.
Probably just a typo or an errant thought, but I believe you mean the introduction of statefulness, not the lack thereof. Rym and Scott are opposed to statefulness in competitive online games.
However, for one, I don't think this is enough to make a suitable or useable game into a bad one, and secondly I'd think Rym would make that statement more clear unless he was sarcastic.
Comments
A game like FFVII the story is not integrated with the game in any way. You can experience the entire story on Youtube without losing anything. Just watch the cutscenes and read some of the dialogue. Almost all games, including ones that are being used as examples, fall into this category. This is what happens when someone who failed to get into the film industry makes games. These are very popular among people who don't actually like games, but think they do because it is called a game. Great way to make a movie and charge $50 for it.
Then you have some games that are still not integrated, but are choose your own adventure style. Chrono Trigger is an example of this, but so are the Dragon Ages and Fallouts of the world. You can still watch these on YouTube, but you need to watch multiple endings and such to see everything. It will still save you a fuckton of time since you won't have to replay the entire game to see the other content. There are sometimes small changes in minor story parts of the game, but they are rather meaningless.
Then you have games with the linear story, but it is integrated. This is Half-Life, Portal, or Passage. There are no cut-scenes. There is no dialogue to read. But the story is told to the player in part through the actual game mechanics and presentation. You solve a frustrating Portal Puzzle, which gives you a particular feeling, and then GLADOS says something appropriate. In Half-Life 2, you ride a boat down a river like a Hollywood action scene at a pace and style of your choosing. In a way you are directing the story, or the game decisions you make effect the story, and watching it on Youtube is not a replacement because the feelings you have of playing the game itself are lost.
The final combination is integrated non-linear story. This is the Dwarf Fortress or the Minecraft. You make the story.
Any game that falls into category 1 or 2, which is most of the big time games, would be better off as a movie, or a straight up choose your own adventure. Occasionally these stories are attached to good games, but they are still not integrated. You may as well separate them into two separate works.
To use the example I've used 1000 times. What if I took the LotR movies and showed you one scene at a time? Then in order to see the next scene, you had to solve a puzzle. You would be fucking pissed off. So how come when a JRPG shows you one scene at a time with a "kill the monster" puzzle in between each one you think its a masterpiece?
I also find it incredibly strange that the same people who are willing to pay $50 for the privilege of suffering through hours and hours of crappy game in order to be rewarded with a tiny story are not willing to pay $20 to see a movie or TV show of amazingness, let alone invest an even lesser amount of time to read a book of even more amazingness.
I was just trying to say that a fair part of the problem with this sort of discussion seems people's tendency to misread personal taste as a judgement of objective quality. Be it their own or others.
Especially if you just consider the modern AAA titles from major publishers that are story focused, almost none have a story that is worth a half a shit.
I fully believe games are capable of reaching these high levels of storytelling, but they have yet to do so in any respectable quantity. The people writing the linear stories are either not the top tier talent, or they are putting their better works into other mediums. They may also simply still be learning the medium, and are not able to utilize its full power.
The games that tell their own story are still in their infancy, e.g: Dwarf Fortress, and it will be many years until that develops.
In the mean time, the only games with legendary stories will be the tabletop RPGs.
This is in some sense no different than the notion of knowing your audience, and knowing how the audience differs between a radio show, a book, a play, and a movie.
There's a meaningful difference between iterating through all possible (Dragon Age) plots and decisions and taking a single arc of decisions based on how you feel about the material at the time. You have to put yourself in a relationship closer to the audience in a live action performance to perhaps see the difference. And certainly, most attempts at this don't live up to the potential.
Me: Video games are a fairly poor storytelling medium.
MATATA :That may be true but how good the medium is doesn't determine how good the story is.
Me: Video game stories are pretty bad (as well).
Now, perhaps I was a bit terse with my argument, but I really don't see how you could think that I am arguing that video games are a poor story telling medium because the stories are bad.
The sequel does a better job by giving you more varied settings and enemies. The little baby suicide bombs are particularly creepy.
Regardless, you're still arguing that video games are inherently worse a medium for stories, and I argued that it's a lot younger a medium so it hasn't been used optimally yet. One day we'll reach the Watchmen of video games, but for now we're just looking at cave paintings and hieroglyphs.
What I will say video games are a very difficult medium to portray a story in, because it being an completely interactive medium requires additional resources and thought processes on how to portray the story. It is very difficult keeping a player engaged and following a story without making it obvious or trying to railroad them through it.
It also doesn't help that video games are a very young medium, and whose development was so far has been primarily focused on presentation and gameplay, rather than storytelling.
There are however stories for which video games are the only suitable medium. Play Spec Ops: The Line (20 bucks on steam) or The Stanley Parable (which is a free Source Mod), the story of both hinge on the fact that you as a player are actively making decisions and choosing how to interact with the game, both of which creating emotional experience which could not be created in film or literature.
However, for one, I don't think this is enough to make a suitable or useable game into a bad one, and secondly I'd think Rym would make that statement more clear unless he was sarcastic.
This is not to say that the interactive experience provided by a video game doesn't have its own advantages in communicating certain concepts or emotions - it definitely does. However, while certain unique aspects of videogames can be highly effective vehicles for communication, those aspects don't really count as "story".