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.
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.geizr said:Snip
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.Guy Jackson said: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'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.jaketaz said: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 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.Dennis Scimeca said: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.Guy Jackson said: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 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.