Jaffe: Game Execs Need a BS Filter

[Woodsey]

That's... yeah. Played The Witcher 2?

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.)

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.

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.

And play Human Revolution. It does restrict a tad too much in a couple of the cutscenes, bt it does much the same as The Witcher 2. It defines a protagonist whilst allowing the player to maintain control over what they would do if they were that character. All shades of opinion that you can give Geralt and Jensen also make perfect sense for those characters.

And the problem with you accepting exceptions is that you're then accepting my argument is true; games can do better storytelling, and they can do it whilst keeping characters as characters.

Although your point about silent protagonists is a non-issue anyway. A silent protagonist serving as a vessel for the player does not impede a player's emotional connection (if anything, it should enhance it) to a world or to other characters, nor does it hinder the opportunity to tell a story. I don't see why that - a point which makes games unique in telling stories - means games are only good for world-building.

 

[Thyunda]

That's... yeah. Played The Witcher 2?

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.)

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.

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.

And play Human Revolution. It does restrict a tad too much in a couple of the cutscenes, bt it does much the same as The Witcher 2.

And the problem with you accepting exceptions is that you're then accepting my argument is true; games can do better storytelling, and they can do it whilst keeping characters as characters.

Although your point about silent protagonists is a non-issue anyway. A silent protagonist serving as a vessel for the player does not impede a player's emotional connection (if anything, it should enhance it) to a world or to other characters, nor does it hinder the opportunity to tell a story. I don't see why that - a point which makes games unique in telling stories - means games are only good for world-building.

A game can at best tell a story equally well as a good book or film. But if you read my original post, I said that a book or film tells one story, but a game can tell a thousand.
Take New Vegas. Do I remember the Courier tracking down his would-be killer? Not really, no. But I do remember the Father in the Cave, and Raul's hard-fought past.

 

[Woodsey]

That's... yeah. Played The Witcher 2?

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.)

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.

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.

And play Human Revolution. It does restrict a tad too much in a couple of the cutscenes, bt it does much the same as The Witcher 2.

And the problem with you accepting exceptions is that you're then accepting my argument is true; games can do better storytelling, and they can do it whilst keeping characters as characters.

Although your point about silent protagonists is a non-issue anyway. A silent protagonist serving as a vessel for the player does not impede a player's emotional connection (if anything, it should enhance it) to a world or to other characters, nor does it hinder the opportunity to tell a story. I don't see why that - a point which makes games unique in telling stories - means games are only good for world-building.

A game can at best tell a story equally well as a good book or film. But if you read my original post, I said that a book or film tells one story, but a game can tell a thousand.
Take New Vegas. Do I remember the Courier tracking down his would-be killer? Not really, no. But I do remember the Father in the Cave, and Raul's hard-fought past.

And that point makes no sense.

Like Jaffe, you're chalking up a current failure to fully harness the storytelling potential games have to an inherent flaw within them that prevents them going further.

If a game can have the length (time-span) and detail of a book, the visual nature of a film, and the interactivity of... well, a game, then why are you so sure games can only ever equal the two other mediums?

New Vegas' main story was one of many; by way of averages, there's going to be at least one story in that game you like. That has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on games with a much stronger, central narrative focus. Likewise, just because games allow us to explore worlds more fully, that does not mean that is the height of what they'll be able to do, or the only form of storytelling worth pushing in games, or the only type of storytelling that can improve upon films and books.

 

[Squilookle]

Jaffe:

"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?"

To which I would reply- "Why the fuck not?" The first films didn't tell a story- were we supposed to conclude way back then that films never should? I doubt the first books had a compelling narrative- were we supposed to say 'nuh-uh, books and manuscripts have never had stories yet, so why try?'

Talk about a defeatist attitude.

Come to think of it, with the incredible unoriginality in the industry, I actually wish more developers were able to 'bamboozle' execs into funding them. I'm so sick of games made by comittee.

 

[Thyunda]

That's... yeah. Played The Witcher 2?

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.)

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.

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.

And play Human Revolution. It does restrict a tad too much in a couple of the cutscenes, bt it does much the same as The Witcher 2.

And the problem with you accepting exceptions is that you're then accepting my argument is true; games can do better storytelling, and they can do it whilst keeping characters as characters.

Although your point about silent protagonists is a non-issue anyway. A silent protagonist serving as a vessel for the player does not impede a player's emotional connection (if anything, it should enhance it) to a world or to other characters, nor does it hinder the opportunity to tell a story. I don't see why that - a point which makes games unique in telling stories - means games are only good for world-building.

A game can at best tell a story equally well as a good book or film. But if you read my original post, I said that a book or film tells one story, but a game can tell a thousand.
Take New Vegas. Do I remember the Courier tracking down his would-be killer? Not really, no. But I do remember the Father in the Cave, and Raul's hard-fought past.

And that point makes no sense.

Like Jaffe, you're chalking up a current failure to fully harness the storytelling potential games have to an inherent flaw within them that prevents them going further.

If a game can have the length (time-span) and detail of a book, the visual nature of a film, and the interactivity of... well, a game, then why are you so sure games can only ever equal the two other mediums?

New Vegas' main story was one of many; by way of averages, there's going to be at least one story in that game you like. That has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on games with a much stronger, central narrative focus. Likewise, just because games allow us to explore worlds more fully, that does not mean that is the height of what they'll be able to do, or the only form of storytelling worth pushing in games, or the only type of storytelling that can improve upon films and books.

Because in a film or a book, you're an observer. In a game, you're in there, and you can't hear a story in the same way. You either make your own character, or you play a pre-existing one...whose actions while you're in control are entirely different to his actions when you're not.
The Cole Phelps I play does not do the things Team Bondi's Cole Phelps did. By giving me a degree of control over his actions, I'm entitled, perhaps falsely, to control him in other situations. But however false the entitlement, you can't allow us to control a character some of the time, and then yank him off us to do unsavoury things to the point where we start believing that the character quite simply cannot be trusted without a supervisor.

 

[Woodsey]

That's... yeah. Played The Witcher 2?

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.)

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.

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.

And play Human Revolution. It does restrict a tad too much in a couple of the cutscenes, bt it does much the same as The Witcher 2.

And the problem with you accepting exceptions is that you're then accepting my argument is true; games can do better storytelling, and they can do it whilst keeping characters as characters.

Although your point about silent protagonists is a non-issue anyway. A silent protagonist serving as a vessel for the player does not impede a player's emotional connection (if anything, it should enhance it) to a world or to other characters, nor does it hinder the opportunity to tell a story. I don't see why that - a point which makes games unique in telling stories - means games are only good for world-building.

A game can at best tell a story equally well as a good book or film. But if you read my original post, I said that a book or film tells one story, but a game can tell a thousand.
Take New Vegas. Do I remember the Courier tracking down his would-be killer? Not really, no. But I do remember the Father in the Cave, and Raul's hard-fought past.

And that point makes no sense.

Like Jaffe, you're chalking up a current failure to fully harness the storytelling potential games have to an inherent flaw within them that prevents them going further.

If a game can have the length (time-span) and detail of a book, the visual nature of a film, and the interactivity of... well, a game, then why are you so sure games can only ever equal the two other mediums?

New Vegas' main story was one of many; by way of averages, there's going to be at least one story in that game you like. That has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on games with a much stronger, central narrative focus. Likewise, just because games allow us to explore worlds more fully, that does not mean that is the height of what they'll be able to do, or the only form of storytelling worth pushing in games, or the only type of storytelling that can improve upon films and books.

Because in a film or a book, you're an observer. In a game, you're in there, and you can't hear a story in the same way. You either make your own character, or you play a pre-existing one...whose actions while you're in control are entirely different to his actions when you're not.
The Cole Phelps I play does not do the things Team Bondi's Cole Phelps did. By giving me a degree of control over his actions, I'm entitled, perhaps falsely, to control him in other situations. But however false the entitlement, you can't allow us to control a character some of the time, and then yank him off us to do unsavoury things to the point where we start believing that the character quite simply cannot be trusted without a supervisor.

"whose actions while you're in control are entirely different to his actions when you're not."

If you're playing a poorly made game. You're making the same point I am whilst thinking you're making a different one. Good games eliminate the discrepancies in the actions of the player and character. (Again, Human Revolution - for the most part - and The Witcher 2.)

If you're doing this in a game where you're using a more traditional gameplay-and-then-cutscene-and-then-gameplay model, then you need to communicate the character's thoughts, feelings and emotions whilst playing. For example: The Sands of Time.

Now, obviously if you're a psychopath and you hate Farah then it won't work, but for most people it did. We care for her in much the same way the Prince does, and by communicating his thoughts to us during gameplay segments, we can embody his point of view without him simply being a vessel. When he then does something in a cutscene - assuming the writer is good - it doesn't then feel out of place.

 

[Thyunda]

That's... yeah. Played The Witcher 2?

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.)

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.

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.

And play Human Revolution. It does restrict a tad too much in a couple of the cutscenes, bt it does much the same as The Witcher 2.

And the problem with you accepting exceptions is that you're then accepting my argument is true; games can do better storytelling, and they can do it whilst keeping characters as characters.

Although your point about silent protagonists is a non-issue anyway. A silent protagonist serving as a vessel for the player does not impede a player's emotional connection (if anything, it should enhance it) to a world or to other characters, nor does it hinder the opportunity to tell a story. I don't see why that - a point which makes games unique in telling stories - means games are only good for world-building.

A game can at best tell a story equally well as a good book or film. But if you read my original post, I said that a book or film tells one story, but a game can tell a thousand.
Take New Vegas. Do I remember the Courier tracking down his would-be killer? Not really, no. But I do remember the Father in the Cave, and Raul's hard-fought past.

And that point makes no sense.

Like Jaffe, you're chalking up a current failure to fully harness the storytelling potential games have to an inherent flaw within them that prevents them going further.

If a game can have the length (time-span) and detail of a book, the visual nature of a film, and the interactivity of... well, a game, then why are you so sure games can only ever equal the two other mediums?

New Vegas' main story was one of many; by way of averages, there's going to be at least one story in that game you like. That has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on games with a much stronger, central narrative focus. Likewise, just because games allow us to explore worlds more fully, that does not mean that is the height of what they'll be able to do, or the only form of storytelling worth pushing in games, or the only type of storytelling that can improve upon films and books.

Because in a film or a book, you're an observer. In a game, you're in there, and you can't hear a story in the same way. You either make your own character, or you play a pre-existing one...whose actions while you're in control are entirely different to his actions when you're not.
The Cole Phelps I play does not do the things Team Bondi's Cole Phelps did. By giving me a degree of control over his actions, I'm entitled, perhaps falsely, to control him in other situations. But however false the entitlement, you can't allow us to control a character some of the time, and then yank him off us to do unsavoury things to the point where we start believing that the character quite simply cannot be trusted without a supervisor.

"whose actions while you're in control are entirely different to his actions when you're not."

If you're playing a poorly made game. You're making the same point I am whilst thinking you're making a different one. Good games eliminate the discrepancies in the actions of the player and character. (Again, Human Revolution - for the most part - and The Witcher 2.)

If you're doing this in a game where you're using a more traditional gameplay-and-then-cutscene-and-then-gameplay model, then you need to communicate the character's thoughts, feelings and emotions whilst playing. For example: The Sands of Time.

Now, obviously if you're a psychopath and you hate Farah then it won't work, but for most people it did. We care for her in much the same way the Prince does, and by communicating his thoughts to us during gameplay segments, we can embody his point of view without him simply being a vessel. When he then does something in a cutscene - assuming the writer is good - it doesn't then feel out of place.

I could have sworn Human Revolution was mentioned as an example of cutscene inefficiency. You keep saying 'for the most part', but that doesn't cut it. So far The Witcher 2 is the only game I can't argue with for lack of experience.
Now I thought Metro 2033 was a damn good game. However, its storytelling was nothing compared to Glukhovsky's book.

 

[Something Amyss]

To which I would reply- "Why the fuck not?" The first films didn't tell a story- were we supposed to conclude way back then that films never should? I doubt the first books had a compelling narrative- were we supposed to say 'nuh-uh, books and manuscripts have never had stories yet, so why try?'

Films were very much a novelty at first. I mean, there were a few serious developments, but mostly it was trivial.

Not to mention animation. I doubt when they first started doing cartoons, they conceived of Walt Disney's animated features, or the Simpsons, or anything of the sort.

So yeah. Hard so say definitively what will come, but the medium isn't invalidated because Jaffe's imagination is limited.

 

[Woodsey]

That's... yeah. Played The Witcher 2?

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.)

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.

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.

And play Human Revolution. It does restrict a tad too much in a couple of the cutscenes, bt it does much the same as The Witcher 2.

And the problem with you accepting exceptions is that you're then accepting my argument is true; games can do better storytelling, and they can do it whilst keeping characters as characters.

Although your point about silent protagonists is a non-issue anyway. A silent protagonist serving as a vessel for the player does not impede a player's emotional connection (if anything, it should enhance it) to a world or to other characters, nor does it hinder the opportunity to tell a story. I don't see why that - a point which makes games unique in telling stories - means games are only good for world-building.

A game can at best tell a story equally well as a good book or film. But if you read my original post, I said that a book or film tells one story, but a game can tell a thousand.
Take New Vegas. Do I remember the Courier tracking down his would-be killer? Not really, no. But I do remember the Father in the Cave, and Raul's hard-fought past.

And that point makes no sense.

Like Jaffe, you're chalking up a current failure to fully harness the storytelling potential games have to an inherent flaw within them that prevents them going further.

If a game can have the length (time-span) and detail of a book, the visual nature of a film, and the interactivity of... well, a game, then why are you so sure games can only ever equal the two other mediums?

New Vegas' main story was one of many; by way of averages, there's going to be at least one story in that game you like. That has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on games with a much stronger, central narrative focus. Likewise, just because games allow us to explore worlds more fully, that does not mean that is the height of what they'll be able to do, or the only form of storytelling worth pushing in games, or the only type of storytelling that can improve upon films and books.

Because in a film or a book, you're an observer. In a game, you're in there, and you can't hear a story in the same way. You either make your own character, or you play a pre-existing one...whose actions while you're in control are entirely different to his actions when you're not.
The Cole Phelps I play does not do the things Team Bondi's Cole Phelps did. By giving me a degree of control over his actions, I'm entitled, perhaps falsely, to control him in other situations. But however false the entitlement, you can't allow us to control a character some of the time, and then yank him off us to do unsavoury things to the point where we start believing that the character quite simply cannot be trusted without a supervisor.

"whose actions while you're in control are entirely different to his actions when you're not."

If you're playing a poorly made game. You're making the same point I am whilst thinking you're making a different one. Good games eliminate the discrepancies in the actions of the player and character. (Again, Human Revolution - for the most part - and The Witcher 2.)

If you're doing this in a game where you're using a more traditional gameplay-and-then-cutscene-and-then-gameplay model, then you need to communicate the character's thoughts, feelings and emotions whilst playing. For example: The Sands of Time.

Now, obviously if you're a psychopath and you hate Farah then it won't work, but for most people it did. We care for her in much the same way the Prince does, and by communicating his thoughts to us during gameplay segments, we can embody his point of view without him simply being a vessel. When he then does something in a cutscene - assuming the writer is good - it doesn't then feel out of place.

I could have sworn Human Revolution was mentioned as an example of cutscene inefficiency. You keep saying 'for the most part', but that doesn't cut it. So far The Witcher 2 is the only game I can't argue with for lack of experience.
Now I thought Metro 2033 was a damn good game. However, its storytelling was nothing compared to Glukhovsky's book.

Ah, well if you haven't played it, it'll be somewhat harder to get across, but: bosses all die in cutscenes, whilst you can go through the rest of the game with Jensen not killing anyone. So yes, 'cutscene inefficiency', but it exists purely because of time constraints (which meant they actually had to give them to a third party studio to do), not because they couldn't do it because of a lack of skill or know-how.

 

[Thyunda]

That's... yeah. Played The Witcher 2?

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.)

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.

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.

And play Human Revolution. It does restrict a tad too much in a couple of the cutscenes, bt it does much the same as The Witcher 2.

And the problem with you accepting exceptions is that you're then accepting my argument is true; games can do better storytelling, and they can do it whilst keeping characters as characters.

Although your point about silent protagonists is a non-issue anyway. A silent protagonist serving as a vessel for the player does not impede a player's emotional connection (if anything, it should enhance it) to a world or to other characters, nor does it hinder the opportunity to tell a story. I don't see why that - a point which makes games unique in telling stories - means games are only good for world-building.

A game can at best tell a story equally well as a good book or film. But if you read my original post, I said that a book or film tells one story, but a game can tell a thousand.
Take New Vegas. Do I remember the Courier tracking down his would-be killer? Not really, no. But I do remember the Father in the Cave, and Raul's hard-fought past.

And that point makes no sense.

Like Jaffe, you're chalking up a current failure to fully harness the storytelling potential games have to an inherent flaw within them that prevents them going further.

If a game can have the length (time-span) and detail of a book, the visual nature of a film, and the interactivity of... well, a game, then why are you so sure games can only ever equal the two other mediums?

New Vegas' main story was one of many; by way of averages, there's going to be at least one story in that game you like. That has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on games with a much stronger, central narrative focus. Likewise, just because games allow us to explore worlds more fully, that does not mean that is the height of what they'll be able to do, or the only form of storytelling worth pushing in games, or the only type of storytelling that can improve upon films and books.

Because in a film or a book, you're an observer. In a game, you're in there, and you can't hear a story in the same way. You either make your own character, or you play a pre-existing one...whose actions while you're in control are entirely different to his actions when you're not.
The Cole Phelps I play does not do the things Team Bondi's Cole Phelps did. By giving me a degree of control over his actions, I'm entitled, perhaps falsely, to control him in other situations. But however false the entitlement, you can't allow us to control a character some of the time, and then yank him off us to do unsavoury things to the point where we start believing that the character quite simply cannot be trusted without a supervisor.

"whose actions while you're in control are entirely different to his actions when you're not."

If you're playing a poorly made game. You're making the same point I am whilst thinking you're making a different one. Good games eliminate the discrepancies in the actions of the player and character. (Again, Human Revolution - for the most part - and The Witcher 2.)

If you're doing this in a game where you're using a more traditional gameplay-and-then-cutscene-and-then-gameplay model, then you need to communicate the character's thoughts, feelings and emotions whilst playing. For example: The Sands of Time.

Now, obviously if you're a psychopath and you hate Farah then it won't work, but for most people it did. We care for her in much the same way the Prince does, and by communicating his thoughts to us during gameplay segments, we can embody his point of view without him simply being a vessel. When he then does something in a cutscene - assuming the writer is good - it doesn't then feel out of place.

I could have sworn Human Revolution was mentioned as an example of cutscene inefficiency. You keep saying 'for the most part', but that doesn't cut it. So far The Witcher 2 is the only game I can't argue with for lack of experience.
Now I thought Metro 2033 was a damn good game. However, its storytelling was nothing compared to Glukhovsky's book.

Ah, well if you haven't played it, it'll be somewhat harder to get across, but: bosses all die in cutscenes, whilst you can go through the rest of the game with Jensen not killing anyone. So yes, 'cutscene inefficiency', but it exists purely because of time constraints (which meant they actually had to give them to a third party studio to do), not because they couldn't do it because of a lack of skill or know-how.

I personally think the best game for telling the protagonist's story thus far is Saint's Row 2. Despite being a totally player-made character, the boss of the Saints still managed to be the right balance of funny and badass, and rode the chaotic nature of the game with exactly the right manner as to equalise cutscene and gameplay

 

[fezzthemonk]

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.

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.

That seams very counter-intuitive to the process. I guess i was mistaken.

 

[josemlopes]

Ha, would Snake crawling through the microwave corridor been nearly as epic if I wasn't frantically mashing triangle? Snake needs me to exist.

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.

It doesnt matter as long as the player thinks that he is influencing the outcome, maybe it is even impossible to loose that part to make the player never fail that moment and ruin the climax.

 

[The Maddest March Hare]

It's funny because all of the games he's worked on had mediocre stories.

I agree that publishers really need to understand the medium they own more, the same can be said for many people in the film and music industries. Maybe if they started to understand modern media a bit more, we wouldn't have the outdated business models and terrible attempts at anti-piracy acts that they're spewing left right and centre these days.

Just imagine, a world where the media companies understood, paid their artists fairly, and didn't try charging <link=http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html>$150,000 per track stolen. What a Utopia it would be..

 

[Inkidu]

Video games are a great place to express philosophy, story and narrative. It's just that most developers are trying to do it how it's done in movies, instead of using the tools games have.

Games have something every other medium does not. Interactivity. If you can use interactivity well, you can make a the most powerful narrative ever. Certainly better than anything in books, movies, and all that.

See: Bastion and Valve games

It's a damn shame so many developers aren't using it to their advantage. Instead trying to do the same thing as movies/tv shows.

And yeah, some people don't like games that focus on philosophy and story and all that. That's fine. We can't all like the same thing. But I see no reason why we can't have both the narrative-focused games, and gameplay-focused games, and everything in-between.

This is it exactly. In fact, there is a school of thought about writing, philosophy, and critical analysis that says basically (and I'm abbreviating this because it deals with Deconstruction... and well... it's heavy) you're impos

What better medium than video games. If it's done right it works. Bisohock for example is a study of when Ayn Rand's capitalist-radical ideas go wrong. I could spend three hundred pages on a book that explains all this, it could probably be a fun read and maybe if I'm lucky a best seller, but Bioshock does it better.

Why should you read about it when it impresses on you every second that this is what happens in a society where grown men and women act like children doing whatever they want and damning the consequences.

Video games will never replace books or anything, but video games present a kind of virtual immersion that makes these things sink in. Nothing teaches like having to live it, even if the video game is not the most complete of experiences (and is honestly still very primative in the grand scheme of art) it still provides that something unique.

So I agree, publishers need filter de al la B.S. However saying video games are bad for expressing ideals and philosophy is like saying, "That reading thing? Nah, it'll never catch on."

 

[Pandaman1911]

I think he's actually got a point, as far as the whole story bit goes. If you want to make a great, moving narrative and story, that's awesome. Go write a book, direct a movie, or a miniseries, or what have you. But if you want to make a GAME, first and foremost, and one of the qualities of this game is a good story, then all the more power to you. Don't forget, while your story is all good and fantastic, the game needs to be good too, or the story is lost.

 

[FoolKiller]

Wow. I was with him until he got to his nonsense about it being a bad medium for story-telling. Someone should send him a copy of Dragon Age or Mass Effect.

 

[TephlonPrice]

I can see his point here, but then again, time & time again we've proven you can put good epic stories in video games. It's about HOW it's implemented.

I could give Alpha Protocol as an excellent example of my point. Why? Because it has a great story with actual consequences that actually affect the player's mission & the player, positively or negatively. But more importantly, it never forgets that it's also a GAME, an INTERACTIVE medium & manages to tell its story without sacrificing interactivity & it draws you into its world, even if it was a bit buggy at times.

I'll even give Mass Effect, Deus Ex, Half-Life series & Bioshock their place here, because they too manage to tell a story while remembering they're also GAMES.

 

[CapitalistPig]

wait your telling me execs are out of touch with the development process. Well duh bro, thats kinda how they roll. If an executive member had time to sit around and talk BS about gameplay, philosophy and story he would probably wonder why he even hired the game developer. Other then the general "sex sells" style of packaging ive seen in games lately im not sure exactly what are the examples of games where the developer promised something and just completely failed to deliver other then maybe L.A Noire (ill give you that.) but if it werent for failures we wouldnt have lights and whatnot around the world. If a company wants to support crappy ideas thats kinda their decision to make. The real thing an exec should learn to do is fire crappy developers.

 

[samsonguy920]

David Jaffe, Man of the Year. That is all.

wait your telling me execs are out of touch with the development process. Well duh bro, thats kinda how they roll. If an executive member had time to sit around and talk BS about gameplay, philosophy and story he would probably wonder why he even hired the game developer. Other then the general "sex sells" style of packaging ive seen in games lately im not sure exactly what are the examples of games where the developer promised something and just completely failed to deliver other then maybe L.A Noire (ill give you that.) but if it werent for failures we wouldnt have lights and whatnot around the world. If a company wants to support crappy ideas thats kinda their decision to make. The real thing an exec should learn to do is fire crappy developers.

You are circle-arguing yourself. Publishers need to take better responsibility towards what they approve for development. Otherwise that is a lot of money they are just flushing away. I have to wonder how anybody who gets in a position to approve projects who also can't be bothered to take an interest in what is really going on gets their job. Maybe if publishers employed a bit more oversight, demanding a better prospectus on a game than just a bologna summary, they might actually have better games to publish, and make more money. Then maybe they will worry less about losing so much to piracy.
But not like that's going to happen anytime soon.

 

[Vault101]

He's dead right about the narrative thing.

I'm glad that a few people are trying to put decent stories in games, but damned if I know why they bother.

seriously? without the story mass effect (for me) would have just been a shitty game I sucked at

its dissapointing that somone from INSIDE the industry has this kind of attitude, Id actually like to see what games he considered the "good" since he doesnt belive they can have good stories