I totally diagree with the Mr.Blow guy. Story is what drives any game, even the crappy ones. There are many games that integrate story and action perfectly. MGSm Fallout, Fable, any Bioware RPG, the list goes on.
Braid Dev: Story-Based Games Are Bogus
- Thread starter Keane Ng
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I agree with Blow, game play is what makes gaming superior to other forms of entertainment. Stories should augment game play and not the other way arround. Often I get the feeling designers want to be recognised on par with movie directors. However in doing so they are turning gaming into a movie where you have to mash the buttons to advance the plot. The greatest game story should be the one the player makes up themselves. Like that time I was crouching behind these boxes in de_dust when 1/2 the enemy team runs by without giving my bolt hole a seccond glance...
I know this won't happen but if they were to get rid of the story and make it all about challenge, I would probably have to go into gaming and write the best story ever, or just stop buying new games. i like games with long cinematics to be honest.
I hated Fable 2 for it's lack of a good story. The gameplay was fine but the story blew. By the way Fable 2 has no challenge, just by using 4 buttons you can beat the game, x,y,a,left analog.
I hated Fable 2 for it's lack of a good story. The gameplay was fine but the story blew. By the way Fable 2 has no challenge, just by using 4 buttons you can beat the game, x,y,a,left analog.
Heavy Rain really intrigues me.Indigo_Dingo said:
It almost seems to BE a Choose Your Own Adventure Book, only with prettier graphics.
I'm not sure how they'll keep the whole "no dying thing.".
I don't quite get it. Is he stating there are no wrong choices in the game(Which eliminates challenge), or that the game will eventually do the challenge for you(Prince of Persia)?
*Sigh* Another gem from Jonathan Blow.
I can't quite decide whether he's completely genuine, or if he's just cynically trying to keep himself in the limelight. Let's face it, before Braid, Blow was hardly a household name, and as loathe as I am to use a such a trite sentiment, 'out of sight, out of mind' seems oddly appropriate.
I can't quite decide whether he's completely genuine, or if he's just cynically trying to keep himself in the limelight. Let's face it, before Braid, Blow was hardly a household name, and as loathe as I am to use a such a trite sentiment, 'out of sight, out of mind' seems oddly appropriate.
And some can do both. In my current Star Wars Saga Edition tabletop game, we're fairly dice-heavy for combat, with very few checks and a lot of roleplaying for non-combat. One of my friends plays a droid, and min-maxes every chance he gets, ignoring a lot of roleplay for combat; my other friend plays a Jedi and is generally not so fussed about stats so much as recurring villains and saving the princess. A third friend really gets into combat AND roleplay, and is still the first person to ask "how much XP do I get?" at the end of every combat encounter. As for me, I'm just there for the experience. And every single viewpoint here exists within the same, physical tabletop game - why can't the same be said for digital games?nimrandir said:
I'll concede that in tabletop, things are definitely more flexible. But we all still play by the same rules - regardless of whether the DM hands out results arbitrarily or does everything by dice, as long as the min-maxer feels like his stats mean something, my friends have a constant flow of story and enemies to dispatch and struggle against, and I have a constant flow of action - be it combat or narrative - we're all happy.
Flow is everything. Jonathan Blow's argument is that story and gameplay are confrontational, but this assumes the two are separate - you're either in a gameplay section or a narrative section. I disagree, and state that a large number of games fall back on this in an attempt to fill time and content. Jonathan himself does it in Braid - story occurs at the start and end of each area, and the gameplay in-between is loosely linked to the narrative thematic. I'd argue it's still a good game, but that there would be even less point to the beautiful platforming WITHOUT the simple frame story and the bursts of plot between each level. Were the story linked to the gameplay better, events occurring mid-level, and the level objectives being tied to the plot better, the motivation would be even higher. It's for that very reason I ended up imagining a metaplot to explain the game events! I see it as the main character going back through his memories, time having broken them, and trying to piece together the events that have led to his current situation. Hence the jigsaw pieces, the stylised art, and the use of time as a game mechanic. Each piece is a memory. Perhaps this was not the artist's intent, but by having a frame story with gameplay inbetween, it greatly enhanced the experience for me. Had he directly stated this to be the case, rather than leaving it to my imagination, I suspect I'd have lost a little value, while those who did not imagine such (and just saw a time-manipulation item-collecting platformer) would've appreciated the flavourful story to colour it.
There's an excellent article about this at TVTropes.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GameplayAndStorySegregation
It doesn't have to be this way forever! I Have A Dream(cast)! One day, we will be able to understand and master the Gameplay-to-Story ratio [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StoryToGameplayRatio], and everyone will be happy! Or at least, I will. Sandbox games currently come fairly close to the perfect ratio (100% story to 1% story according to the player's wishes) as do games like Portal (100% gameplay supported by constant incoming story that can be assimilated or ignored at the player's wish). Not that they're the only genres capable of it, just that they're the current closest...
TLDR: Blow is wrong and I have some convincing arguments otherwise, including his own work.
I will agree to the point of games are gameplay focused when you have a story(or graphics) that are paid more attention to you have a situation of creating a game that's boring or simply unfun after the after glow wears off.
To me gaming is lackign in story and dialog(but no worse than hollywoods short sighted action flicks) there are alot of issues with dialog in games FO3 and ME just have crappy areas of dialog. Writing for the game industry needs to be better but is it more important than relearning gameplay(IE making games fun again) and begin creative with gameplay and control? Probably not....
To me gaming is lackign in story and dialog(but no worse than hollywoods short sighted action flicks) there are alot of issues with dialog in games FO3 and ME just have crappy areas of dialog. Writing for the game industry needs to be better but is it more important than relearning gameplay(IE making games fun again) and begin creative with gameplay and control? Probably not....
i think hes right, and wrong. a good story can make or break a game. i use Homeworld II as an example, the game play itself was a mess at times a poor example of an RTS, but the story pulled you through, i also cite a game like Warhammer 40K i totaly LOVEED the first game when you had a story over top of the missions. without that story id have never finshed the game since the game itself was just another C&C clone and not a very great example of it at that.
now if you look at this from his point of view though, hes saying in essence that the story was the REASON that the games i talk about were at best average from a mechanics point of view. i would argue however that there are only a certian number of game mechanics that can be used and that its the STORY that makes just another 'clone' of something thats been done a thousand times allready stand out.
another example is StarWars KoTor both 1 and 2. horrible from a 'pure' RPG mechanics point of view, yet two of the best games ive played. with this, as with all things in life, its a matter of taste. some of the BEST games are a combination of game and movie. im quite often touched by a movie and remeber the experiance, its not often i recall a game despite the fact that i can play a given game far longer than i spend watching a given movie and when i DO its because of the story and not the mechanics.
perhaps its because im an older gamer, but i recall back in the day when a game was all about the mechanics, most of the old Atari games you only got a 'story' by reading the Box it came in. but the ones that stand out and we remember were the ones that became 'expanded' like Pac-Man or even later generations like Mario, without the story of mario the 'thrill' of hopping on boxes and figuring out timed jumps looses its attraction right quick and while i have fond Memories of Pac-Man and Mario i certianly dont want to go back to playing those games again as my main staple. ive been there and done that as the saying go's
ive long since mastered how to play most types of gaming, the only thing LEFT to make one seem different from another is the story and how its presented. my feeling is that being able to 'master' a jumping puzzle/combat combination/quick time event is alot like learning how too ride a bike. its fun the fist time but once you have mastered it you dont really want too spend any more time trying to figure out how to ride a slightly different bike. id rather spend my time learning how to drive a car next, or fly a plane, or simply move away from learning how to 'master' vehicle controlls totaly and ........ go watch a movie.
now if you look at this from his point of view though, hes saying in essence that the story was the REASON that the games i talk about were at best average from a mechanics point of view. i would argue however that there are only a certian number of game mechanics that can be used and that its the STORY that makes just another 'clone' of something thats been done a thousand times allready stand out.
another example is StarWars KoTor both 1 and 2. horrible from a 'pure' RPG mechanics point of view, yet two of the best games ive played. with this, as with all things in life, its a matter of taste. some of the BEST games are a combination of game and movie. im quite often touched by a movie and remeber the experiance, its not often i recall a game despite the fact that i can play a given game far longer than i spend watching a given movie and when i DO its because of the story and not the mechanics.
perhaps its because im an older gamer, but i recall back in the day when a game was all about the mechanics, most of the old Atari games you only got a 'story' by reading the Box it came in. but the ones that stand out and we remember were the ones that became 'expanded' like Pac-Man or even later generations like Mario, without the story of mario the 'thrill' of hopping on boxes and figuring out timed jumps looses its attraction right quick and while i have fond Memories of Pac-Man and Mario i certianly dont want to go back to playing those games again as my main staple. ive been there and done that as the saying go's
ive long since mastered how to play most types of gaming, the only thing LEFT to make one seem different from another is the story and how its presented. my feeling is that being able to 'master' a jumping puzzle/combat combination/quick time event is alot like learning how too ride a bike. its fun the fist time but once you have mastered it you dont really want too spend any more time trying to figure out how to ride a slightly different bike. id rather spend my time learning how to drive a car next, or fly a plane, or simply move away from learning how to 'master' vehicle controlls totaly and ........ go watch a movie.
Story should augment gameplay, not the other way around: Right.
Games cannot have a good story without sacrificing gameplay: Very wrong.
Games cannot have a good story without sacrificing gameplay: Very wrong.
I absolutely agree with Mr. Blow. I really don't see story telling as an essential element in game design; at best, a good story in a game is a welcome bonus. I've played some very good story driven games, but it is not the story that makes it good, it's the game itself. I often find that the good games I remember playing drew me in because of the gameplay; take for example Vagrant Story, a game remembered because of it's great gameplay and it's compelling story; I remember that game because of how much fun I had with it and how cool and fresh the fighting mechanics where; ask me about the story and what it was about and I would tell you I have no idea (I actually never really paid much attention to it to begin with). Games are games, always will be, and when story telling takes front seat over gameplay (no matter how good the story is) something is not right because that's how you end up with short unchallenging games (and often with sloppy game play mechanics).
This guy is just getting a big head over the success of Braid which gives him rights to spout nonsense? I guess it's a matter of opinion, wouldn't expect an Indie developer to say any different, after all Indie games have always been "challenge over story" just like portable games, it may sound harsh but I think INDIE GAMES are to GAMES what Alternative Rock is to Rock, just a quick ALTERNATIVE to the REAL THING, which could be fun, very fun, 'till you get sick of it after a little while and you end up looking for the real thing.
Personally I'd take any Metal Gear game or other story driven games over Braid or the likes any day. 'nuff said.
Personally I'd take any Metal Gear game or other story driven games over Braid or the likes any day. 'nuff said.
Very, very few games seem to take distinct advantage of that though. Choosing to run in circles before triggering the linear progression into the next bit of story is the most choice many games offer outside of running into the game over screen. And the majority of games only offer mechanical advantages for other decisions, such as digging up a piece of heart in Zelda. The overall plot remains unaffected in a meaningful way.Virgil said:
There are games with multiple endings, but the significance of the actions taken usually only comes through in a prewritten cinematic. Games like Arcanum or Fallout offer you a series of cinematics based on your actions, which are better than the alternative, but still maintain the basic rigidity of the format. Even if you secure a different ending, you cannot interact meaningfully with it; it's as if you could play two separate but extremely similar and linear games with slightly different outcomes.
The most promising items that undermine this trend that I've seen would be Planescape: Torment and Knights of the Old Republic 2's influence system; they offer both mechanical advantages and plot development to the players inclined towards chattering with the NPCs for a while. I can't think of large elements outside of party composition that these actions affect, but it's not too big a leap to conceive of them. I'd suppose that sidequests as a whole are potential sources of significant plot alteration (outside of endings) but they usually are designed to not seriously affect the central plotline.
And, yes, Heavy Rain does look intriguing. The developers aren't doing anything outside of what the general philosophy of gaming has accounted for, but it's leaps and bounds ahead of anything that's been seriously attempted (barring, perhaps, Dwarf Fortress.)
This is my sentiment as well, which is kind of unfortunate given how much I enjoyed Braid. What disappoints me the most is that he COULD be spending this gripe time working on another fantastic game. Of course, if he is out of ideas but is coasting on the sweet high of popularity and narcissism then I can't imagine any better way to hold yourself up then making over-generalized controversial statements.nilcypher said:
A story is only good for immersion. If it was good for anything else, developers would be a hell of a lot more involved in it. As it is for most games in the current console generation, the story is just an excuse to go shooting things, or to go solve puzzles. It serves only to satiate a player in the few times he'll ask himself, "Wait, why the hell am I doing this?"
Then you have people like me, who like to be immersed. To me, the ability of a game to have me believe I'm somebody else is paramount. This lets players have an "experience" rather than just playing a game. When you're emotionally connected with the game, the satisfaction of finishing said game is that much sweeter. The prime example, of course, Silent Hill 2, was excellent for this. The story was so immersive that I didn't see the flaws of the combat system or the camera controls, I saw the limitations of the characters.
Braid, from what I have heard, was good, but entirely forgetable.
Never forget, the semblance of a story does not a story make.
Oh and before I forget, Blow is a pretentious git. The sentiment that he seems to be giving of (that games don't particularly need stories) is utterly preposterous.
Then you have people like me, who like to be immersed. To me, the ability of a game to have me believe I'm somebody else is paramount. This lets players have an "experience" rather than just playing a game. When you're emotionally connected with the game, the satisfaction of finishing said game is that much sweeter. The prime example, of course, Silent Hill 2, was excellent for this. The story was so immersive that I didn't see the flaws of the combat system or the camera controls, I saw the limitations of the characters.
Braid, from what I have heard, was good, but entirely forgetable.
Never forget, the semblance of a story does not a story make.
Oh and before I forget, Blow is a pretentious git. The sentiment that he seems to be giving of (that games don't particularly need stories) is utterly preposterous.
