That David Jaffe guy might had some good points in his speech, but I didn't like the way he expressed them. His initial statement was "don't try to tell stories in your games", but from the rest of the speech it seemed that his message was more towards "don't try to combine films and games".
I think that the later is a good point while first is not. Of course trying to tell stories in games using methods of film is a bad idea, kinda if we would still look films though techniques of theater. If game maker want to tell story with their game they shouldn't look towards films, or books or comics, they should try to tell the story with the game.
So will this be the Beyond the Sword for Civ V or Warlords? have they at least made multiplayer playable?
The spy feature worries me a little, in that the biggest thing he talked about is solely useful in single-player (learning the AI's plans). I know there are other spy functions noted, but the focus here on this single-player-only feature implies at least a little that they're not prioritizing fixing the multiplayer.
His initial statement was "don't try to tell stories in your games", but from the rest of the speech it seemed that his message was more towards "don't try to combine films and games".
I think that the later is a good point while first is not.
I would take away a simpler piece of advice.
If you start with a set story and try to work a game around it, you're probably going to make a bad game. Mechanics are the core of any truly great game, and should be the primary focus. If story comes first and foremost over gameplay, then why even have the game there? It will inevitably cause one or the other to feel tacked on.
If you start by thinking "I want to tell this story..." and you're making a game, you're probably going down the wrong path.
His initial statement was "don't try to tell stories in your games", but from the rest of the speech it seemed that his message was more towards "don't try to combine films and games".
I think that the later is a good point while first is not.
I would take away a simpler piece of advice.
If you start with a set story and try to work a game around it, you're probably going to make a bad game. Mechanics are the core of any truly great game, and should be the primary focus. If story comes first and foremost over gameplay, then why even have the game there? It will inevitably cause one or the other to feel tacked on.
If you start by thinking "I want to tell this story..." and you're making a game, you're probably going down the wrong path.
This is just as true for pen and paper. If the ability of the player to "play" is taken away for any reason at any point there is a fundamental flaw in the design.
If you start with a set story and try to work a game around it, you're probably going to make a bad game.
I agree with the basic direction, but I would stop at this sentence, because...
Mechanics are the core of any truly great game, and should be the primary focus.
This seems to presume that the narrative and the mechanics are separate forces. They often are, but sometimes they overlap. It's more of a venn diagram. Just look at Fiasco or Dread... the mechanics are literally a part of the narrative. The tension/mood is part and parcel with the mechanics. And that's really more of what we want the narrative and mechanics to be, I think.
Actually I was reading the "Kobold guide to game design" a little while ago, and there's some interesting discourse by designers on both sides of the isle. You can create a game with fantastic mechanics and then just paint the most fitting/appropriate narrative on the game... but you can also be informed by the narrative so that the game takes on interesting paths all its own. Both methods are valid and interesting, at least as far as I can tell.
The mechanics of Dread are not literally part of the narrative. Your narrative is not "Bob failed to pull 5 Jenga pieces successfully."
What I think you mean to say is that many games use the mechanics to drive the narrative in very specific directions. The mechanics themselves also help build the mood for the game. Dread is the perfect example - the more you do, the closer you get to inevitable failure. As the Jenga tower gets more unstable, you become progressively less sure about taking any given action. That is a prime example of mechanics driving the narrative.
And really, that's what any good game should be - a set of mechanics that colors a narrative in a particular way.
I agree with Rym - if you want to tell a story and think, "OK, I need to make a game," you're doing it wrong. The way it should go is "I want to build a game that tells this sort of story," that's more like it.
His initial statement was "don't try to tell stories in your games", but from the rest of the speech it seemed that his message was more towards "don't try to combine films and games".
I think that the later is a good point while first is not.
I would take away a simpler piece of advice.
If you start with a set story and try to work a game around it, you're probably going to make a bad game. Mechanics are the core of any truly great game, and should be the primary focus. If story comes first and foremost over gameplay, then why even have the game there? It will inevitably cause one or the other to feel tacked on.
If you start by thinking "I want to tell this story..." and you're making a game, you're probably going down the wrong path.
If you start with a set story and then try to think the game part you have already failed, yes. But what I believe to be the key for optimal combination of story and gameplay is to think at them at the same time. Maybe first have a idea for what you want to tell with your story, "I want story that is all about group of people in some sort of crisis and how they see the situation in different ways, how they all have their strengths and weaknesses and how they have to learn to overcome some of their weaknesses to survive." Then think what kind of gameplay mechanics could enrich that story idea. "Different levels are played as different characters and the gameplay, level design and other stuff focuses to show that characters strengths and weaknesses. Maybe one character is strong fighting type so their level is more about action and beating enemies, but the level is also maze like to represent characters fear that they might not find a way of out the situation they are in."
In a good combination of gameplay and storytelling the gameplay, what player does should bring something to the story, it should be meaningful to the story. Actually let me put it in this way, in good mix of gameplay and story, what player does is the story.
Edit: And as I wrote this, other people told this same thing but in lesser words and better.
The mechanics of Dread are not literally part of the narrative. Your narrative is not "Bob failed to pull 5 Jenga pieces successfully."
I guess I'm using the word narrative to describe something else that encompasses both the "narrative" and the "narrative of the players". So both the narrative and the meta narrative. The dread tower informs the tension.
When the tower is unstable, performing something that requires a pull is "risky". When the tower is still very stable, performing something that requires a pull is "less risky". As such, by being part of the meta narrative it translates directly into the narrative. It's part of the story of the game. Unlike how rolling dice in most RPGs dictates an outcome, they inform the game in post, instead of the towers pre.
Passive Media is for Story Telling. Active Media is for Story Doing.
If you are using active media to tell a story, you're doing it wrong.
That isn't to say that you can't break this rule (that's why rules are made) but before you can get away with breaking it you have to be pretty damn good at following it.
Ah, I see. But rolling dice can have the same effect, though in a less immediate way.
Actually, Danger Patrol has something like that, with the handing out of Danger Dice. Generally, that sort of meta physical interaction with the system helps reinforce what's going on in the game.
But I don't really call that "meta narrative" per se. To me, "meta narrative" is what you do when you tell the story of the table-level action. "Oh man, last time, Pete threw this fucking dragon at me. Like, literally threw it. I failed to Lock it, so it got a Strike in..." and so forth. When the mechanics inform the narrative, I just call that part of the game narrative.
But we're sort of splitting hairs on that point. I think we're both saying that your game mechanics need to drive your narrative, and really really good game mechanics will actually create part of the narrative on their own, just as a byproduct of how they work.
I'm struggling with words for whatever reason for the last week or so.
All I'm really trying to say is building great mechanics without any regard for anything narrative would be bad in similar ways to how designing a fantastic narrative with no concern for good mechanics would be bad.
And you can do either of those things and make a great thing (as some designers claim they do), so it's not a hard rule.
True facts. That's why I'm a big big fan of the indie RPG trend. Developers are making systems that matter because they're tied in directly with the narrative.
I suppose it's possible to build a story-focused video game that doesn't suck. Is it possible that everyone who's tried to this point is just really fucking bad at it?
Actually, Half-Life (the first one) is a good example of mechanics blending into narrative in a video game. The original game lacked obvious cutscenes, so it kept the tension and the pace constant. Things would just...happen. And you'd have to react. That helped reinforce the feel of "OH GOD I'M IN THE MIDDLE OF SHIT OH GOD."
I think the problem is that we don't have a shorter word for what I'm calling "Interactive Media Experiences", like a JRPG or Elevator: Source. I would put those in the same category. They can be fun, but I would hesitate to even call them a game, let alone put them in the same category as, say, Counter-Strike, or Mario. They're more akin to an enhanced movie, where I create my own by playing. That's still a valid form of entertainment.
Definitely true. However, I do not want the Game Industry to become the Interactive Media Experience Industry. I believe the "perfect game" would be able to evoke significantly stronger emotions from the player than the "perfect IME".
In an IME, the emotion you're feeling is whatever the director intended for that particular moment - you laugh when the bad guy gets hurt; you get scared when you're in danger. In a game, the emotion is just evoked through some random variables and generated situations - you laugh when you notice that the hunter dorf is returning without a kill while his cat has a rat in its mouth; you get scared when you see a tribe of goblins march towards your fortress.
In fact, first person shooters are a unique example, because they typically offer both. Single player is more of an IME while multiplayer is a straight-up game. The game has significantly greater replayability than the IME. If you talk to a die-hard fan of Halo or Call of Duty, they are far more likely to tell some stories from multiplayer games than relay their experiences about going through the airport scene in MW2.
I suppose it's possible to build a story-focused video game that doesn't suck. Is it possible that everyone who's tried to this point is just really fucking bad at it?
Game storylines are frequently hampered by production itself. A game's design and philosophy will change throughout its development - features get cut, budgets get adjusted, creators quit. These changes can affect the storyline in difficult ways - suddenly the snow level is cancelled, so they need to adjust the narrative. Mass Effect, for example, avoided a lot of these problems by offering smaller episodes that can be played in any order, and rarely have an effect on one-another. The series succeeded as a result, but it is still unfortunate that the storyline has to be so restrictive, when a film can be far more flexible and, as a result, creative.
From the game writers I have talked to, generally they are brought in towards the end of the games production and have to write something that ties everything together. Rarely are games build from the beginning with writers on staff who are crafting the narrative as the game goes along.
Luckily we seem to be seeing more of this thanks to the success of games like BioShock, Mass Effect, and Skyrim. But right now it's still hard to for studios to have someone who's job it is to be just a game writer, and on top of that there aren't many writers who actually know how to write for games.
I suppose it's possible to build a story-focused video game that doesn't suck. Is it possible that everyone who's tried to this point is just really fucking bad at it?
Game storylines are frequently hampered by production itself. A game's design and philosophy will change throughout its development - features get cut, budgets get adjusted, creators quit. These changes can affect the storyline in difficult ways - suddenly the snow level is cancelled, so they need to adjust the narrative. Mass Effect, for example, avoided a lot of these problems by offering smaller episodes that can be played in any order, and rarely have an effect on one-another. The series succeeded as a result, but it is still unfortunate that the storyline has to be so restrictive, when a film can be far more flexible and, as a result, creative.
Holy shit that bearded guy is a fucked up dude. "IM GONNA SMELL YOU"
Having been unaware of what goes on in the fighting game community, I was shocked and apalled at just how bad it could be. Like the article, I want to know why Beardy McCreepyPants didn't get called on any of this? Did they legitimately think this is acceptable behavior?
I don't think I've ever seen anyone get away with shit like that, even with the more fucked up frat guys where I went college (on long island lol). It doesn't seem like people are really into what he's saying, though, so maybe it's just one of those things where it's awkward for everyone and no one has the guts to say anything?
Also side note: apparently there's some new Baldur's Gate kind of thing being made?? Supposedly headed up by an original BG dev who recently left Bioware.
Interesting note: While /r/gaming is a cesspool of inbred goomba-whallopers, /r/truegaming seems to have relatively high-level and in-depth discussions.
Interesting note: While /r/gaming is a cesspool of inbred goomba-whallopers, /r/truegaming seems to have relatively high-level and in-depth discussions.
Interesting note: While /r/gaming is a cesspool of inbred goomba-whallopers, /r/truegaming seems to have relatively high-level and in-depth discussions.
Huh. It's almost as if running a giant community solely based on up/downvotes is a really terrible idea.
Really, I never thought that I would buy another game console, but that sounds so amazingly scrumptious that I would camp out to buy it on day one.
I find the open component intriguing, but I am a little concerned about the modular controller idea. Seems like too many fiddly bits (console compatibility, controller pieces, more expensive hardware for Rock Band-like gaming) would only lead to compatibility issues.
Also, I encourage everyone to check out the comments section of that article. Celebration gifs galore!
I already have Steam Box. It's called Windows Computer connected to television.
Yeah, the Steam Box is very much not for nerds. But it will still benefit us as PC gamers, I think, because it will make PC gaming more accessible to console fans. I'd also seriously consider buying the Steam Controller, though it would have to find a way to be better than my Xbox 360 controller.
I already have Steam Box. It's called Windows Computer connected to television.
Yeah, the Steam Box is very much not for nerds. But it will still benefit us as PC gamers, I think, because it will make PC gaming more accessible to console fans. I'd also seriously consider buying the Steam Controller, though it would have to find a way to be better than my Xbox 360 controller.
My biggest hope is not for the box itself, but for the effect it has on the market. Right now all consoles are closed systems. You need a deal with Microsoft, Nintendo, or SONY to get your game on there. Sure, Microsoft has XBLA and Indie games, but those are kind of a ghetto. If the Steam box is really just Steam on a box, and it becomes a popular console in the mass market, that's huge. It means any tiny dev that can get a game on Steam can get a game on the console. That will bring all the game development effort back to the PC. It has the potential to be the dawn of another golden age.
Now go back and listen to the oldest GeekNights episodes from '05 and '06 where we talked about PC gaming being dead. It was very sad at that time, indeed, so cut us some slack.
Also, does the fact that MS, SONY and Nintendo have been extending this console cycle for extra years play into this? Is that what created the weak spot for Valve/Steam and iOS/Android to attack?
Comments
I think that the later is a good point while first is not. Of course trying to tell stories in games using methods of film is a bad idea, kinda if we would still look films though techniques of theater. If game maker want to tell story with their game they shouldn't look towards films, or books or comics, they should try to tell the story with the game.
So will this be the Beyond the Sword for Civ V or Warlords? have they at least made multiplayer playable?
If you start with a set story and try to work a game around it, you're probably going to make a bad game. Mechanics are the core of any truly great game, and should be the primary focus. If story comes first and foremost over gameplay, then why even have the game there? It will inevitably cause one or the other to feel tacked on.
If you start by thinking "I want to tell this story..." and you're making a game, you're probably going down the wrong path.
Actually I was reading the "Kobold guide to game design" a little while ago, and there's some interesting discourse by designers on both sides of the isle. You can create a game with fantastic mechanics and then just paint the most fitting/appropriate narrative on the game... but you can also be informed by the narrative so that the game takes on interesting paths all its own. Both methods are valid and interesting, at least as far as I can tell.
What I think you mean to say is that many games use the mechanics to drive the narrative in very specific directions. The mechanics themselves also help build the mood for the game. Dread is the perfect example - the more you do, the closer you get to inevitable failure. As the Jenga tower gets more unstable, you become progressively less sure about taking any given action. That is a prime example of mechanics driving the narrative.
And really, that's what any good game should be - a set of mechanics that colors a narrative in a particular way.
I agree with Rym - if you want to tell a story and think, "OK, I need to make a game," you're doing it wrong. The way it should go is "I want to build a game that tells this sort of story," that's more like it.
In a good combination of gameplay and storytelling the gameplay, what player does should bring something to the story, it should be meaningful to the story. Actually let me put it in this way, in good mix of gameplay and story, what player does is the story.
Edit: And as I wrote this, other people told this same thing but in lesser words and better.
When the tower is unstable, performing something that requires a pull is "risky". When the tower is still very stable, performing something that requires a pull is "less risky". As such, by being part of the meta narrative it translates directly into the narrative. It's part of the story of the game. Unlike how rolling dice in most RPGs dictates an outcome, they inform the game in post, instead of the towers pre.
Active Media is for Story Doing.
If you are using active media to tell a story, you're doing it wrong.
That isn't to say that you can't break this rule (that's why rules are made) but before you can get away with breaking it you have to be pretty damn good at following it.
Actually, Danger Patrol has something like that, with the handing out of Danger Dice. Generally, that sort of meta physical interaction with the system helps reinforce what's going on in the game.
But I don't really call that "meta narrative" per se. To me, "meta narrative" is what you do when you tell the story of the table-level action. "Oh man, last time, Pete threw this fucking dragon at me. Like, literally threw it. I failed to Lock it, so it got a Strike in..." and so forth. When the mechanics inform the narrative, I just call that part of the game narrative.
But we're sort of splitting hairs on that point. I think we're both saying that your game mechanics need to drive your narrative, and really really good game mechanics will actually create part of the narrative on their own, just as a byproduct of how they work.
All I'm really trying to say is building great mechanics without any regard for anything narrative would be bad in similar ways to how designing a fantastic narrative with no concern for good mechanics would be bad.
And you can do either of those things and make a great thing (as some designers claim they do), so it's not a hard rule.
I suppose it's possible to build a story-focused video game that doesn't suck. Is it possible that everyone who's tried to this point is just really fucking bad at it?
Actually, Half-Life (the first one) is a good example of mechanics blending into narrative in a video game. The original game lacked obvious cutscenes, so it kept the tension and the pace constant. Things would just...happen. And you'd have to react. That helped reinforce the feel of "OH GOD I'M IN THE MIDDLE OF SHIT OH GOD."
In an IME, the emotion you're feeling is whatever the director intended for that particular moment - you laugh when the bad guy gets hurt; you get scared when you're in danger.
In a game, the emotion is just evoked through some random variables and generated situations - you laugh when you notice that the hunter dorf is returning without a kill while his cat has a rat in its mouth; you get scared when you see a tribe of goblins march towards your fortress.
In fact, first person shooters are a unique example, because they typically offer both. Single player is more of an IME while multiplayer is a straight-up game. The game has significantly greater replayability than the IME. If you talk to a die-hard fan of Halo or Call of Duty, they are far more likely to tell some stories from multiplayer games than relay their experiences about going through the airport scene in MW2.
WELP, LOOKS LIKE I'LL BE GETTING A 3DS EVENTUALLY THEN.
Luckily we seem to be seeing more of this thanks to the success of games like BioShock, Mass Effect, and Skyrim. But right now it's still hard to for studios to have someone who's job it is to be just a game writer, and on top of that there aren't many writers who actually know how to write for games.
Bravo, PAR. Bravo.
Also side note: apparently there's some new Baldur's Gate kind of thing being made?? Supposedly headed up by an original BG dev who recently left Bioware.
I find the open component intriguing, but I am a little concerned about the modular controller idea. Seems like too many fiddly bits (console compatibility, controller pieces, more expensive hardware for Rock Band-like gaming) would only lead to compatibility issues.
Also, I encourage everyone to check out the comments section of that article. Celebration gifs galore!
Now go back and listen to the oldest GeekNights episodes from '05 and '06 where we talked about PC gaming being dead. It was very sad at that time, indeed, so cut us some slack.
Also, does the fact that MS, SONY and Nintendo have been extending this console cycle for extra years play into this? Is that what created the weak spot for Valve/Steam and iOS/Android to attack?