Tell Me a Story
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Perhaps, but you're surely trying the wrong way if you just go and make good games with good stories. People won't buy a good game because it has a good story too, they'll buy it because it's a good game, story be damned. Unfortunately, the only way to make people buy games to which the narritave is integral is to make them care about said narritave. Good luck. How about we check the library for the number of people they get, compared to VideoEzy* or Blockbuster*.Podunk said:
I'm just happy that some developers still bother. Makes me feel a little better inside.
* If you're elsewhere and these names are meaningless to you, VideoEzy and Blockbuster are Australian movie/game rental shops.
I have said this on quite a few threads. The entertainment business over the past few years have put more emphasis on the "business" side of things. They don't care that much anymore about quality as long as it makes money for them. The result being however that the consumer doesn't benefit as we're paying the same amount of money as a good quality game, if not more, for one which has had corners cut to speed up the process, yet the consumer isn't going to say anything because they're not professional critics, and probably don't know what a truly amzing quality game is like to play.
That made me cry.Cpt_Oblivious said:
I don't really see a problem with this.
In Super Mario, what is the first thing you do in the game? You don't have an FMV introducing you to the characters or the story. You don't have some crap text you have to read. You choose 1 or 2 players, hit start, and you crush things.
Why? Why do you crush them? What is the reason I crush them? Do I NEED to crush them? No, I can jump over them and let them live. But... do I want to let that first goomba live? Not really. So, I jump on him.
When I start up Contra, what is the first thing that happens? No story. I fall in from the sky and I start killing things. Does it really matter why? No. I'm just doing it.
Even Final Fantasy on the NES was like that. It was only after you beat the 'first boss' that the story was given to you. And it was pretty bare bones. And it rocked. Hard.
I can't seem to fathom this statement, mainly because I can't detect any tongue-in-cheek commentary or sarcasm. Maybe it's because you don't really play FPS that often or you've never actually played a real run-of-the-mill FPS game before.
A run-of-the-mill FPS game is CoD, Halo, Resistance, or any other game where you do absolutely nothing but shoot at things. Any game where the best answer to an enemy is to ALWAYS shoot them every time. I.E. You aren't given a choice (remember that).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>SPOILERS<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Bioshock was a great game because you had choices you could make, none of which related to the story. Yeah, choosing to harvest or save a girl was a choice that had an impact on the ending, but it had nothing to do with the story. It didn't matter how many you harvested, Fontaine was going to hand you that golf club.
In Bioshock I could play however I wanted to play. An example of a scenario:
A Big Daddy is fighting a small group of Splicers. There is a camera and a machine gun turret near by. I have the Charm Big Daddy plasmid, Security Bullseye plasmid, the Target Dummy Plasmid, and a shotgun with some electro buck. I am also able to hack the turret and disable that camera if I need to.
So, what would you do?
That is what makes Bioshock a good game. I have the ability to choose EXACTLY how I want to deal with any situation. In the above situation I could:
Charm the Big Daddy and assault the splicers while disarming the camera and turret.
I could destroy the turret and camera, and go guns blazing on the Big Daddy after he finishes off the splicers.
I could hack the turret, get the Big Daddies attention, place a target dummy down, and then stun him with the electro buck and let the turret deal with him.
I could use the Security Bullseye plasmid on the Big Daddy while, stun him with the electro buck, run past him to the next room, and deal with him there (or just run away from him).
I could do anything because I had the choice. In CoD, Halo, Resistance, etc. I wouldn't be presented with that ability to do whatever I'd like to do. The gameplay is what made the game good.
Are you really suggesting that a story akin to something M. Night Shyamalan would direct/write is a good one? Really? It's your classic M. Night twist. The only thing that is truly outstanding about the game that isn't gameplay related is the setting, but the game could have taken place in space on a ship and would have been just as good. And it was when it was System Shock 2.
The thing that made Bioshock good was choice. The primary element of that game is choice. You can choose to deal with situations however you like, using whatever weapons you want, whatever plasmids you want, and using whatever else exists in the level however you please. Then you have the plot that revolves around choice.
And that's exactly what makes the game good. Everything is tied in together. It makes the game feel complete and not just a series of levels. Of course, if the gameplay wasn't good, then it wouldn't be good.
And that's sort of the point. Games are fun because they're fun. If a game isn't fun, then it has failed at what it is supposed to do, be fun. The fun part of the game is the gameplay. If the gameplay is not fun, then the game is not fun. A story exists solely to compliment the gameplay. It exists to increase the joy of the game. Of course, when you have a story, there always exists the problem of it detracting from the experience, in which case I'd rather not have plots in most of my games.
Make the action exciting, make the gameplay rich and deep, make the weaponry unique and interesting, and above all else: make the game fun to play.
Story be damned, just make games fun.
Whenever capitalism creeps into the very roots of an industry, thats when there are real problems. It has already happened to the music industry, and in Hollywood, and they dont seem to be even looking in the direction of coming back. This is a real worry for me, as I am a firm believer that Computer Games are one of the most complete artforms that we have come up with. It will be painful to see it go down, but if somthing is not done soon, thats what is going to happen.
Well that's really the point, isn't it? Is there a problem with it? Do games that purport to be built on a story really need to focus on that story in order to make us happy? The answer up to now has pretty clearly been "no" but is that because story really doesn't matter or simply that we just don't know any better?Credge said:
Nope, no sarcasm or irony there. BioShock was what it was, and what it was was a competent shooter wrapped in a brilliant package and a good story (until the wheels came off at the very end). In fact, one of the great things about the game is the way it's able to mask the fact that it's System Shock 2 Lite, with all the potentially confusing "thinkie" bits stripped out so gamers can get on with... well, with the shooting. "Choice" in the game was largely an illusion - there are different ways to shoot guys, sure, but at the end of the day guys are getting shot.
Now we're getting somewhere.
Not all that long ago I would've argued that point loud and long because I held the opposite view: Games that don't properly invest in story (where it's relevant) suffer as a result. But lately I'm wondering if that's actually the case at all, or if I'm just weird.
Maybe you have a case of shooter fatigue and need to play some games that are not mainly about waving a gun around like a maniac. How about a bit of Endless Ocean for the Wii? I can't promise that it will make you think differently about game stories and gameplay but it's a relaxing change of pace for both.Malygris said:
Frankly, I'd prefer even fewer attempts to put some kind of "story" into our games. Story in games seems to have crept up on us very slowly over the years, starting with 5 second cutscenes in coin-op games that gave some context for the mayhem, and somewhere along the way, developers began to think that those cutscenes are why we liked the games in the first place.
But for the most part, they were just there for fun, or to give you a little zing of accomplishment (did anyone REALLY care about the romance between Pac Man and Ms. Pac Man?). If a developer has a story to tell, a game is probably the least effective way to do so, unless the story has at its core something to say about the playing of games (e.g., Bioshock, Braid or Shadow of the Colossus). Let movies be movies, and let games be games; the path to mainstream respectibility won't be through aping blockbuster moviemaking techniques.
But for the most part, they were just there for fun, or to give you a little zing of accomplishment (did anyone REALLY care about the romance between Pac Man and Ms. Pac Man?). If a developer has a story to tell, a game is probably the least effective way to do so, unless the story has at its core something to say about the playing of games (e.g., Bioshock, Braid or Shadow of the Colossus). Let movies be movies, and let games be games; the path to mainstream respectibility won't be through aping blockbuster moviemaking techniques.
Just wondering, but what are your thoughts on the Metriod Prime games? The gameplay is split relatively evenly between platforming and shooting. Also, there is no story unless you look for it. You can't really even say that the action-heavy parts are that great because they are generally you just figuring out how to damage the enemies.Malygris said:
On the issue on stories in videogames, I believe that when people start involving their creative department from the begining we will see better stories, even in games where the story isn't important. Giving a character a weapon that fits into the setting will help immerse the player more than trying to construct the story around the weapon.
/AgreeZwebbie said:
What impresses me the most about Valve games, and other games like them, is how they do not tell you a story; you ARE the story, you experience the story, and though often at a first glance it is a complete mystery as to how or why things are the way they are...looking closer can reveal the truth, and fill in pieces of the puzzle. Looking closer at all of the newspaper clippings and photos on Dr. Kleiner's wall reveals the '7 Hour war' (I think it was?) and some small details about what happened to put the earth in such a state. Does it answer all of the questions? No. But that is half of what is amazing about those games...they are wrapped in mystery and though you may solve some of it, you'll never know all of it...JUST like everyone else there experiencing that world. Gordon Freeman fell into his situation without a clue, so why should they lay out the answers for the player in cutscenes or extensive dialog?
We probably will never fully understand who Gman is. Or if we do, it'll only be because he is middle management and there's something bigger.
Also: Bioshock is fun because in no other FPS can you hit someone with lightning, light them on fire and then cover them with bees. BEEEEEEEEES!!!
And THEN you could shoot them in the face. If you were merciful anyway.
Surely Max Paynes fat character still shows a focus on story and narration? There has been development, he is nothing like the archetype hero. It's the most positive sign I've heard.
Well, I could make the same thing with any plot. Removing the interesting bits of story to reduce it to the flashy and violent parts isn't hard.
Let's do the same with Bioshock :
The plane crash leads you in and underwater city, a man talks in the radio, you follow everything he says. You kill a bunch of splicers and harvest or save little sisters until you meet Andrew Ryan. Then he says Blabla and you kill him. Then you kill a bunch of splicers and harvest or save little sisters and you kill fontaine. End of game.
And that description do absolutly no justice to the plot of the game, the same way the video above doesn't mention at all the plot of the Half Life series.
Frankly, I'm surprised to read from Andy Chalk that Half Life has no story. I'd suggest him to take a look at this website : http://members.shaw.ca/halflifestory/index.htm
And then maybe hear his definition of what a story really is.
Because even if Half Life has no story, it has still managed to establish an interesting universe with memorable characters and an ennemy figure who isn't bad just because he's the bad guy (Doc Breen). It deals with heavy themes (mostly in Half Life 2) and gives the sense of "being there" better than most other games.
There are things that Half-Life does well but as a meaningful story that I remember and care about, it fails. That's why I can watch that video, chuckle a bit, then think "Yeah, thats Half-Life, pretty much." What is my standard for a good story? I watched the Seventh Seal the other day. I rate that pretty highly.Artheval_Pe said:
