next »

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

One of Chris Crawford's books (I think Chris Crawford on Game Design).

[agj]

Metaphors enrich a story, don't make it poorer. It's silly to separate 'story' from 'metaphor' when both are interlinked, it's like separating the hot water from the tea. It is harder to make a good, metaphorical story, of course, as it is always harder to make something that involves any extra complexities.

[Movius]

I see what you mean. If one sets out to create a metaphorical game, it might be better to keep storytelling to a minimum. And vice versa.

I don't think thats true at all.

An obvious counter-example is Killer7.  The story/general structure (nonsensical, yet passionate, cutscenes interspersed by longer periods of shooting unrelated zombies and occasionally solving puzzles) of the game is basically a metaphor for games of this type. Yet it is 100% linear and story driven.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

How can a game be a metaphor of games of its own type? Isn't that more of a parody than a metaphor?

[Bree]

I don't think thats true at all.

An obvious counter-example is Killer7.  The story/general structure (nonsensical, yet passionate, cutscenes interspersed by longer periods of shooting unrelated zombies and occasionally solving puzzles) of the game is basically a metaphor for games of this type. Yet it is 100% linear and story driven.

I'm not totally convinced that was the intention behind the game. At least, it's not the whole thing- I'm planning on writing an analysis of Killer7, as soon as I can finish the darn thing. I was past the Alter Ego chapter, but I started getting disc read errors on my Wii.

[Alex May]

I see what you mean. If one sets out to create a metaphorical game, it might be better to keep storytelling to a minimum. And vice versa.

I don't think thats true at all.

An obvious counter-example is Killer7.  The story/general structure (nonsensical, yet passionate, cutscenes interspersed by longer periods of shooting unrelated zombies and occasionally solving puzzles) of the game is basically a metaphor for games of this type. Yet it is 100% linear and story driven.

I am not certain how I feel about the whole thing. But if I were to set out to present a metaphor in the form of a game any events in a story would have to be directly relevant to that metaphor. That would be really difficult to do with a complex subject to the point where the metaphor breaks down into a theme, and would simply ruin a simple metaphor by complicating the presentation with distracting narrative. There could be a story with a single metaphor as its central focus. A film example might be Mulholland Drive, where the box represents the transition between reality and fantasy.

[Movius]

How can a game be a metaphor of games of its own type? Isn't that more of a parody than a metaphor?

The game is a parody. The storyline of the game is a metaphor.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Well, I don't separate 'game' and 'story' parts of a game (as mentioned in another thread), I don't think it makes sense to do that. Also, if you separate games out like that, then the range of games which are metaphors is much broader, because you could just pick and choose some part of a game (the "story") that is a metaphor and leave the rest out. Then the stories of games like Pac Man and Space Invaders could be metaphors.

[Corpus]

One rule I think people might want to follow is that if the game needs someone to explain why the game was moving, meaningful, or emotional, it really isn't. There's a point where an abstraction stops representing anything at all.

So, then, you suggest that games be designed to be idiot-proof? We don't have to pander to the lowest common denominator.

Well, I don't separate 'game' and 'story' parts of a game (as mentioned in another thread), I don't think it makes sense to do that.

Well, that depends on the game. In some games, the actual gameplay, or the... interaction experience (:D) and the story are jarring; the designers have failed to unify them, and in that case they can only ever be considered, for the most part, separately.


I like games with metaphors as their central theme. I like metaphors in general, because they add another dimension of mental engagement. Naturally, there are poor metaphors, whether flawed in substance or in communication, but that's unavoidable. Done well, done subtly and not shoved in the face of the player in case they're too stupid to notice it, I very much enjoy it.

Essentially, I think that the metaphor should be a part of the game and should run through it, but should do so in such a way that its identification and appreciation is not essential to enjoyment of the game. The people not "tuned in" to such aspects should be able to enjoy the experience simply as a fun, emotionally affecting, scary or whatever game, while others will be able both to enjoy it and to appreciate the additional layer of metaphor.

I'm going to contradict myself slightly, though, and say that I do think there's a place for games in which the metaphor is entirely central to the experience (such as Gravitation) and also for games in which no (intentional) metaphor can be discerned.

[Melly]

My next big project (you might wanna call it my first big project, considering I haven't finished any of the previous ones) is basically a game that tries to convey a somewhat abstract message through all its elements (visuals, audio, mechanics, gameplay...) but without telling the player at any point what the message is. Right now the design also has 0 words in it, and a crapton of planned art and sound assets. Might be a while.

So this discussion is very useful for me. Please do keep doing.

I do agree with Corpus on that a metaphor that is slapped on the player's face is a much poorer one than a subtle one that requires some level of thinking to be noticed and understood, and are not completely required to enjoy the game, which is what I'm aiming for.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

But, I wasn't saying that the story and game are separate parts that need to be unified, I was saying that they're the same thing. If you don't think of a game as separate parts like that, there's no reason to unify the parts, because the separation into parts itself is imaginary, it's a mental artifice. It's in how you look at the game, not in the game itself.

Take the MGS series for instance, which is a series that people often complain about lengthy story segments: there's clearly a division between parts where you control Snake (or Raiden) and parts where you don't have control and just listen to people talk. But why is the part when you listen to people talk not part of the game? It's interactive (you progress the dialogue, you can skip it, you can often move the camera), in many ways just as interactive as when you move around Snake or Raiden. And there's a lot of what someone could call "story" in the parts where you move around Snake or Raiden too: you learn a lot about the characters and the world while moving around in it. And there's a lot of passive, linear stuff in the part where you move around the characters, it can be just as passive and linear as when you listen to characters talking on the radio. And listening to people talk scenes can be just as fun as the moving around the characters scenes, depending on the player. Some people prefer one of those types of scenes to the other, some people get through moving characters and shooting things only to listen to more people talking, and some people listen to people talking just so that they can get back to moving around the character and shooting at things. But I don't think it's true that one type of scene is more interactive than the other, or more of a game than the other, or less of a story than the other.

[Movius]

Well, I don't separate 'game' and 'story' parts of a game (as mentioned in another thread), I don't think it makes sense to do that. Also, if you separate games out like that, then the range of games which are metaphors is much broader, because you could just pick and choose some part of a game (the "story") that is a metaphor and leave the rest out. Then the stories of games like Pac Man and Space Invaders could be metaphors.

I don't seperate them either. 'the story' is a subset 'the game'.

'The story' being the narrative where theres a bunch of assassins hired to kill things, as they perform these tasks other things happen.

'The Game' being the sum of many parts, including, but not limited to: 'The Story' in its entirety, the control system, the menu, the manual, that screen that says not to unplug the power while the game is saving.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Still, what part of a game is *not* a part of its story?

[Alevice]

Still, what part of a game is *not* a part of its story?

stuff like not being able to cast phoenix down on aeris.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

But that kind of is part of the story, because if you were able to do that it'd change the story. It certainly affects the story of the game that you can't do that.

The way I see it, a story is just a history of things that happened to you while you were playing the game. If you died twice while trying to kill Rufus in FF7, that was part of your story, no?

[Alevice]

yeah, but my point is that with the given example, the story is certainly divorced from the basic gameplay mechanics, thus making the story not that much part of the portion called game, only like two unrelated elements coupled togheter.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Huh? How is the story divorced from the basic gameplay mechanics in your example? It's part of the story that you can't revive her, so the gameplay mechanics support the story. If you *could* revive her with a phoenix down (an item which never says it can revive anyone, as an aside: its description just says it wakes people up from unconsciousness), it'd go against the story.

[Alevice]

Huh? How is the story divorced from the basic gameplay mechanics in your example? It's part of the story that you can't revive her, so the gameplay mechanics support the story.

No, that's the whole point. Phoenix Down is an item that resurrects an individual. Not being able to resurrect a fallen comrade, just because the story says so is not being faithful to the way the game previously staetd for "death management".

Yes, you can argue what its description says, but considering the fact that kills undead (which work on an inverse behavior for healing mechanics), I'm still willing to say the description is just incongruent with its actual function.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

True, but couldn't this just as equally be interpreted as two elements of the story contradicting, rather than the gameplay and the story contradicting? I mean, you could just as well say it's a part of the story that you can use the phoenix down to resurrect fallen allies, and it's a part of the story that Aeris dies, and those two parts of the story contradict.

[Alevice]

I mean, you could just as well say it's a part of the story that you can use the phoenix down to resurrect fallen allies, and it's a part of the story that Aeris dies, and those two parts of the story contradict.

I don't remember any part of the story mentioning the existence of phoenix downs, yet they exist within the game, making it in fact even more unrelated the story and other mechanics.

Let's face it, it is pretty much the same argument concerning the fact that you can't climb/go down hills or go past trees (which is worse when you fight tree monters and you can burn them down) unless the story says so.