Jaffe: Game Execs Need a BS Filter
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
To an extent, that does describe Greek Tragedy. The point I was trying to make was that no one really could find themselves to take GoW seriously because of the way it presented iteself, because of the way most of those kinds of games present themselves. Again, I've never heard anyone say that they've taken anything away from that story, and thats a problem when its one of the few genuine tragedies in gaming that we can name.TsunamiWombat said:
As for Bioshock, I didn't really want to rip into it. Yes, it is a game with a good narrative, and I would never say that games can't have narrative depth; that'd be stupid. But we can't just ignore real problems by holding up the few exceptions, and Bioshock also isn't a very good example of how a single writer should turn to games, because really, the actual doesn't have that much influence on Bioshock as a whole.
What I mean is, how much of Bioshock really came from just the writers? Sure, you have the basic plot and dialogue, but the real meat of the story is told through level design, and the tone is set by that and the enemies, composer, etc. Its a collaborative effort, and I'm not trying to say that that's not a great thing, because it is, but Bioshock just doesn't seem like it had a single visionary behind it, which means most should probably turn to another medium to give their vision.
There are games that do seem like the creator had total control behind it: Ueda's Ico and Schafer's Monkey Island are both simple enough and rely on a single mechanic to seem like the work of a single person(clever writing in Monkey Island, the whole relationship thing in Ico), but as a whole, even our better written games like Mass Effect or Planescape lack the influence of a single directoral vision, and I think that is going to hold games back for a while.
Again, this is just my overly wordy, somewhat pretentious vision, and I don't mean to disparage Bioshock or God of War in any way. Every step forward is progress, and I really do want to see games flourish as an art form: I just think some things need to change beforehand.
I refuse to believe that. Look at the lore for the Diablo universe. They even have a man who's position is named "Lore Master." Stories can be told in video games, and they can be told well. My dream is to get a job like Lore Master. I love learning about the universe that the game takes place in. All the back story, and the hidden secrets. DOOM bored the living daylights out of me because I need something more from my games that just mindless action over and over. It's a pity this man feels video games aren't really worth adding good stories to.
While I agree that publishers should be more familiar with gaming and game development. Hell you could say make similar statements about executive management in general, they need to be more familiar with what those under them are doing so they don't end up making broad wide sweeping decisions about things they know nothing about. However I disagree with what he says about games and stories. There have been plenty of games that have had deep meaningful stories, and some stories are only best told through and interactive medium.
If someone pitching a thematically-hefty idea for a game is like a world-class chef working at McDonalds, what does that make Jaffe? A self-aware fry-cook with low aspirations?
"Oh him? He's been here for years. Yeah, I don't think he's going anywhere anytime soon. He....he might be retarded? I'm not sure... But he makes one HELL of a Big Mac!"
The LAST problem the industry has is screening out interesting ideas. Anybody who thinks what we're suffering from is too many unique ideas or too much artistic incliniation is an idiot. But you look at the major successes of the last few years -- Grand Theft Auto, RDR, Batman, Portal -- games that have not just made money but have been praised and adored and will be remembered, and these are all games that started with ideas to convey. GTAIV IS a gritty Tarantino-esque bla bla bla. And it fucking works. RDR IS a slick western with a cynical moral outlook; that is its entire thesis, from the word go. And it FUCKING WORKS. Portal without the narrative/thematic backbone would be a vastly-inferior game. Hell, leave alone the artistic side -- IT WOULDN'T BE AS FUN!
Jaffe's games are fun, but with the exception of the first God of War, they're hollow. They're expensive toys. They don't mean anything, and in fifty years, they'll just be cultural detritus, no more or less important than Hot Wheels or Hulk Hands. And if that's all you want to make, that's great, it's needed, and there's absolutely a place for it-- but that's not the only goal out there, and it's not the only one that leads to critical or financial success.
Jaffe and Cliffy B and all these other "games are just for fun, bro!" dudes need to stop acting like they've figured it all out. Because they haven't. They haven't even scratched the surface. But they have influence. They can do active harm. They make games that make money, so when they talk, the people with the money listen.
"Oh him? He's been here for years. Yeah, I don't think he's going anywhere anytime soon. He....he might be retarded? I'm not sure... But he makes one HELL of a Big Mac!"
The LAST problem the industry has is screening out interesting ideas. Anybody who thinks what we're suffering from is too many unique ideas or too much artistic incliniation is an idiot. But you look at the major successes of the last few years -- Grand Theft Auto, RDR, Batman, Portal -- games that have not just made money but have been praised and adored and will be remembered, and these are all games that started with ideas to convey. GTAIV IS a gritty Tarantino-esque bla bla bla. And it fucking works. RDR IS a slick western with a cynical moral outlook; that is its entire thesis, from the word go. And it FUCKING WORKS. Portal without the narrative/thematic backbone would be a vastly-inferior game. Hell, leave alone the artistic side -- IT WOULDN'T BE AS FUN!
Jaffe's games are fun, but with the exception of the first God of War, they're hollow. They're expensive toys. They don't mean anything, and in fifty years, they'll just be cultural detritus, no more or less important than Hot Wheels or Hulk Hands. And if that's all you want to make, that's great, it's needed, and there's absolutely a place for it-- but that's not the only goal out there, and it's not the only one that leads to critical or financial success.
Jaffe and Cliffy B and all these other "games are just for fun, bro!" dudes need to stop acting like they've figured it all out. Because they haven't. They haven't even scratched the surface. But they have influence. They can do active harm. They make games that make money, so when they talk, the people with the money listen.
I think his last point is his most valid...if you have a story that you absolutely need to tell, why are you using the least effective way to do it? BioShock may have had an excellent story, but part of its impact was lost on the endless faffing about. God of War has all the ingredients of a Greek Tragedy, but the story is forgotten while you're wading through the blood of a thousand bad guys for some vaguely explained reason.
You want to tell a story - a film or a book is the easiest, most effective way of doing it. You want to create a world, use a game. The Lord of the Rings can't show you Middle Earth in the way that the Elder Scrolls shows you Tamriel.
Character development is a lot harder in a game than it is in the other two major media. What did we learn about Jack from his adventures in Rapture? Very little. But what did we learn about Andrew Ryan and Fontaine? A fair bit more.
This is because a game tends to use a protagonist as a vehicle to explore and interact with the world the developers created. Naturally, there are exceptions, and they tend to have the more powerful characters - but they always run the risk of cut-scene inefficiency. Take John Marston - the player could be the smartest, deadliest, fastest gun in the West, and Marston would STILL stand in plain sight so Williamson could shoot him.
And for that reason - if it's the story you want to get across - use a different medium. If you have a fantastical world that you want people to explore, and a thousand stories to tell, THEN you use a game.
You want to tell a story - a film or a book is the easiest, most effective way of doing it. You want to create a world, use a game. The Lord of the Rings can't show you Middle Earth in the way that the Elder Scrolls shows you Tamriel.
Character development is a lot harder in a game than it is in the other two major media. What did we learn about Jack from his adventures in Rapture? Very little. But what did we learn about Andrew Ryan and Fontaine? A fair bit more.
This is because a game tends to use a protagonist as a vehicle to explore and interact with the world the developers created. Naturally, there are exceptions, and they tend to have the more powerful characters - but they always run the risk of cut-scene inefficiency. Take John Marston - the player could be the smartest, deadliest, fastest gun in the West, and Marston would STILL stand in plain sight so Williamson could shoot him.
And for that reason - if it's the story you want to get across - use a different medium. If you have a fantastical world that you want people to explore, and a thousand stories to tell, THEN you use a game.
That's actually a great example with the problem of telling stories in games.Sniper Team 4 said:
I assume the "Lore Master" you're talking about is Deckard Cain? See, the problem with that lore is that it's all straight exposition. It's meaningless from a gameplay perspective. The "Show, don't tell" rule of exposition predates the video game medium by quite some time, but game designers, whether for reasons of technical limitations, budget constraints, or just laziness, very often seem to think it doesn't apply to them. Hell, remember 20 years ago when, if you wanted to know what the hell the story of a game was, you had to read the manual (or if you were REALLY lucky, got a poorly localized crawl at the opening screen?)
And that hurts. I've played through Diablo II countless times. I've never been compelled to listen/read through the slow-scrolling voiced over blobs of exposition that Cain gives you throughout the game. Because when I'm doing so, I'm not playing the game. I'm not even watching a non-interactive movie.
I'm having pages of exposition read to me in a slow, soothing voice not conducive to wanting to go out and kill more stuff.
Actually, yes, it would have been. That's a poor example, as it was coded to proceed as planned after a minimum number of presses. 100 presses a minute or 10, he'd still get down that hallway. It does speak for the writing that you felt compelled to mash the button like that though.BrotherRool said:
Really? I loved the story of a man bent on revenge against a god who blinded him with near-limitless power only to betray him into killing his own family. When the world was falling apart around you as you were protecting your family from yourself, all you saw was the gore? Granted the ending having Kratos ascend to god-hood after suiciding off of a mountain was a bullshit cop-out, but there were moments that really shone. And I'm talking about when I first played it in '06. It wouldn't have had the same impact if I were just watching it happen. Kratos' struggle in the first game was made more poignant because it was interactive, not in spite of it.PureIrony said:
"A 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?" he said.
... eh, the problem with that line of argument is that we'll never fucking get anywhere. And its much better that people say that and then do actually want to make games; you can spot some of the failed film-writers/directors in the industry from a fucking mile off.
Games could trump every other medium when it comes to storytelling, and the stories themselves - he's making the mistake of looking at a previous lack of effort as being indicative of future potential.
I... I... I can't hear myself think over all the blood rushing to my penis.
... eh, the problem with that line of argument is that we'll never fucking get anywhere. And its much better that people say that and then do actually want to make games; you can spot some of the failed film-writers/directors in the industry from a fucking mile off.
Games could trump every other medium when it comes to storytelling, and the stories themselves - he's making the mistake of looking at a previous lack of effort as being indicative of future potential.
Neither of those examples indicate a lack of effectiveness in the medium itself, just a lack of effectiveness in those specific games. BioShock's problem was that it's gameplay loop was from the 90s; that was a flaw with the game, its not a flaw with all other FPS's, or all other games.Thyunda said:
And Human Revolution; a game in which you actively take part in a debate which is applicable to everything from the replacement limbs we can develop now to internet censorship and DRM, for 40 hours, before actually asking you to pass your final judgement at the end.Irridium said:
I... I... I can't hear myself think over all the blood rushing to my penis.
I would like to bring up bastion for a moment. It is, in my opinion, the best written game ever. Game writing isn't just what people say, but the general mood of the game itself. Everything, from music to level design is to enhance the writing. Every event and note is based of the emotion the writing gives the other developers. It is a collaborative effort, but the writing is the first thing done for a reason. What we have to realize is that the way we write for books and movies isn't the way to write for games because we have an extra element that the other mediums don't, interaction. Well written game function from the idea that some things are better experienced than said.
Unfortnately that's not true. The vast majority of game writing is done after the game is finished, or is mid-way through production. Writers are adapting their stories to the game rather than vice versa.fezzthemonk said:
That's... yeah. Played The Witcher 2?Thyunda said:
And again, your RDR example exhibits a flaw with that game, not one completely inherent to all games. (Because I thought the ending was silly too.)
My favourite thing is when they announce they've got, "the guy who wrote Blah De Blah De Blah!", and everyone gets excited, and THEN its revealed that they wrote the game entirely isolated from the developers and effectively just emailed it to them.Grey Carter said:
I didn't say I didn't like God of War's story. I really like the way they set up irredeemable figure before he even kills Ares, I like the ending, and I really like that Kratos is an emotionally stunted, ugly violent fuck(that actually kind of sounds sarcastic, but I swear it not).wintercoat said:
And I'm not bashing video game's ability for interactive storytelling. Its just that, right now, it really doesn't seem like the kind of field where a writer should go to tell their story, and for a medium that wants so bad to be taken seriously artistically, that is a problem that we really need to get past.
As for the lack of thinking thing, my problem with God of War was that, even though it did have a competent story, when we think of it, that all takes a backseat to the gore and violence. The fact of the matter is, even brilliant games like Bioshock have to tie their narrative around a killing spree, and that doesn't always do good for a story, especially when the main character isn't supposed to be an incredibly violent spartan.
I wasn't referring to the ending - The ending, at least, made sense. I couldn't have taken those guys out in gameplay, which is what was offered. In the Fort Mercer cutscene, I could have taken them. Marston instead did a totally un-me thing and went into plain sight.Woodsey said:
What I'm trying to say is that a videogame protagonist is either emotionless, silent or schizophrenic. The main exceptions are characters you make yourself or linear JRPGs. JRPGs tend to have only the path set out in front of the hero. Red Dead Redemption gave us the freedom of how we approach problems, or whether we abuse our weapons and shoot innocent people. And depending on the skill level of the player, Marston will either be a bumbling idiot or a dead-eye shot. But regardless of his performance in gameplay, he'll still pull a gun on a fort full of armed men.
And no. I have not played The Witcher 2. But every rule has exceptions, so I'm willing to count that one as an exception.