No, the point you made was about the relation between those required mental skills and the player's ability to appreciate some good storytelling. And then I think that how beating the world's best chess players take even more mental skills, yet does not mix very well with being told a story, is related.

Or the way that some people suggest that you put on an audiobook if you're about to do some pretty mindless task that just require some motor skills.

Maybe I wasn't conveying my thoughts clearly enough, then. My point was that when you're concentrating on shooting at enemies popping up that are trying to kill you, you're probably not going to pay attention to a voice-over narrating a story, or an NPC interacting with another NPC in a way that furthers the story because you're trying not to get killed.

Eh. Are you saying that showing cutscenes is telling and not showing?

The phrase "show, don't tell" isn't necessarily as literal as "don't have people say things, show them visually". It's more that the information provided to the audience shouldn't feel expository, but flow naturally from the narrative.

I'm pretty sure that the phrase is meant to be taken literally and that it originates from advice concerning children's books.

I don't mean to be patronizing, but you're wrong. I just checked wikipedia and it says it better than I did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show,_don%27t_tell

Adventure games take very little mental skills. At least during the parts where the story is progressing. Chess with cutscenes is not a hit and top chess players do not really have a lot of attention to spare for people telling them stories during their competing. Even though it's mostly mental skills and very little motor skills.

My point was that adventure games generally require mental skills whereas action games require motor skills. Do you disagree with that? And I can't really see what chess has to do with adventure games?

Eh. Are you saying that showing cutscenes is telling and not showing?

The phrase "show, don't tell" isn't necessarily as literal as "don't have people say things, show them visually". It's more that the information provided to the audience shouldn't feel expository, but flow naturally from the narrative.

Admittedly I can't tell you what kind of storytelling as it hasn't really been done, and I have no real ideas what it might look like, but I think Half-Life's "show not tell" approach is at the very least a small step in the right direction.

Agreed. And I think the strength of the "show don't tell" approach to storytelling in action games is that when your (virtual) life is at stake, you're not going to pay attention to a story unfolding, so if it was "told" it would be interfering with the player's primary goal at any given point: survival. That's probably also why most of the "told" story in action games is in cutscenes -- the player isn't fighting for his life in non-interactive cutscenes.

And I think this goes back to a fundamental difference in how stories are best told in games. Because they're interactive, these stories shouldn't be simply told like in a book or movie -- they should be experienced by the player, instead of the player running around doing his thing and the game now and then interrupting to continue the story. It's like there are two stories or narratives in most action games: the player's personal narrative in actually playing the game and the game's narrative as it unfolds in cutscenes. And this is why I think the stories are so simple and often non-existent in action and FPS games: it's focusing on one narrative -- the one that's being "told" by the player as he plays the game. Take a game like Borderlands. The story is pretty much inconsequential to what the player is actually doing (running errands and missions for various people). I believe that's because it's focusing on the narrative of actually playing the game (with a buddy), instead of the narrative the game is telling you. It's like a game of Monopoly. It doesn't have an inherent story, but it still tells a narrative, which is the one of the power struggle between the people playing it.

I don't know. I like the storytelling that goes on in books and movies, but those are passive mediums and I'm not sure interactive games should strive to the same method of telling a narrative.

I forgot what my point was... I think I'm just rambling now...

[Adventure games] do offer a more comfortable framework for bodies of text and theatre like staging.

There's that. But there's also how the player interacts with the game and what actions he's taking. In an action game, let's say an FPS, the player's primary action consists of shooting enemies. That's basically it. In a classic adventure game, the player has to explore environments and solve different kinds of puzzles/tasks by interacting with objects, the environment and NPCs. The former is about motor skills, the latter is more about mental skills. For the player to take in and appreciate a good story, he pretty much has to be in the "mental mode". I think that's why most action games have simple stories: we're pumped up from the twitch action gameplay and our muscles are tense in anticipation -- we're simply not in a state of mind to let a good story sink in (and in a way, the story should be simple enough as to not detract attention from the main motor based gameplay). So, I think it's a combination of the kind of interaction that the action genre demands from the player (combined with the state of mind that this kind of interaction places the player in) that results in action games not being ideal vehicles for sophisticated/deep/emotional/engaging/complex stories.

This is all just train of thought stuff. And I'm just referring to the prototypical action game and the prototypical adventure game here, so of course there are bound to be exceptions. But I'm willing to bet that if the adventure game was the king of genres right now instead of FPS games, we'd be seeing a lot more "good" stories and writing in games (at least by the standards that seem to be presented in this thread).

And I'm not saying that FPS games are inherently bad and adventure games are good (I enjoy both genres), just that one isn't necessarily a good vehicle for a sophisticated/deep/emotional/engaging/complex story while the other is.

Yeah, I know. I guess my point is that even though there are some ways to judge in a somewhat academic circle whether or not a story is "good", this has no bearing on whether or not the average gamer will consider it good. One also has to take the genre that the various stories are presented in into account. I think the main issue is that most AAA game titles are action games. Just like we don't find particular good/sophisticated/interesting stories in most Hollywood action movies, this game genre seems to have some issues with allowing for good/sophisticated/interesting stories. I believe I mentioned Bioshock earlier as an example of a game that I thought has good writing, but come to think of it, I believe that story would have been much better served as an adventure game. I still think Bioshock has a good story and writing, but that's partly due to it having a good story and writing for an action game. It's a pity the adventure genre is dead, as I think it would have brought a lot to the table in regards to good stories and writing, but I also understand why it's dead.

Does sophisticated necessarily equal good? To you perhaps, but that's because you may prefer sophisticated stories (as do I). Again, it's subjective.

The difficulty of this subject is that people can't distinguish between good games, good narrative experiences, and good 'story'.

I think the difficulty is that those are all subjective and people have different tastes?

How are we feeding a troll that isn't here anymore?

Being able to post on forums is a privilege, not a right in my opinion.  

I agree with that so much. Just because most things on the internet are free, many users take everything for granted when they really shouldn't. It's the "entitlement" issue that also came up in one of the recent game pirating discussions.

The precious metal is called "Unobtainum"? Really, now? I'm wanting to see the movie, especially now that the reviews are pouring in, but come on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium

I've only played Ultima VII, but remember really liking it.

And I just noticed your avatar is from Fate of Atlantis! Yay!

How come when some idiot gets banned, he always returns and makes a post about freedom of speech, as if him being banned for being said idiot has anything to do with the First Amendment? It's interesting how these people always seem to follow the same exact pattern. Some anthropologist should do a study on it...

Yeah, I'm not going to give this troll and his game any more unnecessary attention by participating in this thread any further.

The frustration I expressed in the Gamasutra comments thread was very much real.

Oh, no doubt. It takes a jerk to decide to act like one. You made this about you. Don't complain when that's what people discuss and judge.

My attitude is the only reason any of you know what Flytrap is.

So I guess this actually is just a case of yet another indie developer deciding to act like a jerk to drum up publicity for his game...

Where's the popcorn smiley?

I found this interesting blog entry on the issue:

http://www.krissteele.net/blogdetails.aspx?id=155

Seems the bottom line is that it's a very gray area and it's better just to use free fonts (or make your own fonts) to avoid any legalities.

I truly believe in the potential for games, but I feel movies and games just aren't "there" yet.

Huh? I can understand the discussion on games not quite being "there" yet, but movies?

there are a whole bunch of 100% free licensed fonts available at http://www.dafont.com/ . you can filter the fonts by license type - GPL, commercial, completely free, etc..!

Awesome link! I've already found a font I want to use.