In these threads about video game stories people always only point out 1 or 2 things bad about them. This could be said about literally every single book. Harry potter: a kid wizard fights lizard guy with magic. If you only include that, then it seems pretty damn pathetic. Assassin?s creed: some guy dicks around in the next Nintendo console. If people only include certain very broad aspects of something, then everything sounds bad.
Video game people (I don't know what to call us) always seem to be way over judging and critical. i understand that without criticism you can't progress, but if the only thing that you are saying is ''the story sucks'' then what can anybody learn?
Video games aren?t created on the idea of a good story. If you think of a great epic, you write a book, or maybe even the script for a movie. Stories for games are generally worked in around the game. This is for the simple reason of gameplay>story. If a game isn?t fun to play, then why wouldn?t you just write for a non-interactive medium? While games with great stories have been accomplished, they are very sparse, as you probably know.
Lastly video games haven't been around very long. Only a quarter of a century. Books have taken hundreds of years to perfect. Video games are very limited on how they deliver the story. You have to come up with a story that?s good but also has to include things that would be fun to do in it. Example: pride and prejudice could not be a game. Not simply because there isn't and guns, it's that the story doesn't lend itself to gemeplay. Video games just haven't had long enough to develop ways to tell stories yet. In time I?m sure we will.
Video game people (I don't know what to call us) always seem to be way over judging and critical. i understand that without criticism you can't progress, but if the only thing that you are saying is ''the story sucks'' then what can anybody learn?
Video games aren?t created on the idea of a good story. If you think of a great epic, you write a book, or maybe even the script for a movie. Stories for games are generally worked in around the game. This is for the simple reason of gameplay>story. If a game isn?t fun to play, then why wouldn?t you just write for a non-interactive medium? While games with great stories have been accomplished, they are very sparse, as you probably know.
Lastly video games haven't been around very long. Only a quarter of a century. Books have taken hundreds of years to perfect. Video games are very limited on how they deliver the story. You have to come up with a story that?s good but also has to include things that would be fun to do in it. Example: pride and prejudice could not be a game. Not simply because there isn't and guns, it's that the story doesn't lend itself to gemeplay. Video games just haven't had long enough to develop ways to tell stories yet. In time I?m sure we will.