Bioshock did this and if i really wanted to learn the story i had to search every crevise of the map to find the pages. Then I have to read the pages which, being american, is way too much to ask of me. You could listen in on NPCs but what if you miss something because you didnt know it was there?hamster mk 4 said:
How can we achieve better storytelling in videogames?
- Thread starter PedroSteckecilo
- Start date
There are already plenty of good devices floating around.PedroSteckecilo said:
-Interactive dialog, which can be both story and gameplay at the same time.
-Plot cookies being left around, like audio tapes in Bioshock or memory vaults in Psychonauts
-Using exploration of the world and a changing environment to tell a story
The real key is to understand that you can do things with video game stories that you can't do in any other medium, and to work off of those strengths rather than try to figure out how to jam a 30-hour feature film into the game.
For example, video games aren't good at developing the main character's personality, but they can create a level of immersion and identification with the main character that no other form of storytelling can come close to.
This is almost all that needs to be said, really. Because if game developers would actually listen to this, they wouldn't need to worry about it. It'd work anyway. I've never heard anyone complain about the cutscenes in Starcraft, or in Deus ex. Those are good stories. Well-written. Although I have heard people complain about the cutscenes in Bloodlines, that's only because they are unskipable and they've seen them before. Never the first time.Anton P. Nym said:
If you ignore that fact (which you shouldn't since you won't have a good game in that case), there are a few things that can help. Combinations is a very important thing. Don't tell all of your story through one media, like Morrowind, for instance. In Morrowind everything is text. All story is told by text. That breaks the flow of a game somewhat. If you instead tell the story through dialogue, through cutscenes, through books or equivalents and through visuals, like the scribblings on the walls in Portal, then it becomes more interesting. Morrowind got away with it, of course, since it has good writing, a good story (and any other game would to, unless of course the only media was audio and people murmured a lot).
A game needs variety, and a story needs to be worked into the gameplay. It needs to be a part of the game from the start. The usual thing nowadays seem to be to make a full game, and to make the modelling and scripting team write a story for it and stick it on there with duct tape. You do that, and you get the abominations you have today that even the gamers of today complain about, and when it goes that far, it's really bad.
An interactive cut scene would be a much better idea. I mean the games like Half Life are good since cut scenes are small and you can walk around in them and games where the whole plot is put all over the game as pages and stuff but that leaves people with ACTUALLY finding what you need which some people would rather skip. One thing they could do is just think for at least ten minutes without coping someone and make the game so you get to make a choice in every cut scene like in a scene where your attacked by aliens and instead of listening to some NPC who would probably die talk about something you don't want to listen too. You could actually say NO this idea is crap here is my version. But stuff like that would be much easier. Also it can make the gamer play it again but choose different options to see what would happen and you could also inculde small amounts of the plot in those choices that way you can listen to cut scenes, change them how you want and then maybe reload that one save so you can do it again choose differently and watch everything happen around you.
We need to step away from the idea of cutscenes in general, because essentially they boil down to watching a movie in the middle of playing a game. I play games for interactivity; if I wanted to watch a movie, I'd go watch a movie. There are other ways to present story to the player that allow them to remain in at least partial control. While the System Shock 2 / Doom3 / Bioshock method (leaving logs or recordings just lying around) is a bit hokey, it also makes searching out those little cubbyholes and such worthwhile for the dedicated story enthusiast. I think I prefer Half-Life's method the most, though- everything that happens unfolds in real time, from the character's viewpoint. You can still manage a lot of exposition for the people who want to follow a story, and there's no cutscenes to skip for those who want to move on with the gameplay.
No, half-life just have very, very, very long unskippable scenes in which nothing happens. Frankly, I prefer a cutscene I can just skip by pressing escape than going in a trainride, or listening to a scientist ramble on with nothing happening until he's done. It's essentially cutscenes, just done in a different way.
And what's the interactivity of that really? There are games with interactive cutscenes, genesis: rising, to name one. You can choose your disposition, which is quite nice.
And what's the interactivity of that really? There are games with interactive cutscenes, genesis: rising, to name one. You can choose your disposition, which is quite nice.
Do have a point there. Then again no matter what we do the only way to know the plot without looking or watching a lot of cutscenes is to be strapped down to a chair, have a strange beeping helmet strapped to your head, be bound down by the wrists and ankles and then be fed the plot by having it downloaded into your brain...that way all you do is gameplay and you have to do nothing like watch a cutscene ever again...though I don't know if having something forced into your brain is painless and it would probably be banned for being too cruel for humans anyways.
yes there are differences in the medium, but 'GAME' is still a huuuuge concept. You can go anywhere with it. It's the player's goal that it's all about. Some play it for challenge, some play it for leisure (casual games), some play it to experience a story.minignu said:
I'm one of the latter. What does a cutscene to me? If it's a good cutscene, in a good story (like metal gear solid) it engages me, it makes me want to play the game, to give the story a good ending.
Games are about this 'meaningful play'. For a pure gameplay player, meaningful play comes from interesting challenges, choices. For a story player like me, meaningful play comes from the story.
As long as those cutscenes aid the story, they aid meaninful play.
Like you're saying, each medium has unique options and advantages. There are many things a game can do that no other medium can. So how about the things a cutscene can do that games can't?
When System Shock 2 did this, it kind of made sense, the crew would need a way to tag down important or personal info quickly and easily. BioShock...uh uh, I can maybe understand a few officials having a tape recorder lying about, but not in the amount of 'em available, particularly to your average civilian. Paper. Paper. Paper. I know they're underwater and all that, but that still would not have nessecitated a mass reliance on magnetic tape.mathias53 said:
Also, I suppose dialog boxes are good for advancing the story, but, they're still rather static even if you do get to make the choices. I liked Mass Effect's take on this, although it wasn't as freeform as they said it would be, it was nice nonetheless imo.
As far as I'm aware, Half-Life 2 plays out it's storyline quite well, and there are very few instances where you're actually taken out of the gameplay, those that are are usually justified, i.e. Gordon is immobilised for some reason.
However, cutscenes can be used to very nice effect, and I don't think they should be necessarily phased out of games altogether.
Most games don't have a bad story really, just bad story-telling. Clunky dialog and bad voice acting. Definitely need a professional to write dialog. There's a reason Episode V is the best Star Wars movie--Leigh Brackett, not George Lucas wrote the script. 
I thought Heavenly Sword, while an example of bad story-telling, actually did some interesting things with cut-scenes. I loved the small boxes that appeared and continued the story while I could still mash buttons to my heart's content.
I thought Heavenly Sword, while an example of bad story-telling, actually did some interesting things with cut-scenes. I loved the small boxes that appeared and continued the story while I could still mash buttons to my heart's content.
Quick-time events are risky at best. They require action from the player at a point where the player's mind is programmed to be given a rest - cinema.Arbre said:
Quick-time events during cinematics are an example of the cautionary experimentation, but the problem is that when you watch a movie, you don't have to react, and our brains are hardwired to that. While they do give some interactivity back to the player, it's only "to not die." Interactivity like this is barely a step above choosing whether or not to turn the game off. Interactive cinematics, on the story-telling field, should shape the course of the game, not just allow the character to keep moving along a predefined course. Otherwise there's no point in having the quick-time event in the first place aside from frustrating the player.Karisse said:
As for quick-time events in general, they can be done better. Kingdom Hearts II incorporated reaction commands into combat, where if Sora was in a certain situation the player could press the triangle button to perform a unique maneuver to either dodge, defend or attack. The timing of the reaction command was always different and so were the consequences of missing it, but it was a core part of combat, so you were always on your toes in case a reaction command came up.
What if the quicktime event was like a choose your own adventure novel? X = do something crazy. Y = do something safe. Either choice could send you down a different chain. It'd be sort of like a dialog tree, except it's an action tree that lets the player still have some meaningful input on the cutscene.Arbre said:
The answer is actually very simple.
We just have to convince every person that buys videogames to only the ones with good story mechanics.
Problem solved.
We just have to convince every person that buys videogames to only the ones with good story mechanics.
Problem solved.
Cut all of these artificial methods, tricks and gimmicks; tell a story like you experience it in reality.
Life is not big on lengthy exposition, we need to explain less, stop catering to the lowest common denominator of intelligence among players (sales be damned, we're talking about quality, not profit) and leave some mystery and confusion in a game, realising a lack of total understanding is a very real thing, and one that -enhances- the experience.
Force players to think and to make their own decisions instead of holding their hand every step with very basic, clearly spoken instructions and lengthy cutscenes.
Allow -me- the choice to listen to the dying villain's monologue, or to finish him off with a gunshot and walk home.
Life is not big on lengthy exposition, we need to explain less, stop catering to the lowest common denominator of intelligence among players (sales be damned, we're talking about quality, not profit) and leave some mystery and confusion in a game, realising a lack of total understanding is a very real thing, and one that -enhances- the experience.
Force players to think and to make their own decisions instead of holding their hand every step with very basic, clearly spoken instructions and lengthy cutscenes.
Allow -me- the choice to listen to the dying villain's monologue, or to finish him off with a gunshot and walk home.
It has been? What game? Tell me (I actually want to know, I can't think of anything at the moment)Hurray Forums said: