David Jaffe, David Cage and Videogame Stories

[RagTagBand]

If there are two game developers which I will never listen to it's David Jaffe and David Cage. Both of them can't get enough of the smell of their own farts and The world would be a better place if they just disappeared up their own ass holes.

 

[Woodsey]

I'm inclined to disagree. The issue is not so much fantastical worlds being used over the real one, but our ability to interact with them (which is ridiculously - almost offensively - limited in the majority of games these days), and to feel they are legitimate. If we are allowed to believe the worlds and situations we are in are consistent and reactive to us, then our investment in them is an order of magnitude larger instantly.

What you need then is good writing, and that's the same for setting it in the real world. If we feel invested, then the connection between ourselves and what is going on is at a base-level of human nature: do we feel guilty? Do we feel sad? Do we feel vengeful? Do we feel happy? As long as I care about those characters and find the world believable in and of itself, then there is no reason for my emotional investment to be lessened because of the setting, or the intricacies of the situation I am in.

Really, this is why storytelling in games was shot in the foot when Immserive Sims (Deus Ex, Thief) didn't take off in the way they really should have, as you can more fully explore background information; characters become rounded out with things they've written down or emailed, and their opinions of you change with your actions. If they actually react to you, the player, then it helps pull you in. Perhaps you start noticing things about them you wouldn't have if you hadn't, y'know, blown their office door off, hacked their computer and read their private emails; maybe you decide that you do want them to like you, so you behave a certain way, or that actually, no, they're arse holes, so you're going to piss them off.

Two great recent examples are DX: Human Revolution, and The Witcher 2. Even though the latter's not an Immersive Sim, it really makes you care about something, and what that something is - what Geralt's main motivation for carrying on is - it leaves up to you.

[sub]I also find it rather irritating when David Cage tries to talk about game narratives; the man's clearly a wanna-be film writer/director who didn't make it for whatever reason. The best part is that he's not even a particularly good writer.[/sub]

 

[BreakfastMan]

Snip

While I generally agree with you sentiment (many game developers have, by and large, not yet figured out how to effectively tell stories in games), I disagree with one point: that a story in a game is best told through total experience (which seems to imply that cutscenes and the like should not be used). I disagree with that. Cutscenes and such are just another tool in the designers toolbox. Each new medium builds upon the previous ones: film built upon plays, television built upon film, comics built upon novels, etc. each developing new styles to tell stories, but still using many of the techniques from previous mediums. It is more about striking a balance between the two; film did not abandon good writing just because visuals are so important to the medium, after all.

Also, why the hell are people getting so worked up about the difference between traditional games and "interactive narratives"? Why can't they both be under the same banner? I mean, film contains both "The Dark Knight" and "The Red Balloon"; why can't games have both "Call of Duty" and "The Path"?

 

[jaketaz]

I don't understand the conclusion of this article. Neither the stories nor the mechanics are based in "the here and now", and I have no idea why you would think that games based in "the here and now" would be a good thing. If "here and "now" is what people want (or would benefit from), why shouldn't people just go outside and experience actual life, instead of playing with electronic devices grounded in a fictional experience (provoking non-fictional reactions)?

 

[Dennis Scimeca]

Dennis,

Thanks for the clarifications. I obviously grabbed the wrong end of a few sticks, including, in particular, the actual point you were making.

Making a game such as you describe sounds like a challenge (not that I would know, but this is teh interwebz). A thought on the gameplay: if it involves doing anything that most of us can easily go and do in reality then there wouldn't be much point to doing an inevitably inferior version of the real thing in a game. In other words, what would we like to be able to do in reality that we can't or won't actually do?

I look around at the world, and I see tons of people doing things I could never do, or can't imagine myself doing. Fireman. Policeman. Doctor. There are plenty of jobs that most of us could not easily go and do in reality because they require training, or a certain physique, or a certain mindset.

I can never imagine being a crab fisherman in Alaska. I can't imagine climbing mountains. Or throwing on a backpack and traveling the world. Again, I have no idea what the mechanics for these simulations would be...but a video game is more than just mechanics. There's the *reason* why we do things in video games, like you said, what the context is.

I thought about this earlier today: Imagine the mechanic is scrambling through a house that's flooding. That happens to real people in real life on a regular basis. You're trying to carry your little daughter up to the roof to escape the flood, and you have to jump from position to position, and read how the environment is changing so that you know where it's safe to go and where it isn't. It's a test of reflexes, and timing, and most of the hand-eye coordination stuff we do in video games on a regular basis. Only this time, you're not some hero running through a boat your Navy SEAL team is scuttling that's filling up with water, you're a regular person doing something that regular people actually do.

I find it hard to imagine that we can't come up with tons of examples of ordinary people doing extraordinary things that could be translated into game mechanics. And I think that with a maturing video game audience, there is or will be an audience for these sorts of games. I will always enjoy games where I'm the space marine fighting the aliens, but I've been doing that for three decades in various forms. I'm ready to add another flavor to my video game experiences.

 

[Dennis Scimeca]

I don't understand the conclusion of this article. Neither the stories nor the mechanics are based in "the here and now", and I have no idea why you would think that games based in "the here and now" would be a good thing. If "here and "now" is what people want (or would benefit from), why shouldn't people just go outside and experience actual life, instead of playing with electronic devices grounded in a fictional experience (provoking non-fictional reactions)?

I'm not sure what you mean. The "story" and "mechanics" of my going to Jamaica were most certainly in the here and now. It happened. Last week. In 2012. On Earth.

Your statement supposes that everyone can just up and go partake in all the various adventures life offers. The older we get, the less mobility we tend to have. We get jobs with limited time off. We get married and have children. I have friends with multiple kids who guard their vacation and sick days like the most precious of resources. They can't ponce off to Jamaica to go on a mission trip for eight days. They can't strap on backpacks and travel the world like my sister did last year.

Stories set in the real world don't have to be boring tales of everyday activity. Surely you've seen movies set in the here and now which weren't fantastical. Read books about everyday people in the real world. There's tremendous dramatic potential for those sorts of stories. It's not a stretch to suggest that videogames could do the same thing.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

Dennis,

Thanks for the clarifications. I obviously grabbed the wrong end of a few sticks, including, in particular, the actual point you were making.

Making a game such as you describe sounds like a challenge (not that I would know, but this is teh interwebz). A thought on the gameplay: if it involves doing anything that most of us can easily go and do in reality then there wouldn't be much point to doing an inevitably inferior version of the real thing in a game. In other words, what would we like to be able to do in reality that we can't or won't actually do?

I look around at the world, and I see tons of people doing things I could never do, or can't imagine myself doing. Fireman. Policeman. Doctor. There are plenty of jobs that most of us could not easily go and do in reality because they require training, or a certain physique, or a certain mindset.

I can never imagine being a crab fisherman in Alaska. I can't imagine climbing mountains. Or throwing on a backpack and traveling the world. Again, I have no idea what the mechanics for these simulations would be...but a video game is more than just mechanics. There's the *reason* why we do things in video games, like you said, what the context is.

I thought about this earlier today: Imagine the mechanic is scrambling through a house that's flooding. That happens to real people in real life on a regular basis. You're trying to carry your little daughter up to the roof to escape the flood, and you have to jump from position to position, and read how the environment is changing so that you know where it's safe to go and where it isn't. It's a test of reflexes, and timing, and most of the hand-eye coordination stuff we do in video games on a regular basis. Only this time, you're not some hero running through a boat your Navy SEAL team is scuttling that's filling up with water, you're a regular person doing something that regular people actually do.

I find it hard to imagine that we can't come up with tons of examples of ordinary people doing extraordinary things that could be translated into game mechanics. And I think that with a maturing video game audience, there is or will be an audience for these sorts of games. I will always enjoy games where I'm the space marine fighting the aliens, but I've been doing that for three decades in various forms. I'm ready to add another flavor to my video game experiences.

I'm right behind you when it comes to expanded story/context possibilities, I was just iffy on whether gameplay would be all that exciting without the, um, fantastical ? (if that's a word) element that most games have as standard (even the so-called "realistic" ones). But I take your point on the number of possibilities that RL offers, and games with fun gameplay can and do sell well even when they don't put the player in the shoes of a Justifiably Violent Hero, so maybe you're on to something.