next »

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i think the story of mgs4 was okay but not as good as mgs2 (i thought that had the best story in the series) -- mainly because mgs4 felt like they tried to 'tie everything together' too much, so it relied on deep familiarity with the series. if you hadn't played (to completion) and re-played the other games in the series, the story of mgs4 would make no sense. whereas the story of mgs2 stands alone even if you don't know the whole metal gear series mythology and background.

another issue is that 'good writing' means a number of things

- good plotting (the events in a game all fitting together, being logically connected and interesting and surprising)
- good characterization (the characters being interesting and feeling real)
- good setting/world (the world of the game feeling like a real place, being detailed and immersive)
- good dialogue (talking like real people, interesting conversations)

(and more but let's leave it here)

sometimes a game can get one or two of those right but the others wrong. i felt that mgs4 had good plotting, and a good setting/world (lots of detail), and good dialogue, but not good characterization -- the characters in the game weren't very interesting as people, and most of them weren't believable -- they all felt super-human, it was hard to relate to any of them, except perhaps sunny (the little girl).

[filosofiamanga]

i think the story of mgs4 was okay but not as good as mgs2 ...

I agree with that, not all gamers are familiar with the saga, but those opinions are just opinions without much information and cannot be taken seriously, what would you think of a guy talking about Lord of The Rings, that haven't read any of the books (including Silmarillion or the hobbit) and just watched the movies.
I also agree the characters doesn't feel real (like Raiden or Otacon) and they look like stereotypes.
But those are flaws and it's diferent to say the story has flaws than saying "It wasn't good"
 
 
About the other stuff, you say about plotting, characterization, setting, dialog.
I say: yes, they're very important, but the believe that the fixed structure of a campaing or story mode it's the way to go, I say hold on a second, it's not.
Eventually, all depends on the genre, an example would be the fighting games, their same evolution make them "the arcade mode" their predilect way to go. Other experiments to make a complex story in the genre would be making it as Fatal fury or Arcana Heart where you select your oponent (a good way) or even making a world map (as Kof Kyo of psone).
Like I told you It depends of the game design.

But let's talk about games traditionaly highly dependant on story: the JRPG (although roguelikes shows a rpg can be made without an story and be good).
They are made on Events, that's how they told their dialogs, story, etc.
Now let's design a JRPG taking your points:

- Good Ploting: Strictly talking you only need two mandatory points in the plot, the begining and the End (one or several ends, depending on your story), all the other plot points or events should be optional and not mandatory. An scene should be a little mini-story (like a side-quest) independant of the others plot points or units, but It doesn't mean it can't be complex (American series like the Simpson with their chapters independant of each other prove it). If the designer or writer need a more complex story, those plot units can be grouped under circunstances or they can have switches (as RPG maker) to make stages in the story (childhood, adulthood, old age) to use plots twist.
This model has a benefit, because the story could react to player actions, using the switches (a simple IF THEN should prove many posibilities, like Star Ocean of SNES and their dialogs and events with optional characters). The story could group several plot points with a requirement, like "Sister is Alive" so if the bad guy kill her, we lose the posibility to experience those plot units (and because they're independant and optional, the player who haven't see them wouldn't lose nothing).
We could even design plot branches like in the dialogs, making it more complex and interactive (a better game story with replay value).

-Good characterization: I agree this is a huge plus for games, memorable characters, but I feel a problem with modern designs, the characters are only developed on the "story section" or cutscene.
There's huge oportunities for characters to be developed having the gameplay and story in mind, like a character that is strong and her "female" (sorry for the sexism) that it's weak (low HP) but she can heal him or she can jump to places where the strong character cannot or she can make a mental shield to protect from spells and magic bullets.
A bad design could be cortana from Halo, She didn't do anything in the first game (or the others) so we didn't feel her. There's a lot of ways to develop her: could be that there are little robots we can control using her and she use those robots to attack enemies.
I told you: I apreciate more the automatic machine gun of Perfect Dark (N64) because the weapon help me glue in the wall (shooting other players) in a match more than Cortana.
At least in MG4, otacon help us with the little robot and we can use it.
Other way of poor characterization in game is that the characters doesn't seem to react to player actions, they just wait until the player control them.
It's not hard to code the reactions, actually we can see when designing the game what the actions of the player will be, so creating responses (from the NPC or sidekicks) to the player actions is not hard at all.
There's a lot of posibilities to create characterization using gameplay, like a character sneezing because of a flower field.
Most characters are like rocks during the game, not expresing even their fear of death when low HP by example (a simple scream or dialog: no, no, no, i don't want to die!)
Remember: Games are gameplay, so characterization should be in the gameplay, not in the "story cuts" or dialogs.
Most enemies in games have the same amount of detail as a goomba, they don't seem to care about having low HP, nor react to others enemies. An example: Let's say you have several monsters and between them one can heal, the monsters doesn't seem to protect who can heal them and this monster doesn't seem smart enough to heal first who is low in HP.
More? In a RTS the remaining soldiers with injuries (low HP) doesn't seem to retreat behind the strongers and new alied waves just to cure themselves with their fucking priest (AoE II).
I haven't see an enemy who protect other with low HP, this can give oportunities to develop characters, like a tribe where his moral code make them cant leave alone his comrades and make them protect them.
This is not hard to code, like I told you, a designer-writer can think of those things when making the design-story.

- Good setings: I think this is not hard at all for a good writer, and many games do this very well. But I feel there's little interactivity between the setting (the background of the story) and the actual gameplay. Also, there's a lot of wasted oportunities, let's say in the game there's a temple and they believe in their religion a certain tree can heal people. So you as designer make this tree growing in random places where you can attack it and recover logs, so you go to the temple and craft potions.
Like I told you, everything in a videogame story should be created using the interactivity in mind.
Other example?, well... let's say the country needs money for a war, so they create a tax to use the aircraft in some tolls.
I see so little interactivity from the setting, is like watching the background in a fighting game.

- Good dialoge: This is also good for a story, but I feel the same as characterization, they only use it in the "story part". It's also too much wasted oportunities.
Indeed, there's a lot of posibilities of dialog, I remember Orochi Warriors (I think the 5 for PS2), I like that way of using a dialog, not making the player push the button to continue.
Using that game system, we can make things like your sidekick each 10 minutes (1 in 2 chance) telling you: Wow, remember when you killed that "X" monster?, you make him "X action used to kill him", It was awesome!
We can use the dialog so the enemy start telling you things, like in Warcraft.
Just Imagine what the enemies could tell you in GTA San Andreas (those gangs).
It's not hard at all, It's just dialog that open up under some circunstances, but the designer-writer must think all before hand.

That's why I hate cut scenes and fixed lines of events, now you understand?
Now Imagine a good designer-writer Who can think of all this stuff togheter.
Just Imagine if we combine all those four points having the interactivity in mind... FUCKIN SHIT!, we didn't need a fucking Story mode with 40 hours, we could make a game like Spelunky (that takes 5-20 minutes to end) with a stronger story than any linear shit you put me.

PORTAL? Good story?, (I haven't played) maybe It's good but I think it will be another interactive movie story, I don't think portal can be good enough to stand against the better writers in literature.
The game is good, but I apreciate it more by his gameplay (I have seen youtube videos) than by his story.

That's why I said it's so funny when people argue with the story of videogames, I haven't see one yet that explore the limits and goes beyond what videogames can offer of any literarian value in terms of interactivity.
Like I told you, argueing about the color of the paint in a car.

[Tiderion]

A better question: What makes a good game?

Answer: Trick question. The goodness of a game is in the eye of the beholder.


What is good writing? Debatable. It's debatable and undoubtedly different for every genre of writing in every medium in which writing resides.

I will point out that the works of the Bronte sisters are considered the standard of English literature and yet their education was minimal. Indeed, they were forced to publish under male pseudonyms. What makes them masters of writing as you call it is not what they studied or who. Truthfully, they did neither. Strangely enough there is only one thing that I can recommend for becoming a great writer that the Brontes had and that is a strong command of the language in which you write. Beyond that it is the mystery of the universe as to what makes something worth reading.

One good piece of advice you give which I will repeat: Write often.


Side note: Cortana is a prime example of excellent writing. Her presence in the story is powerful as the conscience of the killer you play; the voice in your head that guides you. Turning her into a gimmick with which you control robots or something is terrible writing and design. Writing in games does not have to always be about what features the player gets. If Minecraft had Herobrine in it, that would be GREAT writing. It would be achieved by doing exactly the opposite of what you suggest. The whole hoax was great writing and it was not even in the game.

Or was it not a hoax?

[filosofiamanga]

A better question: What makes a good game?

I always though when listening Terra theme of FFVI: what is what it makes it magic?
Like in the magician tricks there's no suposed "magic" just skill and a little of talent, also knowledge (creativity).

There's a simple word in which we can judge if a game was good or was bad: FUN.
Does the game was fun: If yes, then we have a good game, If No, the game has it's flaws.
A good game can be easily enjoyed by Hardcore gamers as well as casual gamers (Tetris, centipede, halo, Goldeneye 007, FFVII, Smash Brothers).
(ON A SIDE NOTE: Before, I was judging MG4 In therms of story as a cinematic experience, where the game excels, but as videogame it's not so good)

But saying the game was FUN doesn't tell me anything, What is FUN?
FUN is the mechanic by the children learn the skill necesary to survive in the jungle (think of any puppy: a Lyon, a monkey, etc), so FUN is in reality learning something new (that's why the school should be fun, but that's other time and other thread). Remember when you're learning a skill you're interested like playing a musical instrument, drawing, a Martial art, soccer, a new languaje, even Math or coding?.

So, how a game could be fun if fun is learning?
Well, learning about the game, it could be learning about the maps you haven't seen (FFIV-VII), Learning (watching) or experiencing the ambientation (art style, story, music)(Castlevania SOTN, sillent Hill 1, Dead Space 1).
Also, but more important if the game has any chance to be played again: learning about the new patterns of the enemies (Mario Brothers -NES-) or the new patterns of gameplay (Tetris), learning about the level design (Mario Bros 1 -NES-, F-1 racing) and learning how to improve one own skill (FPS, Fighting games, soccer games, Ikaruga).
Basically learning how to improve one own skill (multiplayer or just the score) AND if the gameplay allow for finding new things over time (being a deep gameplay) It's the only reason of a game's popularity years after it's release, like Street Fighter II or centipede, even Pacman (kof 2002 is widely still played in Latinoamerica where I live and people find new things and not get bored after like 9 years).

Using this things we can see why Cave story is a jewel of his genre (action platform, considered a Metroidvania by some) because there's though on each of those categories of "learnings" (art, level design, enemy pattern, etc).

Other confusion topic on a game is if the game is too hard (for casuals) and easy (for hardcore). Generally game makers choose to increase the dificulty in a stupid way and that's not the way it should be.
Fuck, Mario Brothers (NES) is a hardcore game and casual game, why?
Fuck, Pacman is a hardcore and casual game, why?
How a game like Cave story can be casual and hardcore at the same time?
It's because of the intelligence of the design, making interesting patterns for the enemies to learn, NOT by making stupid dificulty (like I call it) by giving a boss 1 million HP where you make him 1 HP of damage on each 5 attacks and the boss make you 999.999 of damage on each attack and you have 100 of HP.

Fuck, this is stupid:



This is other show of stupid dificulty design:




Fuck no, an interesting and dificult boss could be made easily just by making you think of several things at the same time (like many Cave story bosses and the 4 Pacman ghosts) not by giving him 1 million HP with a fucking high defence. An interesting new pattern in boss design could be enough challenge for casual gamers (remember when you were six years fighting against Koopa in 8-4?), giving too much challenge (for casuals) without being frustrating (like the stupid design).

How about the hardcore?, how to please them if we think of game being too hard for casuals?
Well... a hardcore gamer is interested not in the stupid dificulty (some like the challenge -learning how to beat it-) but to having something to improve, to beat others players performance. Why people still play a SNES game like Street Figher II as well as the 4? Why people still play Goldeneye 007 (N64)?
Well... what about Mario and Pacman?, to the hardcore gamer, score and time (Speenrun) is also a performance they care to beat as well others things like "Minimun run" (with just bare and basic items), RE2 anyone?, killing Nemesis with just the knife in RE3?.

Remember: Game AI that play at the same level of a harcore player without having an stupid advantage is too expensive to develop, even Deep Blue wining over Kasparov in chess was posible because the machine was helped behind the scenes by a "dark" human player. That's why a human is still the best challenge another human can get, that's why Multiplayer is so common and it's the actual shift in FPS.

Like I told you, the game need to have a deep gameplay (so new things are found even years after) to be played looong time after it's release.
Even Mario 3 (NES) have these "things" (learning) that makes it a hardcore game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyJpFoI_fGk

About the bronte sister, yes, you can be a good writer without studying, look at Jimmy hendrix (the best guitar player in the history without study also). But in those cases, the good writer "feel" when a story is good or bad, they intuitively "know" how to write, what I mean is that they use unconsciously the theory, even if they don't know it.
I could tell you the same about Drawing, you could argue that theory it's not needed to become an skilled draftsmen, I tell you: that's right, but even they use unconsciously things like proportion, perspective, composition, lighting, color theory.
The same could be say about writers, they use without thinking: Character arcs, plot twist, characterization, timing, emotion, dialogs, conflict, the three parts in the plot, ambientation, dramatic devices, style of writing, etc.
The problem is that people can't see so easily the "flaws" in a story as they see in music or drawing. A singer you can easily tell if he knows just listening (American idol), even if you don't know about music theory. With literature is more "dificult" (if you don't know theory) to say: this book sucks and why. What more example do you want than Twiligh and it's success?
About the mistery of the universe, the same could be said about magicians and their "tricks" if you don't know how they did it.
Basically, a good story have three parts, an Introduction, the development, climax and conclusion (cinema structure) where you develop the characters using conflict (clashing of personalities, not just physical violence) until the main character and his antagonist clash in the climax and the emotional need of the character (to fight the antagonist) is resolved and the armony (although diferent than the begining) returns in the conclusion.
That's the basic structure (like your bones) that all good stories have in common.
That doesn't mean it's fixed and some writers unconsciously or consciously try some variations.
For more info read A hero with a thousand faces of Joseph campbell.

Most of time, you keep reading because you care about the characters and wonder what will they'd be doing.

Some good examples:
*** A kid see a coin in the middle of the park he needs for a delicious ice cream, the last of it's kind in the town that every kid will love to eat, but He sees his mortal rival who also saw the coin and also wants the same ice cream, but you know he wouldn't share with you, you must think fast because he's walking toward the coin.

*** The husband with his wife (that is pregnant) goes to a party but He finds her secret lover, He's been cheating his wife during 1 year (with this beatiful girl) and she just want to talk with your wife, you don't want both talk to each other, but your secret love keep trying to talk to your wife, also you don't want to suspicion your wife, you must think fast because they're alone together.

Yeah, you want more?, why?
Because I create situations that promise conflict and character development.

Writing nice text it's not enough to become a good writer, It will make you a poet, but not a writer.
But you're right about Writing often.
But if you only practice, you'll eventually find a writer's block.

About Cortana
I didn't want to mean she's a badly designed character in literarian terms (the story) is just that she's inexistent in the gameplay. About my idea, that's not the only one, but the point is that they could put her in the game.
Let's say you're a gamer who play story mode but skip all the cut-scenes (like many gamers do), He will not know about Cortana.
I could tell you a lot of gamers that play Halo a lot but never touch Campaing mode (there's a lot of those gamers who go to those locals to rent a console to play multiplayer with their neighbors).
For me It's a wasted character that doesn't matter for people who play the game just for multiplayer, I don't have proof but I think a lot of gamers give a crap about Halo's story.
I don't mean make her a fucking "Tails" like in Sonic, but give her some gameplay influence.

Minecraft doesn't need a Cortana, because It's not the focus of the gameplay, their focus is to explore and craft items to make stuff like buildings and fucking microchips inside the game (that also works). If we stick to the gameplay design, we could make a cortana like the typical shoopkeeper in RPG, just to barter raw materials.

Like I told: if the writing doesn't have the interactivity in mind, it will just be like the painting in a car, nice ornament, like those folds and stuff in a victorian dress.

[Tiderion]

I think the communication problem here is that you are describing gameplay which is different from story. Cortana is actually a good example for this.

Players who play Halo to only play multiplayer miss out on the story but they do not miss out on the gameplay. Cortana means nothing to them. Halo means nothing to them. Frankly, neither does John-117. All of those elements are story elements. Story elements do not need to be a part of gameplay and, depending on what you are trying to accomplish, should not be. Those who skip cut scenes or only play multiplayer are not interested in story and any attempt to bombard them with it is fruitless and would undoubtedly aggravate them.

A good story draws in people. You want the player to care of their own volition.

You clearly want elements of a story to all add to the interactivity of the game. That's great and it can add to the quality of a game but it is no silver bullet. You also talk at length about elements of game design which have nothing to do with the story. Game design and game writing do not have to be one. Many times the person who does one does the other as well and if it were not for the considerable load of work with which both come they might never be separate jobs. However, a large and fearsome character need neither be bad nor powerful. The quality of a game's AI has nothing to do with the quality of its tale.

I have read the Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell. It is a good read and influenced George Lucas greatly when writing Star Wars. As a writer, I am aware of the common structure for stories and the archetypes available for characters. There also are four formulas that are the basis of most literature. As writers, we often attempt to break these molds. That is almost our job. It is amazing that even after millennia of writing, humanity still finds new ways of conveying stories. Similarly, we constantly strive to find new ways to tell stories through games or even game without story.

My point still holds though that what makes a book great depends on the person reading it. It has nothing to do with commercial success or theory. If you look across the top 100 novels of all time you will find that you do not like some of them. You will notice some have nothing in common with others other than both are books.

Also, these are trite:

*** A kid see a coin in the middle of the park he needs for a delicious ice cream, the last of it's kind in the town that every kid will love to eat, but He sees his mortal rival who also saw the coin and also wants the same ice cream, but you know he wouldn't share with you, you must think fast because he's walking toward the coin.

*** The husband with his wife (that is pregnant) goes to a party but He finds her secret lover, He's been cheating his wife during 1 year (with this beatiful girl) and she just want to talk with your wife, you don't want both talk to each other, but your secret love keep trying to talk to your wife, also you don't want to suspicion your wife, you must think fast because they're alone together.

Read some Kafka as reference to how you can have great writing without conflict. Read Voltaire to have great writing without character development. Incidentally, Candide by Voltaire is a top 100 book and it offers zero character development. Candide is just as much of an asshole at the beginning as he is at the end. The only difference is he aged.

[filosofiamanga]

I think the communication problem here is that you are describing gameplay which is different from story. Cortana is actually a good example for this...

I feel I need to apologize for maybe writing like a completely douchebag, maybe it's the emotion on the keys.
Second, I feel also that people think I'm a know-all and I have to say I'm not, I just like to read a lot.

Yes, gameplay is very diferent from story, they're diferent, but they live in symbiosis way.
Story justify gameplay and gameplay create new details in the story.
Remember the FF5-7 espers (invocation, etc)?
They're a gameplay stuff, but they could also be justified by the story, They're allmighty beings, some of them are gods, why in the world backstory they're not worshiped? like in the town a priest (or a naive NPC) of one god talking about how good is to praise their god (esper) and being good in his eyes and the tale of how the god (esper) created their world or religion.
So, the story justified the gameplay, but also the story could deepen the gameplay, like: you listen the NPC or priest talking about their god (esper) and reading their holy books or making good actions in their religion, gives you EXP to the esper, so the esper level up or the esper give you presents (like in most roguelikes like Nethack).
Repeat the process for more profit.

See, that's how a game should be improved, by making a deeper interactivity, not by making a 88 hours story mode with 50 GB world map with 10.000 polygons models of each NPC with bump mapping floor instead of a 16 bits old low-Res RPG in the ps3.
Do you think It wouldn't be commercially a success, well... how about Pokemon?

Have you played a good roguelike? (Nethack or powder, even Dwarf fortress)
They're games you can finish in 5 hours, but I feel they're more deep than FFXII and his 88 hours story mode (I'm slow in that game).

No necesarely Halo means shit to those player, maybe some of them really love Halo and buy the game, but they care more fighting with their friends or playing online cursing Annon than spending 15 hours in the campaing mode.
If bombarding those players is fruitless, then why to try so hard making shitty story modes? (by extent, why game's movies suck?) why spend time and money on something not all the players care about?, why not just make an awesome ambientation if that gives the same amount of fun and money? (New Super Mario Brothers outsold MG4 and CoD Modern Warfare combined, fuck, even Wii sports/fit and Nintendogs sold more copies than Okami and Bayonetta).
Even a crazy story (and maybe shitty) like a police man who jumps over hippies using furniture from the unicorn planet that have to make them pay their taxes to the goverment, could be very good if we keep developing story together with the gameplay.

And yes, most gamers (now I'm sure) care is about the Multiplayer in FPS (Halo included).
http://www.uptomark.com/call-of-duty-black-ops-hit-sales-of-1-billion-copies-in-6-weeks/
"To date, more than 600 million hours have been logged playing Call of Duty: Black Ops since the game launched on November 9, 2010.  According to Microsoft, the average player logs on more than once a day and plays for more than one hour each time.  Over half of that time is spent playing online with and against friends, illustrating the unique social characteristics of the game."

Now let's watch the most selling games of 2010:
http://www.vgchartz.com/article/83386/top-selling-games-of-2010-multi-wii-ps3-psp-ds-x360/

I can easily say:
1) Awesome multiplayer and online comunity.
2-6) No story driven games
lol, five of top six being no story driven.
7) Well... multiplayer? (Their fucking story was supposed to end in halo 3, am I right?)
Because It's a non-linear game? (It has good story, although)
9) no story driven.
10) Pokemon?, awesome gameplay, story... not so much.
I can tell you, in the first 10 games of 2010, 7 weren't story driven and the other 3 are non linear.
What does it tell you?, maybe the customers doesn't really care about long story or campaing modes?
From the others: 14-18, 20-21, 23-24, 26, 29 are not story driven, 11, 19, 25, 27 can be explained by the Multiplayer, 12, 13, 27, 30, because of their excelent gameplay?
22 sell because of the name of the Franchise (many old gamers hate it and it's regarded as one of the weakest in entire serie) 28 I can't talk (I don't know nor played the franchise).

Where are Alan wake, Enslaved, Heavy Rain, Mass Effect 2?
Acording to the chart, they should sold less than 3.5 million copies in 2010.
I'm not meaning a game cannot have a great story and It could sell well, but It will sell well because If the gameplay is good, nor otherwise, remember Grim Fadango?
But seriosly, when 19 of the Top 30 games (more than the half) are not story driven games, what does it tell you?, Games need good stories or need stories at all?

I wonder which people wouldn't enjoy a story mode like us...
Well...
- Moms (who doesn't have enough time and are not hardcore gamers)
- Old people (who likes games that are simple, easy to play, easy reward)
- Girls (who are more interested in Super Mario 3/World, Citiville, Farmville, Mario Party, Nintendogs)
- 13 years old boys (who like to play RTS/FPS/MMORPG in multiplayer in their mother basement)
- +26 years old gamers (because they now doesn't have time to play and need time for university, working, finding a job, paying the rent, spending time with family-childs, etc)
- Casuals (who like games they could finish in a season so they spend time with friends)
- Little kids (who always skip cut-scenes and like to play GTA: San Andreas or simple and easy games like Zelda of SNES and pokemon)

Who will enjoy long story modes?... Well, most gamers who come from RPG games love to read story in games (long dialogs), backstory, love watching cut-scenes since SNES times.
People who seek a game to watch their cut-scenes or read a lot are always a minority (except in the RPG).

So the argument that story draws people it's not so true, it only draw a minority, or I should tell you again that only Red Dead Deception story is acknowledge as good and the half are not story driven and the rest of good story driven games has sold less than 3.5 millions?

"You want the player to care of their own volition"
Yeah, like in a fighting game or Minecraft?

"You also talk at length about elements of game design which have nothing to do with the story. Game design and game writing do not have to be one"

The same could be said about a movie story and the vestuary of the actors, if they don't work in synergy the movie will suffer.
Imagine a victorian movie where girls use jeans.

and if it were not for the considerable load of work with which both come they might never be separate jobs
Why It happen?, why the considerable amount of work?
Well, because the 16 year old boys think a game story need 500 pages of dialog, backstory, and plot, they seem to think a game story like Super Mario World or Castlevania SOTN, even cave story, sucks because It won't last 88 hours with 5 hours of cut-scenes.
A good game writer-designer could be like a programmer, reusing most of the times, locations, characters, animations, maximizing the story (telling more with less) so the total amount of work would be fair for the rest of the team. That's why story and design should be made by the same person.

However, a large and fearsome character need neither be bad nor powerful
No, it's not, It really depends on character design, and character's motivations should be more complex than simple I'm Evil or I just want to become more powerful.

The quality of a game's AI has nothing to do with the quality of its tale
No, but the AI of an enemy tell a lot about that enemy, that's why It's design should be more well though (especially with the story in mind), because It's an important stuff in the character design and it's development.

If you look across the top 100 novels of all time you will find that you do not like some of them
Yeah, but you will acknowledge the merits of all (especially the top 100), and most of the time (if not all) you'll find character development, well crafted plot twist, conflict, a climax, etc.

"Also, these are trite"
Yeah, but those are examples made in less than 30 seconds and in first though.

Read some Kafka as reference to how you can have great writing without conflict
Kafka indeed have conflict, in The trial he fights against a corrupt corporation, I remember the scene where he gives a speech to humillate a judge (conflict), what more conflict than being stabbed in the heart at the end.
However kafka books have excelent character development.
I haven't read lot of Voltaire, but He always try to probe and argumentate something, very clever.

Sorry to write like this, but I was in a hurry.

[gimymblert]

I guess in the top worst selling game you will find a lot of gameplay only game, But in the list of "guaranteed me a 1M sells"? Heavy rain was plan for 300 000 get 1M, assassin's creed got lot too.

But story in game are not told story, they the stake the player enact and most of the time it's divorce from the told story. The stake resolution is what people tell their friend. As long people don't design story as stake (ie gameplay) story will remain irrelevant to game.

[Smithy]

Won a contest in writing. A small one. It was open to students of the state university system. Suddenly I'm a 'better' writer than all of the university students that fancy themselves 'creative writers' in the state. And I've never taken a creative writing course.

Professors telling me to submit things to the new yorker. To glimmer train. To everywhere. High end magazines. one just nominated me for a big essay writing contest. I hate college-student essays. I hate the format. The rules. It's trite intellectual victorianism and professional essayists do not adhere to it.

Kids are running around. Congratulating me.

"Hey man, you won! That's pretty rad!"
"Yeah."
"Oh, you're unenthused! You're totally an artist!"
"er."
"I entered too but got rejected. Man, one thing though, if I had to lose to anyone, I'm glad I lost to you!"
"yeah, uh, okay"
"Talk to you later!"

They're inviting me to facebook writing groups. They're asking me to give them feedback. They're giving each other feedback. It's all horrible. I'm the biggest fish in the goldfish tank, and they look up to me.

Groups of writers, discussing rules of good writing. Rituals of good writing. None of them are good writers themselves, but they feel that if they find enough 'rules' of good writing, if they take enough classes telling them about 'tension' and 'comic relief' and 'character conflict' they'll all be bestsellers.

All the rules and rituals.

It's like being in a cult.

[filosofiamanga]

I guess in the top worst selling game you will find a lot of gameplay only game, But in the list of "guaranteed me a 1M sells"? Heavy rain was plan for 300 000 get 1M, assassin's creed got lot too...

I agree with you, the stake story is more important that the actual literarian story IF it's divorced from the gameplay.
A few examples: Do you remember that character in RE3 who we save from a zombie in the restaurant? I think He's more important "story wise" than Nemesis, how's he remembered?, Being killed by Nemesis in the Police station.
Other: Who is more remembered? Jetch or Auron in FFX?
I think Jetch is more important in the story, but Auron gets all love from the fans?
Why... Because He can kill a monster in 1 hit with a good weapon.

"As long people don't design story as stake (ie gameplay) story will remain irrelevant to game."
That's what I was trying to say, thanks.
If the story doesn't impact gameplay, It won't matter to gamers who actually skip the cut-scenes, and I told you, there's a lot of those gamers.
Why people buy a GTA game?
Some gamers play the misions and story mode, but why most kids love those games:
It's The gameplay! (STEAL cars, well... STEAL cars, run over pedestrian whith the stolen car, being chased by the police for stealing a car, killing the police man with guns gotten with cheat code, using the fucking Tank to explode cars, making a fucking war in the city, etc).

I don't say a game cannot have a story, what I say it's that the story should be made to impact the gameplay, to make it more deep, more detailed.

What do I want?
Well, I want a game with a story mode that takes less than five hours to end but It's completely interactive or we can modify the story in some parts, but these details force you to replay the game several times.
An Example: Cave Story.
Why less than five hours?, Imagine a movie that takes to finish 15 hours.
Most gamers doesn't have that time or just play casually a game to play with his friends.

This is important:
What's the diference between playing a story mode that takes 20 hours to end, to another game that takes 4 hours, but to get all the details in the story, you have to replay it 5 times?
Well, the diference will be the that if the gamer replay 5 times the game, he actually liked  the game a lot, If the game it's boring he wouldn't replay, that means if he replay those 5 times, he woudn't care replaying more times, not to see all the details, but just to play because He feels that his decisions in the game really matters.
And If he replay (because there a deep gameplay tied with story) a lot the game, the game would stand more between all the others games, and he would like to show it to his friends.
Why this matter, well.. imagine all the work (levels, new enemies, dialog, animations) that is saved if the game last 2-5 hours instead of 20.

What's the diference between Curly and Aeris?
Both make feel Sad the player when die, both are characters we care about a lot, (because they affect the gameplay).
I have a little 8 year old cousin that was sad because Curly died, when I told him he could save her (and showed how in youtube), he didn't care he haven't finish the game, he started a new game just to save her.
Just look how powerful is to have the chance to change the story, in replay value for a game (interactivity)

Remember: Killing a character is not the only way to make feel the player a lost, it could be also you lose the best weapon in the game, the character loses the chance to get his dreams fullfiled (like getting the best aircraft in the town or enter in the magic school).

Why The story in Heavy Rain is so highly praised, well... because It's interactive (17 endings) and really depends on how you play the game.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i'm not sure why sales are relevant. story-heavy genres (such as visual novels, text adventures, jrpgs, strategy rpgs, etc.) have always been niche. if you want a lot of money, you should not be making indie games. the only people crazy enough to make indie games for a living are the people who have to create the things they have to create no matter what. i'd be perfectly happy if my games sell 10,000 copies each (currently, my first game sold about 3000, and it was story-focused but you could easily skip the story and just play the levels, and a lot of people did). but i don't even know what i'd do with notch's kind of money, i'm not going for millions of sales, i'm trying to please my own small audience

[filosofiamanga]

Won a contest in writing. A small one. It was open to students of the state university system. Suddenly I'm a 'better' writer than all of the university students that fancy themselves 'creative writers' in the state. And I've never taken a creative writing course...

In my city a well know newspaper ("El tiempo") made a contest to all the city schools, I was choosen with 35 kids to enter a course on how beign a journalist.
From what I remember in how I wrote at that time, the only thing I did was using a nice languaje, maybe metaphors and similes, lol, I was writing about becoming a Quixote defending the use of the spanish in schools.

Writing is very easy if you have read some books, just enough to start making fancy phrases, writing is also very easy because is written languaje, we practice dialogs just by speaking with our mother, writing is something everyone does because our society see "no writing" as a disability and all kids spends years in school learning their mother's languaje.
So everyone has a common base (know how to write) and years of school practice, even before we start making ours first stories. That's why everyone seem to think they don't need a creative writing course.

It's trite intellectual victorianism
That's because everyone who starts writing seem to go through that "victorian" stage, I also pass through it, It's like every 10 year old kid drawing a hand stabbed by a knife-sword. It's something unconscious.

Kids are running around. Congratulating me.
But Deep inside you, you know how much you need to improve compared to some historical writers.
You practice and want to become good until a point where It seem futile to compare to others writers, you only wish to keep improving and doesn't care about others level.
I wonder what you feel when the TV start and you look at it (It's too stupid).

Groups of writers, discussing rules of good writing. Rituals of good writing. None of them are good writers themselves, but they feel that if they find enough 'rules' of good writing, if they take enough classes telling them about 'tension' and 'comic relief' and 'character conflict' they'll all be bestsellers.
Lol, why everyone seem to think you need years of study to learn the "theory"?
I learned it in one month, It's not so hard.
But like I told, It's not enough with just the theory alone, you also need to practice, just to overcome that "victorian" stage.
Gabriel Garcia Marquez (GABO) wanted to write 100 years of solitude during 15 years, having the idea, waiting to get enough "level", waiting to get "right" the style he wanted in the book. When he get the actual "inspiration" He feels ready and did the book in 15 months.
There's nothing to say about the book, only that it was choosen the second best book of literature in Spanish, only after Don Quixote (who also took 10 years to write).

lol, making a bestseller?, It's easy!, you make a book where you make the love to the fantasies of the reader and you got it.

I have some years writing in my mother's basement, I feel I could write a bestseller, but I also know that I need more "level" to not make a story that ashamed me years after, that's why I want to enter to study literature in University.

But to say that only with practice you become one of the best, I laugh.
http://forums.cgsociety.org/
Do you think CG-talk's artist only did practice, that they didn't study perspective, composition, color theory?
Even Shakespeare, the allmighty writer indeed study, not in the university, but as a self-taught person, he was well-versed on mithology and rethoric, he used to be an avid reader.
Also Borges, who is one of the better writers on XX century, has indeed a big culture.

People seem to confuse the "general culture (knowledge)" with the Formal education.
One doesn't need a formal education to become an artist, but If you don't have a big culture in History, art, human behaviour, geography, knowledge of your own languaje (reading a lot of books), you'll never become one of the Best writers.

Maybe a writer doesn't need to learn a lot about "theory" but He definitely need to study, not just how to put nice words together, but He needs to learn so many things that It really takes a life to just start making works that really matter, works that can change people lifes.

[filosofiamanga]

i'm not sure why sales are relevant. story-heavy genres (such as visual novels, text adventures, jrpgs, strategy rpgs, etc.) have always been niche...

If sales nor reviews are relevant when pointing objective arguments about why a game is good or sucks, then what is relevant?

if you want a lot of money, you should not be making indie games.
I agree with that, making games, even Indie games is HARD as hell and takes a lot of work.
Even creating spelunky takes months, Aquaria took more than 2 years.
If you wish to make easy money, make a song or a book (Even sell drugs or make a ponzi scheme), they're easier than a game.

"The only people crazy enough to make indie games for a living are the people who have to create the things they have to create no matter what"
That's why I love and Admire so much Cave story.

***
A TIP:
But Why not to design a story mixing it with the gameplay?
Haven't you tried it?
I only can see you'll be happier about your game, it will be more deep and more detailed, and more people will enjoy it a lot more, and you'll be more proud of it.
Eventually, you'll sell more copies because you'll had a better gameplay.

***
Try first to make the base game, the bare bones of the gameplay, find first the essence of your game design.
After that every time you put a gameplay "thing" (a verb in your game), try to justify it in the story (Well, the player jumps because he has robotic boots, designed 500 years ago by the genius who also created the city, etc.), after that, the same story will start telling you little details that also affect gameplay (like electro-magnetic grenades or fields that produce malfuction in the boots, created 150 years ago in the last BIG war, etc.), let's say that those boots need a vital energy source like some kind of cristals that were the source of the last BIG war, so you need recharging and need the descendand of the genius to do it who now has become traders in the black market (a level in the game).
See, Those little details also will start suggesting gameplay, and the process will repeat itself. You find a lot of fun just writing those ideas and mixing them with the gameplay.
Eventually, a game made this way will be unique even among other games of the same genre.

[X3N]

http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Art-Writing-Releasing-Creative/dp/0553296345

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

@filosofiamanga: of course i've tried it. i've made both story-heavy and story-light and no-story games. i enjoy making all of those types of games. i probably have more experience at it than you (been making games since 1994, and have created about 15 games over the years). here's some examples:

here's a game of mine that has no story:

http://studioeres.com/games/alphasix (2006)

and here's a game of mine that does have a story:

http://studioeres.com/immortal/ (2007)

just judging from public reaction, the latter game has a lot more fame/praise than the former one. not entirely a fair comparison because one is freeware and the other is commercial, and one's a top down shooter and the other is a tower defense game, but just comparing reviews of both, and the number of fan letters, the latter was much better-received, despite having a story

so i don't really think it's as clear and simple as you're presenting it, because if it was, you would expect the story-less game to have a better reception and have more fame than my story-full game

[filosofiamanga]

@filosofiamanga: of course i've tried it. i've made both story-heavy and story-light and no-story games. i enjoy making all of those types of games...

Both trailers are real good, congratulations to the team.
Alphasis: Look real nice, the art looks good, the street look colorful and alive, the airplanes look profesional, Obviously remind me of Touhou.
The gameplay looks cool so far.

Inmortal Defence: First impression is that looks chaotical, but that's because there so many things in the screen moving, the art looks good. The avatar faces have an interesting art style. Dialogs sound very literarian (meaning the characters are intelectuals) I give you points for that.
The gameplay looks interesting, but I don't have a clue how to play.

Judging from both trailers, I can see why the second is more praised, It's because of the ambientation, feels more "realistic" even if it's a fantasy story. The first feel more crazy and a little more ilogical in the setting of the game than the second.

People use story in the games, because that creates more details and justify the character design and helps to create the level design, it gives an underlying subject to the art, and the game feel more logical that way.
But I feel when playing those stories that it's interactivity it's very limited, like some stages in Street Fighter III strike.

But Like I told, games need an ambientation if they're gonna made a game that is not abstract like Puzzles and Tetris, games can only gain if a story is made (more lenght of the game, an underlying theme for character, level, sound design, etc.). I'm not saying a game should be storyless, what I mean it's that the entire design of the story should be made to "support" the gameplay, not to make a story that only affects the level design. Stories in games are more important and have more potential than just being used in the story mode. Imagine a VS mode with story-gameplay, like some parts of the background interactive, responding, attacking to players, making the characters dialog and during the entire match, we could see the characters developing a story (in Versus), I can see this very easily in a RTS match like Starcraft.
Games can gain so much by mixing story with gameplay, when you do that, games really shine as a new and powerfull medium, not just being half-movies, half-books, half-games.

You have more experience in game making that I am, I admire you for that.
But I have tried to learn how to make a game during years, learning writing, design, animation, drawing, coding, just to give up after like Four years of trying.
I decided after all to join a team and work for them free, not making a living of indie games.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

well, of course i agree that the game and the story should work together and have a thematic unity. i don't think even the most hardcore jrpg fan believes that the story should always come first or that gameplay is irrelevant. it's just that some people believe that good stories can make the player want to play the game: if the player has no reason to shoot zombies or to protect his village, he doesn't care about it as much as if there are characters he grows attached to that his in-game actions affect -- in other words, story gives the player motivation for gameplay, it gives them reason to keep playing, to see what happens next

i'm not quite sure what you mean by 'ambientation' but i agree that immortal defense is a more 'serious' feeling game even if the setting is more fantasy than alphasix's setting -- alphasix is more cartoony and silly in some ways (it's almost a parody of various genres -- fighting games like street fighter combined with touhou)

[filosofiamanga]

well, of course i agree that the game and the story should work together and have a thematic unity. i don't think even the most hardcore jrpg fan believes that the story should always come first or that gameplay is irrelevant...

Sorry, I was trying to use "ambience" (ambientación is the translation in spanish, i just translated wrong).

You're right, a setting (story) can even turn off some player, like Okami (many though that playing as a wolf is dumb).
That's why I said even the concept of the story (character design, etc) should express the gameplay.
In reality it doesn't matter if the concept is silly or if the story is dumb, look at Mario and Pokemon.
What The player see in a game first is the gameplay or some gameplay video, they will seek your game first If the gameplay is similar to games they have played and liked (the game genre), they don't seek (I don't know of someone who does that) a game reading the story in a review before thinking to play your game.

Do you think a gamer that hates RPG think: Oh, Mass Effect 2 has a great story, I will play it even if I hate RPG games.

"in other words, story gives the player motivation for gameplay, it gives them reason to keep playing, to see what happens next"
Generally, the gamer feel a link with a character because He has spend time to become familiar with him/her/it.
How we spend time with a character in a game?, gameplay again become the solution, not dialog in a cut-scene.
Also the details in the gameplay are more important than what the story tell us.
How we think a character is really strong and fearfull?
By killing all the enemies with just 1 hit, enemies that the other characters took several hits to kill, not by making him like a Douchebag in the "story scenes" (cut-scenes).

An example... What about Edward of Final Fantasy IV?
In the story he's strong (maybe rich), he has an strong will when he fights under the ilusion of his fiance killing a monster in the town, when fighting the dark elf he help us with the arp, right?.
How we remember him: Like a completely useless character that doesn't make fucking damage (WEAK) and his songs doesn't have a fucking usefull effect (USELESS) and always run away from battle when low HP (COWARD).

How we remember him?, like the story told us or how he actually behaves in the gameplay?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

that's a good example with edward, but i still actually remember him as having some strength: remember that part where he crawled to the twinharp despite being sick, and played, and helped you beat the darkelf? that was strength -- both in gameplay and in story -- you would have died at the dark elf without edward there

also, by story i don't just mean cutscenes or dialogue -- you can have a good story without any cutscenes or dialogue at all. story is also the setting, the characters, the world, the music, the art, etc. -- everything is a part of the story.

[filosofiamanga]

that's a good example with edward, but i still actually remember him as having some strength: remember that part where he crawled to the twinharp despite being sick, and played, and helped you beat the darkelf? that was strength -- both in gameplay and in story -- you would have died at the dark elf without edward there...

Yes, but that was only one part in the story, that's why I said little interactivity in the game's stories I have played (like the background in the fighting games).
But I also have to say that I haven't played all the games in the world, so don't crucify me by just one counter-example.

The other argument, I say: yes, you're right. Ambience also is story development.
What I designate as Story in games is the traditional though that the First Mario Bross have an inferior story than Modern games.
They seem to think this game has almost no story:



I say: WTF?
That game alone represents how videogames should be.
They seem to think a game like this doens't have a good story compared to Heavy Rain:



I say: WTF?
That game is one brilliant example of how to make a cinematic experience of a videogame.

I just say those two examples are good enough to show how the story is told by the gameplay.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i don't really think any of the games you just mentioned have good stories -- mario or heavy rain or karateka. i never really got attached to any of those characters

here's some examples of my favorite story-game moments:



(rydia saving cecil from golbez -- the paladin battle was also good)


(final battle in super metroid, where the metroid saves you)