David Jaffe, David Cage and Videogame Stories
Bringing gaming techniques into the real world.
Read Full Article
Bringing gaming techniques into the real world.
Read Full Article
This week Dear Esther, an entirely story driven game, made a profit in under 6 hours. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/115856-Dear-Esther-Hits-It-Big]Last week at the DICE summit in Las Vegas, David Jaffe delivered a talk in which he argued that videogames shouldn't attempt to tell stories.
Beat me to it. It seems that what the author is trying to argue is that we need more human stories, rather than fantastical space adventures. Though I haven't played Dear Esther yet, it seem that it delivers a personal story about loss, tied directly into the mechanics of searching an island. Gamers can appreciate good story and good gameplay, but what they really want is something that can bring them both, where one complements the other.The_root_of_all_evil said:This week Dear Esther, an entirely story driven game, made a profit in under 6 hours. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/115856-Dear-Esther-Hits-It-Big]Last week at the DICE summit in Las Vegas, David Jaffe delivered a talk in which he argued that videogames shouldn't attempt to tell stories.
Guess who I'm going with on this one.
It's that...and so much more.Thunderous Cacophony said:Though I haven't played Dear Esther yet, it seem that it delivers a personal story about loss, tied directly into the mechanics of searching an island.
Seems more like gamers just want fancy graphics.Thunderous Cacophony said:Beat me to it. It seems that what the author is trying to argue is that we need more human stories, rather than fantastical space adventures. Though I haven't played Dear Esther yet, it seem that it delivers a personal story about loss, tied directly into the mechanics of searching an island. Gamers can appreciate good story and good gameplay, but what they really want is something that can bring them both, where one complements the other.The_root_of_all_evil said:This week Dear Esther, an entirely story driven game, made a profit in under 6 hours. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/115856-Dear-Esther-Hits-It-Big]Last week at the DICE summit in Las Vegas, David Jaffe delivered a talk in which he argued that videogames shouldn't attempt to tell stories.
Guess who I'm going with on this one.
Essentially, I feel the problem isn't that stories shouldn't be in games; it's just that stories are often being done wrong in video games.Not every game has to have a story, but, for the games that do have a story, there are differing levels to which the story is made manifest. In some games, the story is central to the nature of the game, and, thus, the player is constantly immersed in it; in other games, the story is merely flavoring that provides some motivation to the game.
In "pure games", like chess, shogi, backgammon, etc., there is no need for a story because the entire point of the game is on the strategies and tactics necessary to achieve the winning condition or optimal outcome(this is why I call such games "pure games", because their design is much more mathematical and adherent to game theory).
But, even more to the point, I think much of the difficulty of dealing with stories in games is because many game developers don't seem to realize the mode by which the gaming medium expresses stories. There is too much a tendency to express story structure and progression in the same mode as one would do for a book or movie, and this is incorrect, in my opinion. Books express story structure and progression through exposition; movies do this through historical record. However, games express story structure and progression through experience. You don't read about or watch the life of the character. You live through it, and it is fully realizing that ability to live through the character's life in every detail that I think game developers are sometimes struggling with because they are trying to hard to make games like Hollywood blockbuster movies or best-seller books. It's just the wrong approach.
I think story execution and progression in a game has to focus on the choices and actions of the player, as the main character, and the consequences of those actions on the game's world. It is possible to strongly encourage or direct the player toward specific choices or actions at key moments(even to the point of putting it on rails), but the key thing is that the player is the one who causes the story to occur and progress forward, in that the player is actively engaged in the progression of story points(quick-time events is just one means of implementing this). The player should not spend a lot of time passively viewing events transpire before him or reading about them in some exposition; instead, the player should be actively involved in every moment of the story progression while being fully immersed into the game's environment. This is what I call the "Total Experience", the full combination of sensation and interaction. You don't read a game's story or watch it; you experience it.
Just my opinion. Feel free to flame.
ADDENDUM: I've recently been reading Story Engineering by Larry Brooks. In it, he talks about the principles and design of story structure. He exposes the four part story structure, setup, response, attack, and resolution, and the milestone plot points that build up the story's structure. It's been an enlightening, albeit sometimes tedious, read into how good stories are structured and built.
I think it may be possible that the reason some video game stories are so awful is that they fail to adhere to standard story structure, execution, and pacing.
I don't know what movies and books you've been reading and watching, but those examples are flat out -wrong-. More to the point, exposition, montage and experience refer to specific things both within their mediums and that are shared with others.geizr said:I'm just going to copy-paste something I wrote in another post. The summary idea is that the reason video games and story are having a difficult time is because stories are not being told in a mode that is appropriate to the medium. Books tell stories by exposition. Movies tell stories by montage. However, video games tells stories through experience.
I always held that sentiment for a long time, glad to see I'm not alone. Dark Souls and Demons Souls are great examples of story telling in games. The majority of there story is told through subtext and you have to actually look for it by reading item descriptions and taking in the vistas, each area has a story to tell. If you don't try to look for it you won't find it. It's unfortunate that so many reviewers are unable to pick up on subtle things like that. Twisted Metal is one of those, it has a really deep meta game and mechanics, but reviewers only compare it to what they know and don't take each game as an experience on its own.geizr said:I'm just going to copy-paste something I wrote in another post. The summary idea is that the reason video games and story are having a difficult time is because stories are not being told in a mode that is appropriate to the medium. Books tell stories by exposition. Movies tell stories by montage. However, video games tells stories through experience.
Essentially, I feel the problem isn't that stories shouldn't be in games; it's just that stories are often being done wrong in video games.Not every game has to have a story, but, for the games that do have a story, there are differing levels to which the story is made manifest. In some games, the story is central to the nature of the game, and, thus, the player is constantly immersed in it; in other games, the story is merely flavoring that provides some motivation to the game.
In "pure games", like chess, shogi, backgammon, etc., there is no need for a story because the entire point of the game is on the strategies and tactics necessary to achieve the winning condition or optimal outcome(this is why I call such games "pure games", because their design is much more mathematical and adherent to game theory).
But, even more to the point, I think much of the difficulty of dealing with stories in games is because many game developers don't seem to realize the mode by which the gaming medium expresses stories. There is too much a tendency to express story structure and progression in the same mode as one would do for a book or movie, and this is incorrect, in my opinion. Books express story structure and progression through exposition; movies do this through historical record. However, games express story structure and progression through experience. You don't read about or watch the life of the character. You live through it, and it is fully realizing that ability to live through the character's life in every detail that I think game developers are sometimes struggling with because they are trying to hard to make games like Hollywood blockbuster movies or best-seller books. It's just the wrong approach.
I think story execution and progression in a game has to focus on the choices and actions of the player, as the main character, and the consequences of those actions on the game's world. It is possible to strongly encourage or direct the player toward specific choices or actions at key moments(even to the point of putting it on rails), but the key thing is that the player is the one who causes the story to occur and progress forward, in that the player is actively engaged in the progression of story points(quick-time events is just one means of implementing this). The player should not spend a lot of time passively viewing events transpire before him or reading about them in some exposition; instead, the player should be actively involved in every moment of the story progression while being fully immersed into the game's environment. This is what I call the "Total Experience", the full combination of sensation and interaction. You don't read a game's story or watch it; you experience it.
Just my opinion. Feel free to flame.
ADDENDUM: I've recently been reading Story Engineering by Larry Brooks. In it, he talks about the principles and design of story structure. He exposes the four part story structure, setup, response, attack, and resolution, and the milestone plot points that build up the story's structure. It's been an enlightening, albeit sometimes tedious, read into how good stories are structured and built.
I think it may be possible that the reason some video game stories are so awful is that they fail to adhere to standard story structure, execution, and pacing.
I think you may be misunderstanding what I mean. By exposition, I'm merely talking about the text in the book. You read a book, but you don't read a video game. By montage, I only mean the streaming together of the sequence of related images such to create a motion picture. You watch a motion picture, but you don't merely just watch a video game. In a video game, you actively experience, through interaction, and can even cause the events that transpire in the game. This is what I am proposing as the native mode of expression of a video game and that one should tell stories in the medium of video games using that mode, not the mode of books or movies. That was the intended meaning of my post. I apologize if it did not come across clearly.GothmogII said:I don't know what movies and books you've been reading and watching, but those examples are flat out -wrong-. More to the point, exposition, montage and experience refer to specific things both within their mediums and that are shared with others.geizr said:I'm just going to copy-paste something I wrote in another post. The summary idea is that the reason video games and story are having a difficult time is because stories are not being told in a mode that is appropriate to the medium. Books tell stories by exposition. Movies tell stories by montage. However, video games tells stories through experience.
What's the last good book you read that relied entirely on a narrator explaining every little thing to you? Because that's what you're implying when you claim this is how books tell their stories.
As for movies and montages, again, from what I understand this a very specific tool used in film-making to create the illusion of the passage of time, i.e. the training montage in Rocky. And film made up entirely of montages would be unbearable.
<youtube=CQvNu8LoTo0>
Now, imagine that for the whole movie. x)
You are sort of right with games, about them delivering the majority of the story through player experience..however, if you want anything more than that I really think you need to incorporate elements from other mediums. IF you're just looking for a game to experience, okay, great, focus on your mechanics, but honestly, I've never thought to myself hmm, you know, I really would like Team Fortress 2 more if they chucked out all this superfluous backstory and humour and focused entirely on the gameplay.
People (mostly Yahtzee, but still) gave Heavy Rain shit for being a movie you have to press buttons to interact with. Dear Esther is that without the buttons. You just sort of walk around and wait for the narrator to speak.The_root_of_all_evil said:It's that...and so much more.Thunderous Cacophony said:Though I haven't played Dear Esther yet, it seem that it delivers a personal story about loss, tied directly into the mechanics of searching an island.
Honestly, give it a play if you like storytelling. It will profoundly touch you.
I think it was the uncanny valley effect that got it the most shit. That and the full price tag.Freechoice said:People (mostly Yahtzee, but still) gave Heavy Rain shit for being a movie you have to press buttons to interact with.
Yeah, here's someone who waited to be impressed. The magic comes from empathy.Dear Esther is that without the buttons. You just sort of walk around and wait for the narrator to speak.
I really don't know where to begin with this. Yes, it's a game. There's very little lost in watching I Wanna Be The Guy on YouTube (apart from massive anger). The player isn't irrelevant at all, which you'd know if you altered your path. And finally, measuring a pricetag by game length is so wrong that I can't even begin to pick it apart. Do you go to see movies based on their length?It might be a good experience, but a game? Not really. There is very little lost in just watching the thing on youtube. You, the player, are irrelevant in any of the decision making aside from where to go. And talking about it remaking its budget in 6 hours is not a point of greatness. I don't think the cost was even sextuple digits. And a 10 dollar price tag? For 60-120 minutes? That's ridiculous.
So Eastenders sets up a perfectly logical world beforehand? Where people come and go by the whims of the writers and their contracts? So Kafka's Metamorphosis provides a detailed insight into how someone turns into a bug? So Orwell shows how Pigs can stand on two legs?Hipster speak
Hi Guy,Guy Jackson said:I'm afraid you've lost me on this one, Dennis. Seems to me that the two Davids are saying the same things in different words. You seem to be disagreeing with them, but your counter-example (a game where you go on a different sort of "mission" to what we normally play) is bizarre, and sounds like a rather dull game, frankly.
To my mind, the reason for having stories in videogames is to give context and meaning to what we're doing. Sure, it's fun to just shoot a bunch of guys for no reason. But if there is a reason - one that we actually care about because we've become emotionally invested in a story created for just that purpose - well then for some (most?) of us that's even better. I can totally agree with you when you say that a requirement for shooting stuff (for example) limits the kinds of stories that can be told, but it doesn't limit them to bad stories per se. At least not in theory (in practice IMO it's another matter, so far, but I have hope).
In any case, from where I'm standing it doesn't look like AAA games are in any danger of losing their focus on gameplay in favour of focus on story any time soon. Focus on cinematography, on the other hand, is a whole other matter I think, and IMHO the gameplay of many AAA games has been lowered in favour of "interactive cinematics" or whatever you want to call it, ever since HL2. But as I said, it seems to me that's a separate issue.