next »

[Paul Eres]

The story is the predefined sequence of events that takes place within the setting, not the setting itself. The Lord of the Rings books and movies, like you mentioned, rely heavily on the fictional setting they create, but Middle-Earth isn't the story -- the story is the struggle of Frodo, Aragorn, Gandalf, etc. against Sauron, and the events that happen to them along the way. What are the examples of good stories that are entirely setting?

i think you're confusing story and plot. what you describe is plot, not story -- a plot is a sequence of events, a story is much more than that

as for examples of plotless stories,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koyaanisqatsi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasia_(film)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Search_of_Lost_Time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notes_from_Underground (the first half)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Life_and_Opinions_of_Tristram_Shandy,_Gentleman

[Paul Eres]

Yes, but novels are not interactive! The story is directly communicated to the player through the narrative contained in the text.

only in the usual sense of the word. in another sense novels are highly interactive: imagining the novel, reading the sentences and translating that into visual images, is a highly interactive process. two people who read the same novel don't "see" the same story, even though they read the same sentences; they may have totally different internal experiences

in that sense novels are much more interactive than movies are; with movies you don't need to use as much of your imagination, the sights and sounds are given to you. two people who watch the same movie basically see the same thing, unlike two people who read the same novel; movies are more passive and don't require as much mental effort as novels. and if something requires a significant degree of mental effort, it's in a sense interactive

[Absurdist]

You're right, an individual's perspective has much to do with how he perceives a given novel - the story that he "sees", as you put it. This illustrates my point perfectly: multiple stories can arise (be communicated/ experienced) from the same sentences, game mechanics - narrative.

[Paul Eres]

another big concern i have with this issue: videogames are not *entirely* interactive. games have interactive and non-interactive parts. even board games. monopoly has non-interactive parts: the cards, for instance, or the pieces that you move around, or the board layout. there are some things about any game that you can't influence, and other things that you can influence

bearing that in mind, the 'story' part of a game is often just part of a game's non-interactive part, just like the graphics and sounds. the graphics of a game are not interactive. the music of a game is not interactive. so why would should the story necessary be interactive?

if someone feels that videogames should have graphics, and music, but should not have story, and feels that the reason games should not have story is that they are non-interactive and conflict with a game's fundamental interactivity, why don't they also have that problem with a game's graphics and sounds? or its instruction manual for that matter? games *require* stable, non-interactive parts just as much as they require interactive parts. no videogame that i can think of is pure interaction, videogames are made up of code and data, and the data part is not interactive

[BlueSweatshirt]

<huge post snip>

Can I get this printed on a poster, please? 
Did you leave those posts/articles on the comment sections of the two blog posts? I think you should.

[Absurdist]

Paul, I'm distinguishing not between that which is and is not interactive, but that which is and is not predetermined by the game designer.

In Zelda, the "story" of Link setting off on a quest to assemble the triforce and save the world is part of the narrative because it is fixed in the game's data, as you put it. Also part of the game's data are the controls, enemy AI, etc: the interactive game mechanics. Those are all part of the narrative, they are exactly the same for all people who play Zelda.

What is not the same, and is in fact individual to each player, is the particular course of interaction with the set game mechanics. This is the story that I'm talking about.

This is not to say that Zelda's overt story is not a story in the traditional sense, and you're right, it is as significant to the game as the graphics, sounds, and mechanics. I think of game backstories as I do those other static components of games: they are all forms of media that, on their own, can be pieces of art in their own right. However, when used as components of a game, they are part of a larger whole that deserves to analyzed in its own terms.

[EdgeOfProphecy]

Nothing is wrong with Go, but it's a game, not a video game.  The whole point of the article was talking about video games, though.  The lessons as to what makes Go good game are useful, but you can't design an entire video game around that.

That's a digital game, not a video game.  Again, as Dinobro said:

Game – a system of rules in which one or more agents compete by making meaningful decisions.

Since we're talking about his articles, I'm using his base definitions.  I expanded off of them to create two more definitions.

Digital Game - A game that runs on a computer.

Video Game - A digital game that also includes a multimedia experience beyond the game.  Advanced graphics, audio, narrative, etc.

I think we can agree that there's something different between a digital version of Go and Gears of War.  This is like one of those square and rectangle things, which by the above definitions, a game that runs on a computer is not necessarily a video game.

The term "digital game" is particularly applicable toward bare-bones adaptations of board games, as the one you posted.  In fact, it might be worthy to make a special class of "digital board games", since that does imply that they could be reasonably played without a computer.

However it could be argued that something like Tetris or Bejeweled is more of a digital game than a video game.  I'm not wholly comfortable with saying "Tetris isn't a video game", because most people would call me crazy and say, "Well of course it's a video game!"  So clearly, the definitions could use some work.

I spent a couple years and many classes in college attempting to define what exactly a "Video Game" is, but no one was ever able to come up with a perfect definition.  There's always some exception to the definition.  It's a lot like asking "What is art?", because it's hard to give a clear answer.

So my definition's not meant to be perfect, but it's meant to be good enough to point out that the whole "Story degrades video games" argument has some serious flaws in it.

@Paul Eres:

You're arguing semantics a lot.  It doesn't matter what you think a "story" or a "plot" or a"narrative"" is, the terms were defined for the sake of the discussion.  When Dinobro says "story", just sub in the words:

Story – a composed sequence of events.

Nothing more, nothing less.  The whole point of using definitions like this is so that you sweep semantics under the rug.  It doesn't matter if you go "Well that's not a story!" because what is a story, for the sake of the argument, is pretty clearly laid out.  We're not trying to write Merriam Webster here.

[DinofarmGames]

>I think we can agree that there's something different between a digital version of Go and Gears of War.

Yeah, the main thing is that no one will be playing Gears of War thousands of years, or even decades after it was created.  Why?  Because it does not focus on the fundamentals.  It is a commercial attempt to exploit a technology-fueled cultural phenomenon.  Video games are the rock and roll of this generation, and Microsoft Game Studios knows this.  It will make some cash for the next few years and then be forgotten forever.

@Paul

Monopoly is actually *mostly* non-interactive;  this is the reason it's considered a god-awful boardgame by anyone who has played some board games other than those produced by Milton Bradley or Hasbro.


>>if someone feels that videogames should have graphics, and music, but should not have story, and feels that the reason games should not have story is that they are non-interactive and conflict with a game's fundamental interactivity, why don't they also have that problem with a game's graphics and sounds?

If you had read the article, I explain this.  Graphics and sounds have no internal conflicts with interactivity.  Music, by the way, actually MIGHT, but it's much subtler than story.  The conflict is that story is LINEAR, inherently.  A pre-written narrative is a straight line:  this, then this, then this.  This is in direct conflict with an interactive system, which should be open and free.

[mirosurabu]

Yeah, the main thing is that no one will be playing Gears of War thousands of years, or even decades after it was created.  Why?

Actually, people will. They won't necessarily play Gears of War that we have today, but they will nevertheless be playing the same (or related) franchise.

[baconman]

Then how would you each describe Catherine? Or Katawa Shoujo/don't take it personally, babe, it just ain't your story?

>.>

[C.A. Sinner]

Yeah, the main thing is that no one will be playing Gears of War thousands of years, or even decades after it was created.  Why?  Because it does not focus on the fundamentals.  It is a commercial attempt to exploit a technology-fueled cultural phenomenon.  Video games are the rock and roll of this generation, and Microsoft Game Studios knows this.  It will make some cash for the next few years and then be forgotten forever.

people still like elvis and rock music is still around

also theres two generations of people growing up with videogames, perhaps even 3.

[peanutbuttershoes]

this thread is plotless.

[Gimym TILBERT]

a story is a system (it has internal rules and consistency that set expectation) with agents (character and narrative forces) taking meaningful decision (the plot). When the system fall apart the audience react with rejection, they simulate the story process in their mind according to the narrative rules to make sense of it, that's why deus ex machina are so shameful, it break the system.

The problem is that story is not seen as a system therefore not treat as one.
It's a shift of perspective, not a shift of definition.

@Caruso
procedural story if the first kind of story, oral story use to be procedural ie adapted on the fly by the teller according to the audience. It's only when books as a storage technology became prevalent that stories where seen as "fixed". BTW procedural story still rely on existing "plot dot" to be dynamically linked instead of preset (like in linear or branching), they do have causal condition to be linked in the correct order.

[J-Snake]

In my action-rpg rethoughts there will be procedural story-components, and you can play the game infinitely even after end. The hero/player is open to repeat the same mistake again after he has fixed the world. Someone did it before?

What do you think about this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--LmQrsD6b0&feature=plcp&context=C3477b7eUDOEgsToPDskL4CvpYksv88r56K3AJV9nh