So MovieBob had some crap to say about that there Mass Effect 3 thingy...

[Kahunaburger]

Enjoyable on entirely different levels though. Games are enjoyable because its a reward system. People may talk about how much they care about characters in games, but ultimately they still play them mostly because the game rewards them for their actions. They're usually pushing through the game to get their guy to the next level or unlock that next skill, better guns, better armor, trophies, etc. They have to reward the players for their work first and foremost.

Some games (like Diablo) incorporate the type of reward mechanisms you describe. Others (like Shade, or arguably Minecraft creative mode) do not.

People find things like books and movies enjoyable for more intangible reasons, and these mediums can be more enjoyable for a wider variety of reasons than a simple risk/reward system. Generally they present people with relatable situations that appeal to people's emotions and attachments to character, not the "I pushed the button and got a cookie for it" portion of the brain. I don't love the TV show Luther because he kicks people's asses, I love it because it presents character struggles I can empathize with and the emotional depth of complex characters. The ass kicking is really just visually stimulating flavor.

And many games are enjoyed for just those reasons. That is why many games have stories. Other games, like chess, 4x games, most roguelikes, and so on, are essentially strategic exercises that are enjoyed as such - reward mechanisms tend to be secondary to strategic gameplay and emergent complexity.

 

[AdamRhodes]

Surely you mean 'Dante Alighieri'?

And while I won't argue that that game wasn't an outright butchery of the Divine Comedy. It was a gorgeous looking game and pretty fun to boot.

I'm not sure how well the game would have worked if it stuck true to the text. Although it would certainly have been something I'd have loved to see.

Consider that EA hired people to stand out in front of their offices and picket the game with quasi religious signs about how the game was 'evil'
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/06/05/ea-confirms-dantes-inferno-protest-was-staged/

Or that they sent $200 dollars to critics with the quote.
"In Dante's Inferno, Greed is a two-headed beast. Hoarding wealth feeds one beast, and squandering it satiates the other. By cashing this check you succumb to avarice by hoarding filthy lucre, but by not cashing it, you waste it, and thereby surrender to prodigality. Make your choice and suffer the consequence for your sin. And scoff not, for consequences are imminent."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dante's_Inferno_(video_game)

or the whole 'Acts of lust' contest where they told players to go and commit acts of lust with the booth babes.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/93408-EA-Demands-Acts-of-Lust-With-Comic-Con-Booth-Babes

Artistic Integrity isn't something EA should really be allowed to use to defend their actions or games.

What you just described are marketing techniques. And number 2 is actually a very clever and original one at that.

It has literally no baring on the merit of a game.

And it certainly doesn't de-validate how fun Dante's Inferno was.

But it does show that EA isn't treating the game as a work of art, which was his point. These kinds of stunts just demonstrate that EA doesn't care about "artistic integrity" but selling a product. You know what sells a product? Controversy, even fake controversy. Plus, read the "Acts of Lust" article linked. It basically implies prostitution as a reward in the name of a publicity stunt.

 

[RaikuFA]

If I mention Rainfall, I'm called entitled for wanting a game brought over, and I've seen a lot of people who said that supporting RME and saying they're not entitled.

POT. KETTLE. BLACK.

 

[ultramarine486]

What you just described are marketing techniques. And number 2 is actually a very clever and original one at that.

It has literally no baring on the merit of a game.

And it certainly doesn't de-validate how fun Dante's Inferno was.

True enough, although sexual harassment, demeaning and belittling people's faith, and thinly veiled bribes being clever marketing is somewhat... depressing.

However fun Dante's Inferno was or wasn't it would have been a much more accurate target for the whole 'setting back the medium' argument then fans wanting a better ending. I mean how is it OK for EA to take Dante's Inferno the book and turn into a God of War knockoff while trying to stir up controversy over its arguably tasteless content. Yet when fans want a good game to have the good ending promised to them it's going to ruin everything once the 'artistic integrity' buzzword is spoken?

 

[irishda]

Uncharted 3- One man must stop someone from possessing the power to destroy/take over Earth. One man revisits a 20+ year old grudge that was ultimately responsible for setting him on the path that his life has taken him on and he begins to question what drives him to ignore the risk in pursuite of treasure whilst he confronts his internal fears made manifest.

But if you want to argue that games don't have good stories, why not tackle the games that are generally considered to have them.

Silent Hill comes to mind. Metal Gear, Bioshock, Deus Ex?

Metal Gear- One man must stop someone from possessing a weapon to destroy/take over the world. There's lots of complicated (sometimes ridiculous) twists to this one, but that's pretty much it. Save the World while a lot of villains monologue at you.

Bioshock- One man must stop someone from taking over the city (probably the world eventually) while a guy quotes Ayn Rand and references how gamers have to blindly do whatever the game tells them to do.

Deus Ex- One man must stop someone from possessing the power to control everyone.

Silent Hill- This one actually has an interesting story, mostly because one man isn't trying to save the world.

Meanwhile, let's look at some generally accepted great stories in other mediums.

The Godfather- A man must decide what direction to take in life, follow his family in a life of crime and power, spurred by revenge for his father, or escape into a normal life with his fiance.

Lawrence of Arabia- A man struggles with his torn loyalties between two nations, and his own rising sense of brutality.

Macbeth- A man rises to power through murder and deception. Then falls from grace as he's driven mad.

Notice the difference? Games still primarily revolve around the "Hero's Journey" model, which makes for fun stories. I still like reading the classic myths. But they don't really have a lot of depth to them, mainly because in video games, your character winning almost everything is an inevitability. Even in the grim games where the hero dies at the end or the villain wins, throughout the course of the game the hero has constantly been succeeding. Because if they don't, the player isn't being rewarded, and therefore will probably lose interest.

 

[irishda]

People find things like books and movies enjoyable for more intangible reasons, and these mediums can be more enjoyable for a wider variety of reasons than a simple risk/reward system. Generally they present people with relatable situations that appeal to people's emotions and attachments to character, not the "I pushed the button and got a cookie for it" portion of the brain. I don't love the TV show Luther because he kicks people's asses, I love it because it presents character struggles I can empathize with and the emotional depth of complex characters. The ass kicking is really just visually stimulating flavor.

And many games are enjoyed for just those reasons. That is why many games have stories. Other games, like chess, 4x games, most roguelikes, and so on, are essentially strategic exercises that are enjoyed as such - reward mechanisms tend to be secondary to strategic gameplay and emergent complexity.

Stories are usually just contexts for the gameplay to occur in. It started in the early arcade games with cheap stories that could present the least amount of exposition in order for the player to get to the action, stories like "Princess is kidnapped. Save her!" or "World's in trouble. Save it!". Stories have certainly progressed, but they've never really evolved beyond that "here's a problem. Go kill it!".

Stories need conflict. In books and movies that conflict can be emotional or psychological turmoil. Luther struggles because he has to remain cold and emotionless in his professional life while coming to terms with the problems in his social life. He has to fight the anger at his losses while dealing with people who inflict losses on others, and we the audience can see that pain. But it is boring as hell to try and present inner turmoil in a game (Press B to brood, tap X to suppress your tears). That's why conflict in games is almost always external violence, very, very rarely has it ever been conflicts with the self.

 

[malestrithe]

I used to care about this... and then I took an arrow in the knee.

 

[Sexy Devil]

"These whiners have set back video games a DECADE as as artistic medium"

*Plays Journey*

I call bullshit

It's not just that. Bioware has been treating each and every one of us like a cash pinata, what with the day one DLC that's partially on the disc and all. I think games kinda stop being an art form and keep being a product when you reach that point.

If Bastion's ending sucked I wouldn't be complaining for a different ending. I'd just say it sucked and move on, because SuperGiant hasn't proved time and time again that they don't care the slightest bit about artistic integrity.

 

[Warachia]

It's amazing how you can know something is going to be terrible and it still pisses you off.

So first he writes it off as a lackluster ending, then quotes stuff he made up (I have never heard any fan claim they helped write mass effect), then says how he doesn't know the ending but don't worry, because according to him that doesn't matter, obviously the ending can't be that bad, insert plug for previous episode, then he talks as if this were a book or movie (comparisons that fall flat due to being an entirely different medium) then a completely inaccurate statement that because we play the games the stories suffer for it, then he calls the fans entitled in an argument I've never seen anyone dumb enough to use, he then contradicts himself by saying that you have the right to be upset about the endings, he then completely dodges the valid arguments (Bioware saying things that will be in the game that aren't) and accepts the bad arguments (the ending sucked) he then pulls out the bullshit argument saying that since they altered it barely, we got different endings, his next arguments are the same thing where he pulls out an argument of people saying they we're owed a different ending and compares them to the woman in Misery (because it's exactly the same scenario isn't it?) he then says that he had good things that ended in bad ways, like the female characters in Xena not having sex, and likens it to the same thing (I'm not joking), he claims that fans feel they are entitled and wrecking artwork, and now we can never be taken seriously, then a generalisation that we aren't happy because the game isn't exactly how we wanted it to be.

How can you miss the point that badly? Also, isn't it a great tip to insult the people you want to win over? If you don't agree, then you are stupid.

I do find it funny that the reason people are so upset is because morons like bob call them self entitled whiners, if they didn't, this probably wouldn't have gotten blown this far out of proportion. Why is this guy still getting "serious" work?

 

[Kahunaburger]

People find things like books and movies enjoyable for more intangible reasons, and these mediums can be more enjoyable for a wider variety of reasons than a simple risk/reward system. Generally they present people with relatable situations that appeal to people's emotions and attachments to character, not the "I pushed the button and got a cookie for it" portion of the brain. I don't love the TV show Luther because he kicks people's asses, I love it because it presents character struggles I can empathize with and the emotional depth of complex characters. The ass kicking is really just visually stimulating flavor.

And many games are enjoyed for just those reasons. That is why many games have stories. Other games, like chess, 4x games, most roguelikes, and so on, are essentially strategic exercises that are enjoyed as such - reward mechanisms tend to be secondary to strategic gameplay and emergent complexity.

Stories are usually just contexts for the gameplay to occur in. It started in the early arcade games with cheap stories that could present the least amount of exposition in order for the player to get to the action, stories like "Princess is kidnapped. Save her!" or "World's in trouble. Save it!". Stories have certainly progressed, but they've never really evolved beyond that "here's a problem. Go kill it!".

Stories need conflict. In books and movies that conflict can be emotional or psychological turmoil. Luther struggles because he has to remain cold and emotionless in his professional life while coming to terms with the problems in his social life. He has to fight the anger at his losses while dealing with people who inflict losses on others, and we the audience can see that pain. But it is boring as hell to try and present inner turmoil in a game (Press B to brood, tap X to suppress your tears). That's why conflict in games is almost always external violence, very, very rarely has it ever been conflicts with the self.

Depends on the game. [http://www.eblong.com/zarf/zweb/shade/]

Also, your theory for stories in games doesn't really explain the extent to which games devote time and resources to story elements. This is the issue with this kind of reductive argument - by its very nature it oversimplifies.

 

[irishda]

Uncharted 3- One man must stop someone from possessing the power to destroy/take over Earth. One man revisits a 20+ year old grudge that was ultimately responsible for setting him on the path that his life has taken him on and he begins to question what drives him to ignore the risk in pursuite of treasure whilst he confronts his internal fears made manifest.

But if you want to argue that games don't have good stories, why not tackle the games that are generally considered to have them.

Silent Hill comes to mind. Metal Gear, Bioshock, Deus Ex?

Metal Gear- One man must stop someone from possessing a weapon to destroy/take over the world. There's lots of complicated (sometimes ridiculous) twists to this one, but that's pretty much it. Save the World while a lot of villains monologue at you.

Bioshock- One man must stop someone from taking over the city (probably the world eventually) while a guy quotes Ayn Rand and references how gamers have to blindly do whatever the game tells them to do.

Deus Ex- One man must stop someone from possessing the power to control everyone.

Silent Hill- This one actually has an interesting story, mostly because one man isn't trying to save the world.

Meanwhile, let's look at some generally accepted great stories in other mediums.

The Godfather- A man must decide what direction to take in life, follow his family in a life of crime and power, spurred by revenge for his father, or escape into a normal life with his fiance.

Lawrence of Arabia- A man struggles with his torn loyalties between two nations, and his own rising sense of brutality.

Macbeth- A man rises to power through murder and deception. Then falls from grace as he's driven mad.

Notice the difference? Games still primarily revolve around the "Hero's Journey" model, which makes for fun stories. I still like reading the classic myths. But they don't really have a lot of depth to them, mainly because in video games, your character winning almost everything is an inevitability. Even in the grim games where the hero dies at the end or the villain wins, throughout the course of the game the hero has constantly been succeeding. Because if they don't, the player isn't being rewarded, and therefore will probably lose interest.

That's because you're looking at them with through a ridiculously reduced hyperbolised view.

Metal Gear certainly isn't about one man, and infact the first protagonist becomes constantly less important as the story goes on.

To the point that on more than one occasion you're actually on screen doing the least important and least exciting thing in the fourth game.

The only thing you got right in that description was that the world was at stake.

The story is ridiculously nuanced the point of insanity if you actually cared to pay attention to the 4 major plot moving games, and at any given point there is more than one story actually being told at the same time.

Bioshock is a Greek tragedy. Pure and simple.

It's about a man who returns home and murders his father and is deceived by everyone he's trusted.

There is no world or city at stake. The city is already in complete disarray and Andrew Ryan is in throne room brooding over how badly his idealistic kingdom has turned and devoured itself from the inside out at the height of it's hubris.

The only people you arguably save are the little sisters, and that isn't even canon judging by the second game. (I'm not even going to bother getting into how it parallels the actual story of Atlas from Greek mythology.)

And admittedly it was silly of me to bring Deus Ex up without having played it. But if your other summations are anything to go off you've probably done it's story a great injustice.

There's the rub though. The same treatment I gave to the video games, I gave to the movie and book examples too. But they don't operate on the Hero quest formula, so they can explore beyond the expected. The ability to reduce them into their simplest terms becomes complicated. For instance, for the Godfather, I can't just say "One man has to kill all the gangsters to avenge his father" because it was never set in stone that's what was going to happen. Michael is caught between the violent suggestions of Sonny and the less aggressive stance of Tom. We can only wonder at who he's going to listen to. The conflict is more complex than "the world/your family is in trouble" and the possibilities of dealing with it is more varied than "kill things/solve puzzles to save them"

As for the Metal Gear Solid games, it's almost never focused on anyone BUT Snake and if it isn't, then it's usually people doing something FOR Snake. The one time that it was, MGS2, I recall quite a lot of people pissed because they're playing an effeminate guy instead of Snake.

And Bioshock? I apologize. That started out as "One man must fight to save his family" (which is the lie Fontaine tells him) but switched to "One man must avenge his father's death." It would be a Greek tragedy if Atlas had been the focus from the start, and Atlas had been characterized beyond just "hey this guy's greedy." As it stands, it's still just your atypical Hero journey.

 

[irishda]

Depends on the game. [http://www.eblong.com/zarf/zweb/shade/]

Also, your theory for stories in games doesn't really explain the extent to which games devote time and resources to story elements. This is the issue with this kind of reductive argument - by its very nature it oversimplifies.

But the example you provided is text based, it's not reliant on an external conflict because it can express internal turmoil where the character faces emotional stakes on a more personal level. Graphic games have a hard time expressing these sort of things because they essentially have to tell rather than than show.

 

[Warachia]

EDIT: Yeah he has no idea what he is going on about, saying by interacting with a medium, the story is of a worse quality than if you'd read it in a book/seen it in a film? Yeah. He is completely wrong.

He's right on that. Stories in games are generally shit because that's the most exciting kind of story, B-grade shit wherein you kill armies of people in between brief exposition points. I believe Yahtzee touched on this at some point. Let's break down some of the best stories in games, or at least what people usually say are the best:

HALO- One man must stop an army of aliens (by himself) from destroying Earth/the Universe.
Elder Scrolls- One person is chosen by destiny to stop an army from destroying the land (technically by themselves).
Mass Effect- One person must stop an army of aliens (with a small group of people) from destroying Earth/the Galaxy.
Uncharted- One man must stop someone from possessing the power to destroy/take over Earth.
Diablo- One person (or a few, if it's multiplayer) must stop evil from taking over the land.
Max Payne- One man must avenge the death of his family by killing everyone involved.
FFVII- One man (along with the help of a few others) must stop one man (in possession of an army) from destroying the world.
Beyond Good and Evil- One woman must uncover a conspiracy and stop aliens from taking over the world.

What I'm getting at is that game stories are either A: One person against (insert large group of enemies here) to save the world/universe/family or B: One person against (insert large group of enemies here) to avenge their family. And there's two ways of delivering this story. One is the linear model and the other is the open world/make your own adventure model. The former makes for better stories than the latter, because having people write their own stories makes for shitty stories, stories where the hero missed the opportunity to corner the bad guy because he left to go get drunk, play poker, and shoot random people.

Games haven't really gotten to the point where they have GOOD stories that reveal something of the human condition and make people talk about them in classrooms for centuries to come because, as so many people on these forums point out, most people want their games to be FUN first and foremost. There's very few people in this world that can do both FUN and SMART (which is a generally accepted characteristic for a great story), and there's even fewer people who can do it while letting the player take over the pen.

The only game I can think of that presented a story on par with many films or books is Heavy Rain.

TL;DR: Game's can't have great stories like books or movies because they have to be fun first. And fun usually means lots and lots of violence to the gaming community.

I call Bullshit, you are simplifying the story to obscene levels, here you go:

Schindlers list: One man, tries to save Jews from Nazis.
Citizen Kane: One man, as he tries to figure out what a dying man said.
Inception: One man, as he tries to indirectly give another an idea.
Enemy at the gates: One man, in his quest to kill germans during WW2.
Sixth Sense: One man, as he tries to help a little kid.
Memento: One man, as he tries to remember things.
One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest: One man, as he tries to avoid prison and insults a nurse.
Forest Gump: One man, as he has a flashback.

I can go on like this all day.

Since you put simplify everything, you lose focus on how the story is told, and what happens in it, and the worst argument one can make about games is saying that they should always focus on the gameplay first, that would be like me claiming that a movie should only be about the actions of the characters because that's when things move, and claiming that they can't hold a candle to books, there have been several games I've played where the makers just wanted an interesting story, and didn't focus too much on the gameplay and it was great, there have also been plenty of games that took deep looks into their characters, and I'm not just talking about games like Silent hill 2, Rondo of Swords as well as valkyrie Profile: Covenant of the Plume come to mind, even shitty games like Metroid Other M tried taking a further look into their characters, they did it badly, but so did many other authors, and I seriously don't know how you hold up Heavy Rain of all things, with its terrible story, idiotic characters, and massive plotholes as the only game on par with books and movies.

Captcha: best seller

 

[beniki]

Whilst I largely agree with him about the 'Bioware don't owe us anything after sale', I'm starting to wonder if that's technically true.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the license system. Usually, when a company buys an intellectual property, they have the right to alter elements of the plot. For example: Michael Bay and Teenage ALIEN Ninja Turtles. So, depending on the terms of the agreement, do we have the right to alter the program to suit our own particular ideas of the end?

This is an opinion from ignorance... if I'm wrong feel free to educate.

To be honest, since I don't understand licensing in general, I'm not sure who owes who what. As far as I can understand now, the developer/publisher holds all the cards, and we don't have much rights beyond asking politely. This doesn't seem terribly fair, and I wonder if it will cause problems further down the line.

Either way, I still stand by my opinion that EA BioWare should be held to account for an ending that was clearly a marketing decision, rather than an artistic one. Clearly to me at least, since it was so different in tone and execution to the rest of the game, with such lack of closure... although I don't know if it's something they CAN be legally held to account for.

Captcha: nautical phrases

Hmm... Mass Effect was mighty yare as a series, but the publisher tacked port when they should have gibed starboard, leaving all souls scuppered on the sea bed.