Thaius said:
I suppose I should have specified that. The point is that most games center around violence in their stories because it is easiest to create gameplay that centers on violence (with the exception of puzzle games like Tetris, but it is difficult to add a good interactive story to a game like that which has no bearing on any sort of real-life situation).
I guess you ignored that list of game genres I thought up that don't have any violence.
Both adventure games and visual novels tell their stories by removing the player's action from direct interaction with the player's movements and instead focusing largely (or sometimes entirely) on story-related choices and actions. Thus, even if the story is violent, the gameplay is not.
That's wrong, adventure games don't concentrate on interacting with the story, the majority in fact do not have any story choices at all, they are merely a series of puzzles. Myst has an anemic story for example. And how do adventure games remove the player from direct interaction, because they are point and click? That's still direct control. And even some, like Shenmue and that Dreamfall sequel give you even more advanced control than that.
I suppose "direct control" is not the best term. Rather, not "full" control. In that most games have one button swing your sword arm, another button make your character jump, another button push buttons, etc. This means that these games can only really do what those buttons allow. Master Chief cannot round-house kick an Elite in the face, not because he's incapable, but because it's not mapped in the controls. Nor can he lay down his weapons and attempt peace talks with the highest-ranking Brute in the vicinity, because the game is about shooting things and there is no option for that. In adventure games, the gameplay is generalized; a click of the mouse could mean talking, attacking, spitting, whatever. This is the connection with games like Heavy Rain and Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy; the buttons pressed have a sort of basic logic to them, but each button could mean something completely different based on context. It's been done in all sorts of games, from the "action" button in many games to the "head, arms, and legs" thing Assassin's Creed has got going on. Adventure games just allow a single input on the part of the player to mean many different things depending on context, thus allowing the same gameplay that governs combat to govern talking, playing with kids, or running from a threat and, as a result, allowing for gameplay to play a part in all sorts of stories and situations.
Visual novels accomplish the same thing by, rather than generalizing, minimizing the gameplay, disconnecting the choices from gameplay entirely and simply making them occasional story-important choices. It is a different approach, but it allows the exact same thing as the gameplay generalization of adventure games; interactivity can now play a part in the story without leading to gameplay unwisely applied to a situation it cannot emulate well.
And I did not ignore your list, I thought I replied to it. But I guess not. Issue being, puzzle games like Tetris and the others you mentioned are so far removed from reality in their very concept that it is difficult to come up with any sort of story that actually works with them. Which is why they have no story. It can be possible (consider Puzzle Quest), but is not easy and has rarely been done. Tetris tells no story and thus, while it does have value as a game and as a work of art, has no value as a
narrative. Which is the point of this particular class.
Well, unless you count Tetris Worlds on the Xbox. But that was dumb.
quote="Halo Fanboy" post="9.276732.10765918"]
Thaius said:
I was using "addictiveness" to illustrate that just because a game is well-made and fun, to the point of not wanting to stop, does not mean it is "immersive." But you seem to be saying that a game is only good if it fits those particular criteria, which is interesting. I'm not remembering you being a "games are only good if they tell a good story and do it really well" sort of guy so much as a "games are about play, and if anything detracts from that the game has failed" sort of guy.
You don't get it, games are immersive when they bombard you with a series of intense challanges. Games that take breaks from the challange to focus on story are less immersive, less interesting and less good.
