Games and storys....are we doing it wrong?

[Hyper-space]

Give it time, Video-games are on the same level as movies in the 1940 or something, the medium as a whole has a lot to learn.

Trying to pin down gaming in its infancy is just ridiculous, the most common story in movies back then (when they were as young as gaming is today) were shit, yet no one threw up their hands and said "fuck it".

 

[Bostur]

Im still not buying the "horrbile" storys thing..I mean OK I can get that its not quite on par with the best of what other mediums have to offer...but you still have your horrible books and crappy movies..games are somtimes better

if your talking about playing to the strengths of the medium..then yes I can get that, like (I hate to keep repeating myself) Portal or Bioshock or even somthing like Fallout 3/NV

it somtimes annoying me how games keep getting compared to other mediums (like movies) I dont think that comparison is fair, you try and aproach a game story like you would a movie (more or less) and it doesnt work

what Im saying is, if Im going to play a game I want "context" I want there to be a point to what Im doing and I like there to be some kind of payoff...basically I want story

I think a good game story is comparable to the story of an average action flick. Good enough that I can watch the explosions without cringing, but nothing special. I think it's important that I say that I don't have a problem with that at all, as long as the story is good enough it works for me.

Your point about context is one I agree with. I expect a story that is good enough to provide context, or context through other means. Because I believe context can be added in other ways than through a linear story.

The comparison to movies is natural, because so many games use movie mechanics to tell their story. I think that is limiting both the storytelling and the gameplay. Movies are linear and non-interactive, games are non-linear and interactive. There's a huge potential for incompatibility there.

Portal is a game where I can't decide if the storytelling is an act of genius, or a quick and dirty attempt to add context to a game that doesn't need one. On one hand the setting is so abstract that it seems beyond storytelling, like Tetris or Bejewelled. On the other hand it creates an almost surreal feeling that can best be compared to something Kafka could have written. The fact that I'm so indecisive about it is probably a mark of quality.

Bioshock on the other hand is a title I simply don't get. And I don't understand why people mention it as an example of great game storytelling. To me it feels like walking through a museum, with the occasional interruption of gameplay, or the occasional interruption of story. The two elements seems so far apart that they compete against each other instead of supporting each other. Maybe it would have helped if the game was less linear. I could imagine an RPG'ish investigation game could have worked well for the setting. Something like the gameplay of "Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines" perhaps.

Why does everyone ignore me ;~;

Maybe because a lot of people said something interesting so it's easy to get lost in the crowd. I think your first post sums up the issue quite nicely. Making better stories is not a hard thing to do, making stories that complement gameplay is the really tricky thing.

I also agree with Hyper-space's take on the current situation. Early movies were mostly adaptions of stageplays, because that was the type of expression movie makers were familiar with that were the closest to the movie medium. It makes sense that games are inspired by movies until they find their own expressions.

 

[Freechoice]

1. if I did remember those parts in portal 2 (which I dont) then they obviously didnt bother me, Im fine with gameplay being interrrupted (hell I even enjoy the odd cutscene) as long as it isnt overdone

2. do you mean Desmond? I though it was a very clever framing device which adds to the story, and I dont really have much of a problem with desmond

1. Alright, but that just means it's opinion and is not inarguably good. I found Wheatley's monologues to be intrusive, unlike Portal 1 where the only real interruptions were the ungodly load times. Portal 1 was lots of meaty gameplay with the occasional drip of barbecue sauce to liven it all up and Portal 2 tries to have it be more equal despite the fact that humor and cleverness (sauce) aren't things you heavily rely on to drive the plot.

2.Desmond is not clever. He is voiced by Nolan North so he loses 50 quadrillion points right off the bat. Second, the genetic memory bullshit is a nightmare to any who is at all scientifically minded.

 

[Korenith]

"Storys"?

...

Anyway...

I think games could have great stories. Hell, they could have the best stories.

However, they don't. On average, the stories in games are utterly fucking abysmal. Even disregarding the ones that have no story at all, 90% are on the level of The Expendables. .

really? I dont think its as bad as your making it out to be

while its no so much the same thing here...mabye its looking at it the wrong way

like portal...portal is brilliant in so many ways, and it couldnt work as well as a book or movie

That's because Portal got right what very few other games do which is that to make the most of a medium like gaming you have to approach it according to what the medium is good at and what it's bad at. Portal allowed you to actually experience the role of a faceless test subject without a voice and initially no control because you literally have the tests performed on you. Would that be as effective in any other medium? No.

The problem games really have though is that the majority of games use a story telling style that would work much better in another medium. Eg. Final Fantasy's epic length and endless cutscenes would work much better as a fantasy novel because ultimately experiencing the gameplay adds nothing or very little to the story whilst forcing you through iffy voice acting or hordes of random battles between story segments.

Plus as lots of people have said, very few serious artists with the grand visions and storytelling abilities to create a truly compelling game world take gaming as a serious way of realising that vision. For me, if I had a truly amazing amazing idea and thought I could do it justice I'd write a novel simply because for film, stage, music, games etc. you have to rely on other people to help you realise your creation whilst having to constantly make concessions. Gaming is the worst for that because of the technical limitations and massive budgets needed to achieve anything top notch.

 

[ResonanceGames]

The critical reading skills (or lack thereof) on display in this thread are a little irritating.

His point wasn't that no one should try to make good stories for games. His point was that developers often put together elaborate and ridiculous pitches together for games, and execs need to learn when they're being bullshitted.

We haven't had any deep, philosophically-written games since Torment, so he's obviously right that the people making these pitches were overpromising in order to get funding.

The idea that gaming execs should learn what the hell they're doing is a good one. He's absolutely right.


Read between the lines, folks.

 

[Wolfram23]

I think games often lack a good story, but they usually still offer an experience. Something reading a book or watching a movie can't really offer. Usually.

So, I think games can get away with sub-par stories because they can still offer pretty phenomenal experiences. But the absolute best games offer both. My younger was rabid about Zelda: OoT because at that time I thought it was a great story with an absolutely phenomenal experience.

Lately, there's been a lot less on the table that offer both.

 

[Savagezion]

R.A. Salvatore < (I think that's how you spell it.) wrote the story for "Reckoning, Kingdom of Amalur" and I think it's quite good. The people that complain or say that it's to hard to write a good story for a game are just making an excuse for why THEIR so bad at it.

He is one of my favorite authors. Writing a good story is hard, writing a decent one isn't so much. I would say that there are a lot of decent stories out there in the games market but very few good ones. Using Salvatore as an example is bad form in the sense he writes stories for a living. So to compare his quality of writing with someone who makes games for a living, (many games are written by the programmers) just doesn't seem fair.

I bet it is a good story but I bet Salvatore ran into the same roadblocks most writing does in games. I have not got to check it out yet myself, although I definitely intend to. Basically, I think that writing is going to have to be re-examined when looking at games for a solid structure to the writing as well game development might even have to be re-examined if it wants to continue down the road of storytelling.

 

[Savagezion]

Dangit, double post.

 

[Hobonicus]

The critical reading skills (or lack thereof) on display in this thread are a little irritating.

His point wasn't that no one should try to make good stories for games. His point was that developers often put together elaborate and ridiculous pitches together for games, and execs need to learn when they're being bullshitted.

We haven't had any deep, philosophically-written games since Torment, so he's obviously right that the people making these pitches were overpromising in order to get funding.

The idea that gaming execs should learn what the hell they're doing is a good one. He's absolutely right.


Read between the lines, folks.

Everyone understands and agrees with that part so there isn't much to discuss. People are referring to the rest of his speech (and it's mentioned in that very article) where he says that if someone has a story to tell they should do so in a book or a movie because good storytelling in a game is apparently akin to quality meals at McDonald's.

There isn't any lack of reading comprehension, people are just discussing the larger part of his speech. He doesn't suggest that storytelling in games has the potential to be amazing, he doesn't offer any wisdom on how to improve it, he only claims that games should return to always putting pure gameplay mechanics as pirority one and not worry about the story as a major pillar because it'll never be better than a book or movie. This is what people are talking about.

He only spends two minutes of his twenty minute talk discussing bullshitting executives.

 

[Jdb]

I don't care about story in video games. However, I do care about the logic behind objectives and progression - What am I doing, how am I doing it, why am I doing it, and so on. There are some exceptions where I need a deeper explanation. For example, games with gritty or realistic violence need a reason for it beyond "the bad guys are doing bad things." Otherwise it's violence for the sake of violence, and I despise that.

 

[boag]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.347456-Jaffe-Game-Execs-Need-a-BS-Filter

so this article popped up today

basically a guy says a bunch of stuff which comes down the to the point at the end

lot of these people will say 'I have something to say, I have a story to tell.' If you've really got something inside of you that's so powerful, like a story you've got to share or a philosophy about man's place in the universe, why in the fuck would you choose the medium that has historically, continually been the worst medium to express philosophy, story and narrative?" [/I]

and this obviously got people talking

personally I find it dissapointing that somone from inside the industry has this kind of attitude (and is being this cynical and "why should we bother"?)

I mean of coarse I find story very important in a game. alot of people here would agree, but then you hear people say games are generally just bad at stories...

so I guess what Im saying is what does a "story" in a game actually mean? some people use "context" instead of story

and generally do you think stoys in games are just plain bad? because personally I dont

The thing is, you cannot make a story the core of a game, because then everything else suffers, you need to balance gameplay with the story, If you go all out and try to make a story on a game as a basis, then most of the time the game play will clash directly with the story.

Why is this? well because most of the time Game mechanics provide a lot of PLOT DEVICES and plot devices are very difficult to handle appropriately in stories.

By the same idea, a Story will usually have a very straight forward objective hurdled with obstacles, the thing is that if you do not write these obstacles with game play in mind, then you are essentially mutilating the game play.

what I essentially get from Jaffe is that he believes if you want to tell a straight up story it would be a lot easier to just write a book than making a game with crummy gameplay mechanics that dont mesh with the story.

Does this mean that you cant write a game story that can be pulled directly into another medium without being utterly ridiculous?

NOPE, it just means that it is so incredibly difficult and time consuming that most people just dont bother.