next »

[mirosurabu]

Puzzles in Phoenix Wright make you think about the story. Unlike most mainstream games, when you're presented with a challenge you do not lose the thread of the story. Many of the puzzles, in fact, require you to form story-related assumptions in order to solve them. However, when none is requires, you are at least tangentially connected to the story. Cross-examination for example: regardless of what level of challenge it is, you are always forced to browse through the evidence and statements, which tangentially makes you think about the story. That's not to say that's the only way the game makes you think about the story. It's quite effective at setting expectations too, so when you play the puzzles or exploration, quite often, you have different scenarios in your mind you want to test out. That and the fact that many game design elements are tightly related to story (tutorial and difficulty curve, for example, are part of the story too; however, this isn't that rare among mainstream games).

As for God of War, its challenges barely make me think about the story. When I'm challenged my thoughts go "which buttons should I press?". The only unfolding goes during cutscenes. Most of the time, I do lots of redundant stuff, such as killing another wave of enemies, or lifting rocks, or pointless climbing that is there for the sake of the gameplay and has no relevance to the story.

@Ashford:

It looks like you changed the topic of discussion from "Is God of War narrating using gameplay?" to "Why God of War isn't narrating using gameplay?" and we never proceeded past  first question.

So back to the first question:

If gameplay of God of War is only supposed to make you think "AM I GONNA BE ABLE TO DO IT?" then it's not narrating story. It has to make you ask questions that are related to story. Those questions I mentioned earlier are examples so that you could get basic idea.

Instead, you proceeded to defend your beloved video games, as if I don't like or even play them and in fact hate them. D:

So next time you reply, make sure you note that I'm only trying to make design differences clear.

[Nate Kling]

If gameplay of God of War is only supposed to make you think "AM I GONNA BE ABLE TO DO IT?" then it's not narrating story. It has to make you ask questions that are related to story.

Hmm this is really insightful.  That's a good way to look at designing games with stories. This thread is actually pretty productive I think , people have said some stuff that has got me really thinking.

[Anarkex]

Hmm this is really insightful.  That's a good way to look at designing games with stories. This thread is actually pretty productive I think , people have said some stuff that has got me really thinking.

Nate, man, you quoted the wrong post.

And this is the problem when you think of a video game as with the sort of narrative you'd expect from a book or movie.  You shouldn't be asking yourself if the character is capable of doing a specific task, because of course he is!  The game clearly gives this character the potential to overcome the obstacles set before him, or the game is unwinnable.  Because of this, it's more important that the player asks if they are going to be able to do it.  

We have the power to simulate actions and give people the opportunity to do all sorts of things they would never do in real life, the power to organize complex rulesets in an inexpensive, consequence-free environment. That's what video games are, that's their greatest strength. But for some reason, you think that the only times when games are breaking the mold and pushing the envelope is when they are doing the exact same things that movies and books have been doing FOR ALL OF HISTORY: telling stories and making the player think about the narrative being described to him. I can't understand this at all. Games are really doing something special when they're playing up the strengths of the artform, not when they're clumsily integrating the strengths of all the others.

Not only that, but consider Braid, one of the most famous and successful artgames ever. Except lo and behold: Braid exhibits a disconnect between narrative and game design that is far more vast than that of ANY commercial game I've ever played, God of War included. It's to the point where the entire playable game tells one story, and a massive wall of text included at the start of every level tells incomprehensible snippets of a completely different story. I think it might actually have been Braid, with its narrative so obscure, so grandiose and so utterly disconnected from everything I was actually enjoying in the game, that tipped me off to this whole principle in the first place.

Really this contrast exists in every game, no matter what, because the narrative is always something that can be disregarded more easily than the game. A lot of people probably know this from experience skipping cutscenes to "get back to the game". I'd attribute that to the immersiveness of simulation compared to that of a story.

On the subject of visual novels (apparently Gilbert mentioned this at one point), I'd just say this: brevity is the soul of wit. So if you're telling a story, distract from it as little as possible. If you're making a game, distract from it as little as possible. As far as I can tell, visual novels are as close as a game can get to a story or a comic book, with an utterly negligible amount of BS and fat distracting you from it. I would say that if you wanted to make a game about a story, this is the best way. But then, I see something like Homestuck, and I'm forced to reconsider even that. If Homestuck was actually an adventure game, I don't think I'd enjoy it nearly as much.

[mirosurabu]

Haha, awesome way to make a MASSIVE TANGENT!

Change the topic from "Do games tell stories through gameplay?" or "What's the difference between art games and regular games" to "Games don't need to tell stories".

Yeah right, we are all coming down to discuss your new topic that will prove that you are right and that games you like are the best games in this world.

[bento_smile]

We have the power to simulate actions and give people the opportunity to do all sorts of things they would never do in real life, the power to organize complex rulesets in an inexpensive, consequence-free environment. That's what video games are, that's their greatest strength. But for some reason, you think that the only times when games are breaking the mold and pushing the envelope is when they are doing the exact same things that movies and books have been doing FOR ALL OF HISTORY: telling stories and making the player think about the narrative being described to him. I can't understand this at all. Games are really doing something special when they're playing up the strengths of the artform, not when they're clumsily integrating the strengths of all the others.

Because by using interactivity you can more easily put forth a personal view point and create an interesting work in which the player themselves reacts to a given situation, which is much more interesting than presentations offered by books or films, as interactivity is one of the defining traits of games in comparison...

You can do anything in a game, which means... ANYTHING! Even mundane things! There are many small things that people will not do in real life. You don't have to save the world to have an experience that you otherwise would not have (and maybe with a subject that is more down to earth, some people might find they can relate to that. Hey, a lot of books aren't about grand things.)

I don't understand what you mean about consequence free environment. It seems that art games get slammed for not having enough consequences (ie. failure conditions) but now you say that is a strength. Books and films are free of consequence, for the reader or viewer, because there is no loss when something happens to the protagonist. But as a player, you can lose or win or just simply have to redo parts, so consequence is an integral part of games, even as a small armchair-inconvenience. What is the point of a rule without a consequence? Even in GTA you get arrested like you do in real life! (Well, with less inconvenience of course)

Ironically, the games which are most slavishly following films are mainstream AAA titles, as they plod along copying whatever the producer saw in the cinema last week. The cutscene - gameplay - cutscene format comes from this desire to be more like film. It's not art games which have abandoned describing narrative during gameplay, but the mainstream games themselves. (If anything, the ability to mix gameplay and narrative in a meaningful way is one of the primary concerns I have as a designer, personally. And I didn't get it from the time I spent working on AAA games.)

[mirosurabu]

Simulation, artwork, music, rules, winning/losing, narration.. all of them are not unique to games. It's the way games combine these existing forms of expression into coherent whole that makes them unique. I find this unnecessary to explain as it's rather obvious, but oh well..

It's a tangential topic, so let's back to the main topic.

Anarkex mentioned Braid. Yes, that game is a little bit different than the ones I had in my mind. The gameplay is loosely attached to story, that's true. But I'm not talking about Braid here. Games I talk about are games like Flower, the ones that have minimal gameplay. I did explain a lot earlier, so if you care about discussion don't introduce too many irrelevant and tangential topics as a way to prove your point. Stick to the point.

[Christian Knudsen]

How is the central mechanic of turning back time in Braid not related to Braid's main theme of undoing mistakes made in the past? And the climax of the game is a narrative "twist" made entirely through the use of this game mechanic.

[XRA]

Games don't have to be fun.

I guess from now on I will call all video games, interactions, or maybe a communication, in order to avoid the reputation and potential stigma of games.  

 

[moi]

videogames as an art medium are still at the level of prehistoric cave paintings. Art games are like little pictures of stick men chasing bisons.

[PeteHuf]

As mentioned earlier, I think "art game" is just a useful label marking aparent focus of the game. For example, I hope the game I'm working on ends up having more artisic merit than many art games, though I don't consider my game to be an art game. In the same way, my game has shooting, though I don't consider my game to be a shooter. The focus of my game isn't the shooting or the artisitc qualities (though I still want both to be excellent.) The focus is on finding items and exploring, so I consider the game to be an action/adventure.

I know other earlier have explained this as their viewpoint, I just wanted to say I agree and give my example. Note: I don't consider art games better or worse than other games, just as I don't consider shooters better or worse than other games. Also, an art game doesn't necessarily have better art qualities than non-art games, just as a shooter may not have as refined shooting mechanics as non-shooters. To me it is all just about what the focus of the game is.