Azuaron said:I said a thing, you disputed the thing I said, I explained how my thing was right by definition, and your contention of it, therefore, wrong by definition (and also insulting, as you consistently implied I don't use my imagination).The.Bard said:From one human to another, don't tell someone they're "wrong by definition" and then jump into why by arguing the semantics of what YOU SAID, not what they said. It makes you look like a stupid meany jerkface. By definition, everything I said - as I said it - is true, and I stand by it. 8PAzuaron said:You are wrong, by definition.The.Bard said:I feel sad for you. Imagination in gaming is absolutely paramount for me. While driving across the endless planets in Mass Effect 1, I would make up stories and dialogues in my head. GTA IV is RIPE for the imaginative taking! You spend so much of the game making things up as you go along, and Skyrim? Are you kidding me? SKYRIM, dude! If you don't create your own story in Skyrim, why are you even playing it!? There's, like, nothing in Skyrim narratively without your imagination.Azuaron said:Oh man, if Dear Esther lets me create my own story, I can use it to play out Mass Effect 3! Or Dragon Age II! Or Skyrim! Or GTA! Or...
Oh, you can't do that? For meaningful stories to exist in games, the designers have to actually write them, and this guy's a total idiot? Oh...
Anywho, it's totally fine if you don't feel the same and your imagination just didn't fire up playing Dear Esther, but saying that it's only possible for a meaningful story to exist if they are baked in? Maybe FOR YOU. But on the grand cosmic scale of things?
BZZZZT! WRONG ANSWER.
If a story does not exist in a game, and you are using your imagination to make up your own story, then there is not a meaningful story in that game. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. I thoroughly enjoyed Minecraft, and my lone survivor of a crashed spaceship trying to survive this new planet's apocalypse [http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/09/20]. I will frequently add internal monologs and motivations to RPG characters that the games do not provide.
But what I create in my imagination is my meaningful story, not the meaningful story of the game. For the game to have a meaningful story, it must be created by the designers.
Like, if I handed you a book and told you it was the greatest story ever written, but it was empty and I told you that you had to write the story, or maybe it had chapter prompts, bare skeletons--not even full skeletons, just a ribcage or so--of scene, not even a plot, that book would not have a story. That book may be interesting in its own right, and people may create great stories out of it, but it has no story of its own.
Basically, they are different goals [http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/eccj9t/hey-ash--whatcha-playin---dinner-metaphors]. While it's good to have games that are about creating your own story, it is at least as important (I would argue more important, but that's because I like RPGs with strong narrative) to have story-driven games, and Pinchbeck is saying that developers should do away with story-driven games. Videogames are a medium unique in their ability to place people personally in different situations, and to experience stories in ways that we never have before.
And he's saying, "Screw that, players will imagine their own story." You know what, as a writer, I already have my own stories. I have lots of them. I know how I think. I'm very familiar with the stories I create. Sometimes (quite often, really), I want to experience stories that other people create. People who are not me, who do not think like me. People who create stories that show me a different way of looking at the world.
Then, armed with this new way of looking at the world, I can create even more stories, stories I never would have dreamed of if I was left alone on a deserted island with only sandbox games.
Is there another article somewhere that I missed? You are attributing things to him that I'm not seeing anywhere in this article or the Gamasutra link it goes to. His entire point was that players can create their own personal gaming stories WITHOUT having it handed to them. I didn't see anything about what makes a meaningful narrative or where the future of narratives in gaming needs to go. He just said "Players have imagination, and Dear Esther was a game about fueling narrative with it."
You seem to be arguing that he said Dear Esther has - without question - meaningful narrative. He never said that. Not even once. Unless there's another article I missed somewhere, in which case I will redact my statement...
To roll with your analogy, he's not giving you a blank notebook and saying "Hey, this is a great story!" He's saying "Hey, I thought, instead of writing a story for you, maybe you would enjoy writing one for yourself? I put a few images in here to fuel your fires, now let's see what you come up with!"
Personally, I find that to be a refreshing change in a game. Would I want EVERY game to do this? No, but when it's done well, it's a powerful thing.
As for the rest, from the article: "He argues that developers don't need to constrain players to a set storyline" and "Story is inevitable - so why write the obvious?" Those two statements, pretty clearly, say, "Developers shouldn't write clear, preset stories."
My intent wasn't to insult you, but you're really not helping your cause any when you call this guy an idiot for having an opinion, make a statement that can only be proven accurate by arguing semantics, and then telling me I'm wrong by arguing said semantics, instead of simply explaining where the dissonance in my interpretation of your original statement was.
I think you're overreacting to the quote, as well, but we each interpret things differently, so based on what you think he's saying, your logic makes sense. But on the flip side, if some game dev questions the need for all games to be shooters, they're not necessarily saying games need to stop being shooters, only that it shouldn't be thought of as a REQUIREMENT for every single game.
This is the quote that I think best represents what he's saying about his company:
"We're not in the business of writing a plot -- we're in the business of giving you the tools to create your own. There is nothing more powerful than your own imagination."
I think you're overreacting to the quote, as well, but we each interpret things differently, so based on what you think he's saying, your logic makes sense. But on the flip side, if some game dev questions the need for all games to be shooters, they're not necessarily saying games need to stop being shooters, only that it shouldn't be thought of as a REQUIREMENT for every single game.
This is the quote that I think best represents what he's saying about his company:
"We're not in the business of writing a plot -- we're in the business of giving you the tools to create your own. There is nothing more powerful than your own imagination."