next »

[bvanevery]

But yet how many of them move beyond "story fed-challenge gate" loop?

I have a dim memory that Photopia did, because IIRC it didn't have any puzzles.  Rather, IF tropes were used to control the pace.  The end result is that the "game," or properly the interactive fiction, is over rather quickly.

The problem here is not much quality or real exemple but really the abstraction of the gaming language in full force.

But actually I had refrain myself formerly to say something: reality tv just derive their language from documentary only adapt for entertainment purpose.

Compare to cinema, we are still mimicking theater.

I have not kept up with Chris Crawford's work on the Storytron.  I applaud his effort even though it led him down a career black hole.  My critique of his historical strategy, is he may have gotten farther if he had just spent more time on writing things manually, using known craft, than trying to have most things be strictly generative.  I haven't looked at where his thinking is nowadays.

[Rumrusher]

So you are saying that the death of deep and well though complex games is because developers don't make good novelist for interactivity.

Make sense considering you aren't giving the control of the actors to the audience while trying to immerse them to the story in a book or movie. For doing so one could simply ask why can't he do this or why can't she do that, and by forcing them to direct the actors as how you see fit sucks the fun/immerse from the audience who  might just came from work and spend some about of cash for a story. Being told by someone that they need to do it again which will ask why not you take the control of the actors and let us watch this 'shoddy' performance.

[Giaddon]

Can games have good stories? I think yes. However, that comes with important caveats.

1) So far, games have been primarily concerned with resolving conflicts through violence. Even the most interesting ones (Torment, Psychonauts, etc.) break down into "OK, now fight this guy. Now these guys. More." Some games avoid this, of course, (Myst comes to mind, as does Phoenix Wright) but these games are often derided by most gamers (dating sims, adventure games, non-violent economic simulators, etc.). In a novel, play, or film, killing a character is usually the least interesting thing the author can do, and our greatest stories are about contests between characters that can't be reduced to physical violence. In a game, it's often the only thing a player can do to move forward. I have a pet theory that the game medium is so emotionally abstracted that the only way to bring an emotional jolt to the proceedings is to constantly immerse the player in life-or-death situations. Game designers need to make a story feel urgent without that.

2) The writing in games is quite bad. The text in games is full of cliched language, unimaginative stereotypes, and boring, predicable characters. Personally, I find that games which communicate narrative silently/ambiently are so far more effective than those that use dialogue. I don't think this is necessary, just the way things have gone so far.

We're seeing a small subset of games trying to break free of these limitations (many of which have been mentioned already), but it hasn't been totally effective, and it's nowhere near mainstream yet. 

[mirosurabu]

But yet how many of them move beyond "story fed-challenge gate" loop?

Not many I suppose. I'm taking "few is enough" stance though.

Galatea is the closest to a procedural storytelling but you certainly not do much things, it's more akin to a non linear exploration like hypertext.

Hm, what do you mean "not do much things"? There are around 70 patterns each closing with unique ending. And certainly if you added art, music and other polish on top of it, you'd get something that is less of a hypertext adventure.

[bvanevery]

In a novel, play, or film, killing a character is usually the least interesting thing the author can do, and our greatest stories are about contests between characters that can't be reduced to physical violence. In a game, it's often the only thing a player can do to move forward.

The initial setting of the Nth order emergent game in progress came from a previous game I ran called "The Game of The Immortals."  It was not possible for them to die, and all the mortals had been swept out of existence, giving them no proxies for death either.  I set it up that way so that players could not use violence and death as a crutch.

EDIT: well, um, technically the initial setting didn't come from TGOTI, because the initial setting of the Nth game clearly has violence and death in it.  The character Frey did come from TGOTI, however.  Existing as a war god in a universe where no one can die anymore is problematic.

[bento_smile]

I have a pet theory that the game medium is so emotionally abstracted that the only way to bring an emotional jolt to the proceedings is to constantly immerse the player in life-or-death situations. Game designers need to make a story feel urgent without that.

Mmm. Life or death stuff is so predictable, does it even have any impact? I find those parts themselves so far removed from reality that they have no impact whatsoever, most of the time.

[Hangedman]

But isn't that the point?
Escapism into games allows us to live and die a million times over, which we cannot do in real life.

...Are we so jaded by commonplace escapism that mundanity is revolutionary?
Reminds me of Yahtzee's commentary on the 'standard fantasy setting'.
We're bored with something that exists only to keep us not bored.

[bvanevery]

But isn't that the point?
Escapism into games allows us to live and die a million times over, which we cannot do in real life.

...Are we so jaded by commonplace escapism that mundanity is revolutionary?
Reminds me of Yahtzee's commentary on the 'standard fantasy setting'.
We're bored with something that exists only to keep us not bored.

You are hereby sentenced to watch Groundhog Day on a loop until you pass out from sleep deprivation.

Fantasy settings embody cultural mythologies that have more purpose than just entertainment.  I don't think Lord of the Rings is popular simply for being swords and sorcery.

[bento_smile]

But isn't that the point?
Escapism into games allows us to live and die a million times over, which we cannot do in real life.

...Are we so jaded by commonplace escapism that mundanity is revolutionary?
Reminds me of Yahtzee's commentary on the 'standard fantasy setting'.
We're bored with something that exists only to keep us not bored.

Yes. Well, dying in a videogame is so commonplace and bears so little resemblance to real death, that it loses all gravity.

Or maybe, mundanity is more affecting because we can apply our own experiences to it. No one knows what it's like to be a space marine, but a lot of people know what it's like to be in love.

[Hangedman]

You are hereby sentenced to watch Groundhog Day on a loop until you pass out from sleep deprivation.

Been done. I work in a TV store

Or maybe, mundanity is more affecting because we can apply our own experiences to it. No one knows what it's like to be a space marine, but a lot of people know what it's like to be in love.

True. I think that's why I liked Scott Pilgrim: rather than showing the ordinary in the fantastic, as fantasy does, it showed the fantastic in the ordinary.
And when death is handled well, it is still phenomenally moving.

[bvanevery]

Yes. Well, dying in a videogame is so commonplace and bears so little resemblance to real death, that it loses all gravity.

Does it in movies or books?  I mean, what do you want, a funeral and grief counseling simulator?  It might sell as a "serious game" but I'm not seeing the entertainment value.

Or maybe, mundanity is more affecting because we can apply our own experiences to it. No one knows what it's like to be a space marine, but a lot of people know what it's like to be in love.

Being a space marine is like being a marine.  That's been the treatment in all the films and books, and there's no reason to doubt the treatments.  Pretty straightforward hard science fiction.

Being a marine may be a fantasy for a lot of civilians.  I wonder if it's a fantasy for marines, or ex-marines?  Scratch that, there are no ex-marines.

[bento_smile]

True. I think that's why I liked Scott Pilgrim: rather than showing the ordinary in the fantastic, as fantasy does, it showed the fantastic in the ordinary.
And when death is handled well, it is still phenomenally moving.

Oh yeah, I agree... It's hard though because games often trivialise it so much, in weird ways. ie. A side character will die, and you should feel sad; but what about the 1000s of enemy cannon fodder you shot to get to that point?   (I am just some sort of hippy though, in this regard.)

Does it in movies or books?  I mean, what do you want, a funeral and grief counseling simulator?  It might sell as a "serious game" but I'm not seeing the entertainment value.

Possibly because there are two types of games to you - games you have made, and games that you hate? I don't see the value in your posting, because that's the exact type of anti-intellectual bull-crap that holds games back from becoming anything more than running around going 'pewpewpew' like some giant dribbing man-baby.

[bvanevery]

Does it in movies or books?  I mean, what do you want, a funeral and grief counseling simulator?  It might sell as a "serious game" but I'm not seeing the entertainment value.

Possibly because there are two types of games to you - games you have made, and games that you hate? I don't see the value in your posting, because that's the exact type of anti-intellectual bull-crap that holds games back from becoming anything more than running around going 'pewpewpew' like some giant dribbing man-baby.

You haven't dealt with the question at all, and you've said nothing here.  What you've offered is an ad hominem tirade, and that's as anti-intellectual as it gets.

[Hangedman]

I mean, what do you want, a funeral and grief counseling simulator?

Ask a silly question, get a silly response.

[tsameti]

I love this discussion that you folks have been having.

May I offer my opinion?

On 'new games suck!' or 'fudge you, new games are great!'
I believe that the game market has widened extraordinarily in the ~40 odd years that there's been gaming to play. But that doesn't mean that the tastes of the market have widened, gaming has simply become more capable of reaching the casual audience.

There are niche audiences, to be sure (me :D). And we still have a demand for hardcore or literary or numbermunch titles, we're still essentially the same sized group we were ten or fifteen years ago. In that time we've grown to expect triple A budgets, but it isn't plausible to make games for such a small market and massive dev cost.

Somebody's going to have to figure out how to finance this stuff if we expect to see more of it. The answer's probably going to be that art/hardcore devs are going to have to charge more per unit entertainment than mainstream titles. Paying money is never fun, but I don't understand why people are outraged we have to pay $60 bucks for a title. Where can you honestly go these days where you can buy entertainment at the rate of $5/hr?

On game themes and death:
We've grown up! There are a large number of older gamers out there. I know we love blasting aliens every once in a while, but many of us are getting hungry for something more. Even though there are a few titles that satisfy that craving, it's high time there can be a healthy market for games that aren't about entertainment, they're about art. No one is suggesting that triple As or Casuals should change their direction, just that we start formalizing sub-genres and awards to encourage the maturation of the medium.
If you need convincing, consider this: even the so called great accomplishments in *edit: modern* game literature fall short of what they could have been.

SPOILERS

Bioshock: Wow. Great game. The twist? YMMV, but it hit me pretty hard. The contention? What came afterwords. This was an opportunity to give the player a chance to make real moral decisions, reinforcing the themes of Freedom and the Subtlety of Slavery. Instead? Glowie boss fight.

The other issue was the little sisters. That wasn't really a moral choice, it was an opportunity to behave as a jerk. And though you can divorce yourself from the implications of that and just have fun, that subsequently diminishes the game as a thoughtful consideration of Choice and Consequence.

Heavy Rain: The game story of the decade, or so it was hyped. It was cinematic and immersive, and a lot of us loved it. However, as a work of literature, Heavy Rain is a 'SeVen' not an 'American Beauty'.

Bioware: Although they accomplish extraordinary writing in their specifics, (The phenominal Krogan, the secret of Darth Revan, Wynn's long lost son) they confine themselves in the generalities. We always seem to be 'saving the universe/world/continent', where the crux of truly emotional storytelling is told at a smaller scale. I didn't give a rat's behind about the 'arch-demon', but you'd better believe I was stunned when Alastair murdered Loghain and lost the throne and wife I'd fought and argued to negotiate for him.

If I continued, I might list Assassin's Creed, Red Dead Redemption, etc.

My point is, we have Emmy/Hugo worthy games but not Oscar/Nobel worthy games. That matters to a lot of us.

[RCIX]

Great post. I would like to add though that it's as much a fact of the "hardcore crowd" not adapting to change as anything; then they yell "dumbed down" when a game streamlines itself, often without justification and sometimes without trying the game.

[bvanevery]

Somebody's going to have to figure out how to finance this stuff if we expect to see more of it. The answer's probably going to be that art/hardcore devs are going to have to charge more per unit entertainment than mainstream titles.

Or they will have to figure out how to lower production costs while still offering an aesthetically decent product, much as "film noir" once did.

Paying money is never fun, but I don't understand why people are outraged we have to pay $60 bucks for a title. Where can you honestly go these days where you can buy entertainment at the rate of $5/hr?

The problem here is the "cultural depth" category competes directly with films and books, which can be owned for at most $20.  I guess one could try making the $60 price you suggest and see if the value proposition is really there.  I know I personally would have pretty high expectations for an adventure game title at that price point.  It would not be allowed to have the same feel and repeat the same mistakes that classic adventure games made.  Maybe a well-funded author of the IF avant garde could deliver on my expectations.  I'd still want a demo.  I don't know if my level of expectation would dominate or not.  I'm surprised at how much money Minecraft has made already, in its alpha unpolished form.

I do know that people pay a lot of money for live theater tickets.  Maybe that's a way to position IF.

On game themes and death:
We've grown up! There are a large number of older gamers out there.

Which on the positive side, means many of them have a fair amount of discretionary income.

[s0]

Great post. I would like to add though that it's as much a fact of the "hardcore crowd" not adapting to change as anything; then they yell "dumbed down" when a game streamlines itself, often without justification and sometimes without trying the game.

To be fair though, out of the supposedly "streamlined" games I've played that came out in the last couple years, I can't think of one that wasn't dumbed down.

...or actually I can: GTA IV

[RCIX]

Great post. I would like to add though that it's as much a fact of the "hardcore crowd" not adapting to change as anything; then they yell "dumbed down" when a game streamlines itself, often without justification and sometimes without trying the game.

To be fair though, out of the supposedly "streamlined" games I've played that came out in the last couple years, I can't think of one that wasn't dumbed down.

...or actually I can: GTA IV

SupCom2, Civ V. They're both wonderful games, (partially) ruined by an overly entitled community

[s0]

SupCom2, Civ V. They're both wonderful games, (partially) ruined by an overly entitled community

Yeah well I haven't played either of them. I don't really know much about the SupCom series, but from I've read/heard about Civ V, it sounds like they slimmed it down where it matters. I'm on a bit of a tight budget at the moment though, and I'm not hugely into Civ, so I have no desire to buy it right now. Might try the demo.