next »

[FatHat]

Fair point, I agree to an extent. But this is what I mean about games being mediocre. They have mediocre gameplay and mediocre stories, and neither would stand on their own. And both are mediocre because there's a very large aspect of dissonance in the design. The end result can be fun, and more than the sum of its parts, but that doesn't mean it's the best way to design a game, or even a good way.

Well, it depends what you want to express.  If you want to express the classic heroes against the foozle narrative in a game, with an epic plot full of interesting characters and dastardly foes, you must either severely limit interaction and focus on telling a great linear story or write untold reams of passive content for thousands of meaningfully different player paths.  If you seek to simulate the drama on the fly procedurally, your story and characters will become more abstract, less structured, and will contain long stretches of abstract ugliness, schizophrenic pacing, and tedium.  See Dwarf Fortress, a brilliant game that attempts this monumental task in part and suffers from all those flaws.

Good stories don't need to be epic. Often epic stories are a sign that the writer wants to evoke strong emotions, but doesn't know how. So they go for BIG and LOUD.

You don't need a ton of "content" to be good. Tetris is fun and its just blocks. Passage managed to tell a story of a lifetime with very minimalistic representations. Indeed, adding more "content" probably would have detracted from the message.

[anosou]

Fair point, I agree to an extent. But this is what I mean about games being mediocre. They have mediocre gameplay and mediocre stories, and neither would stand on their own. And both are mediocre because there's a very large aspect of dissonance in the design. The end result can be fun, and more than the sum of its parts, but that doesn't mean it's the best way to design a game, or even a good way.

Well, it depends what you want to express.  If you want to express the classic heroes against the foozle narrative in a game, with an epic plot full of interesting characters and dastardly foes, you must either severely limit interaction and focus on telling a great linear story or write untold reams of passive content for thousands of meaningfully different player paths.  If you seek to simulate the drama on the fly procedurally, your story and characters will become more abstract, less structured, and will contain long stretches of abstract ugliness, schizophrenic pacing, and tedium.  See Dwarf Fortress, a brilliant game that attempts this monumental task in part and suffers from all those flaws.

Good stories don't need to be epic. Often epic stories are a sign that the writer wants to evoke strong emotions, but doesn't know how. So they go for BIG and LOUD.

You don't need a ton of "content" to be good. Tetris is fun and its just blocks. Passage managed to tell a story of a lifetime with very minimalistic representations. Indeed, adding more "content" probably would have detracted from the message.

Can I just say ICO and Shadow of the Colossuss? Minimalistic storytelling but REALLY evoking stron emotions in most players. While Tetris isn't very interesting to discuss imo since it has no story what-so-ever, I really do appreciate the small frame-stories. Stuff like that Mario has to save the Princess, and that's it. It gives the player a reason for what he's doing, without having to blow the story up to a massive work of art.

[Teddy]

Not every game needs to grant complete freedom to have a good story.

You should be thinking about what kind of game you want to make, and then building the story around the game.  If you want to make a game with lots of variety and choice, then yeah, freedom makes sense.  But if you're trying to convey a sense of gravity or limitation, freedom actually takes away from the experience.

For example, in Zelda Spirit Tracks, they decided they wanted a game where you ride a train, so they set the game in a new land and started building  the story from there.  In Majora's Mask, they wanted a game with a time limit, and eventually that time limit became more of a story element and less of a gameplay element.

The best stories are based around a game, rather than a game being based around a story.

[jpgray]

Good stories don't need to be epic. Often epic stories are a sign that the writer wants to evoke strong emotions, but doesn't know how. So they go for BIG and LOUD.

You don't need a ton of "content" to be good. Tetris is fun and its just blocks. Passage managed to tell a story of a lifetime with very minimalistic representations. Indeed, adding more "content" probably would have detracted from the message.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you here.  My contention is simple: if you want to express narrative mostly through interaction, with a minimum of passive content, you're severely limited when it comes to interpersonal drama in any traditional narrative sense.  Presentation of that drama will tend to be abstract, lacking in structure and pacing.

I think you're a bit too hard on essentially linear games like System Shock, Planescape, Monkey Island, etc.  Planescape's story, after all, is utterly scripted and prewritten, generating an illusion of player freedom by--you guessed it--exhaustive amounts of passive content that fleshes out a variety of player paths.  In some senses, mechanics-wise, it's like a massive choose your own adventure book, but it's no less effective for that.  Have you never enjoyed a great linear narrative game?  I'm sympathetic to a focus on gameplay-derived narratives, but I'm not willing to deny the appeal of more passively-presented stories in games.

[Perrin]

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you here.  My contention is simple: if you want to express narrative mostly through interaction, with a minimum of passive content, you're severely limited when it comes to interpersonal drama in any traditional narrative sense.  Presentation of that drama will tend to be abstract, lacking in structure and pacing.

I think you're a bit too hard on essentially linear games like System Shock, Planescape, Monkey Island, etc.  Planescape's story, after all, is utterly scripted and prewritten, generating an illusion of player freedom by--you guessed it--exhaustive amounts of passive content that fleshes out a variety of player paths.  In some senses, mechanics-wise, it's like a massive choose your own adventure book, but it's no less effective for that.  Have you never enjoyed a great linear narrative game?  I'm sympathetic to a focus on gameplay-derived narratives, but I'm not willing to deny the appeal of more passively-presented stories in games.

Very much agree with this sentiment. Heavily story driven games are my most favoured games. They may not make the very best use of medium, but then again some of my favourite films are those with the best stories but maybe not the best production or cinematography and some of my favourite books may not be the best written. The emotional experience for me is of greater significance than how well it played up to the medium it was told in.

[FatHat]

Good stories don't need to be epic. Often epic stories are a sign that the writer wants to evoke strong emotions, but doesn't know how. So they go for BIG and LOUD.

You don't need a ton of "content" to be good. Tetris is fun and its just blocks. Passage managed to tell a story of a lifetime with very minimalistic representations. Indeed, adding more "content" probably would have detracted from the message.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you here.  My contention is simple: if you want to express narrative mostly through interaction, with a minimum of passive content, you're severely limited when it comes to interpersonal drama in any traditional narrative sense.  Presentation of that drama will tend to be abstract, lacking in structure and pacing.

Yes, that is the downside. I suppose I'm looking for ways to express the same drama in a nontraditional way thats still interesting.

I think you're a bit too hard on essentially linear games like System Shock, Planescape, Monkey Island, etc.  Planescape's story, after all, is utterly scripted and prewritten, generating an illusion of player freedom by--you guessed it--exhaustive amounts of passive content that fleshes out a variety of player paths.  In some senses, mechanics-wise, it's like a massive choose your own adventure book, but it's no less effective for that.  Have you never enjoyed a great linear narrative game?  I'm sympathetic to a focus on gameplay-derived narratives, but I'm not willing to deny the appeal of more passively-presented stories in games.

I guess I'm sounding like I hate them because I'm criticizing them, and I probably sound more harsh in text than I would in person if I were laughing about it. To be clear, I don't hate narrative games. I've played a few narrative based games I've greatly enjoyed, but, from a design point of view I feel like they've reached something of a local maxima -- they're not terrible, but you can't go much farther with the current storytelling formula.

So I'm more interested in how you could change the very foundation of the story telling formula in a way that makes a lot more things possible. Of course, chances are, most of my ideas will be wrong or silly just because, that's the nature of having new ideas, but I think its an area worth thinking about which is why I'm posting it here

If I say bad things about current games its mostly just because I want to illustrate why we need new models, not because I hate those games (I wouldn't make games if I hated most of them).

[Aik]

I have to admit I didn't like Fallout that much. It wasn't bad, but I never felt any sort of sense of personal involvement. I was just consuming the story, so I was tempted to do outrageous things just to see what would happen, and then I'd feel sort of gross about it and play the situation over again to not be such a prick. I stopped playing after I blew up Megaton with a nuke and felt absolutely nothing. But maybe I'm just a sociopath when it comes to games

We are talking about two very different games. Fallout, not Fallout 3. Fallout 3 is an abomination.

[gimymblert]

For me game and story are essentially the same structurally.
Both have a protagonist who seek a goal for a quest giver which is host by a guardian. The protagonist can reach the goal thanks to mean that suit the nature of the goal.
Complex stories are just a bunch of small stories interacting with each other.

The problem is that stories operate on a multidimensional plan when game are unidimensional.
Story operate on moral, physical, emotional and psychological level at the same time.
Game (i mean interactivity) only operate on physical level most time, maybe on another layer but never more than one (the other layer would be static on the stake space) or else they are paralel not mixed. Game generate physical plot (ie how you beat a dragon) but badly any other layer.

For exemple: some game may have social aspect, but they will be a "mean" to solve the problem rather than integral part of it. A player may hiring or make friends with other people (social contract: emotional layer) to defeat a dragon but it is just a way to add more strength (physical layer), you do not defeat the dragon (the goal) with social itself and it is not part of the problem also. As is it's a distraction of the plot. Most management in game are distraction because there is no significance for them in term of stake, they are just key.

On contrary even a simple silly plot in a combat manga is more complex:
Imagine the hero fighting (physical layer) a vastly superior opponent, this opponent also have very high moral standard. The hero does not give up despite having the lower hand and nearly dead. The opponent, because of his high standard start to doubt his own act (moral layer) and start to pity the hero (emotional layer) and end up switching side to support the hero (social layer).
If we were to make a game with current design standard we will end up translating only the physical layer (keep attacking) and SHOW (not DO) the progression of the opponent in term of transformation through script. It will make a dull game. But it the manga the artist would have show how the hero could resist, it will show memory that keep the will of the hero, it will show progression of his doubt (will i make it), it will show the internal struggle of both character.

The difference with story and game is that game need EXPLICIT and USABLE measure of progress and pressure, storyteller can be vague (we don't care how many hit point remain to the hero, it always has enough ). And we still don't have correct measure in the other layers. Physical layer code pressure with hit point and progress with strength, what would be the equivalent in a moral space? what would be the effect? and how this would be manipulate (play)?

The most advance mechanics so far is the use of menu choice, which is pretty poor, if fighting mechanics (physical layer) was that poor it would be something like:
1. attack head
2. attack Feet
You attacked head WIN
you attacked feet LOSE
That's how fun is dialogue system 

Finding a mechanics for every layer is only the starting point as the ending point is to find a system where we play all layer at the same times on the scale of the whole game and not on isolated sequence...

[droqen]

I feel like the only reason games with a story behind them, and which are linear, are beneficial is because it means you have to do less work for a more engaging, convincing experience.

Even a basic conversation tree:

Bob: My name is Bob, I hate orcs, and I love to build houses.
> I love orcs; compared to them you are lame = Bob attacks you
> Your house is a work of beauty = Bob thanks you and becomes your friend
> Will you help me on my quest = If you are Bob's friend, he joins your party
> I need some money = Bob gives you a little bit of money; if you are his friend, he gives you a lot

Even something so basic as this would be difficult to generate in any volume without relying on premade constructions (i.e. my name is NAME, I <verb this thing>, and I <verb this thing>) which result in becoming dull and artificial very quickly.

If you have a game where you can kill one person, the king (you're an assassin or something) and NOBODY else except nameless guards can die -- then clearly the game is quite linear. Walking through the streets of the kingdom, you may feel limited by your inability to murder children or nobles. On the contrary, in a totally free game, you could run around murdering anyone you liked.

But think about the effects these things should have, and the effects that they will have.

Linear game, you kill the king: The kingdom falls into chaos, and everyone is struggling to find the king's long-lost heir (for example). Bandits loot the city, the guard is scattered. You leave the kingdom for a time, and when you return it is ravaged, with the king's heir found but cowering behind the castle walls where mobs are trying to break in.

Freeform game, you kill the king: What does the game do? Unless you have a pre-scripted event, the best thing that will happen is that you're banned from the kingdom, and maybe he'll be replaced by some other guy who has the same cookie-cutter dialogue.

Freeform game, you kill a shopkeeper: You might be able to steal his stuff, and will no longer be able to go to that shop any longer. The guards are now after you.

Freeform game, you kill a random peasant: The guards are pissed. You have no effect on the rest of anyone else at all.


The point:

Sometimes, when your actions do not have the intended WIDE-REACHING effect but rather have little effect (if any), it can feel MORE artificial than being unable to take that action at all.


edit:

However, I'm not saying I disagree with you in any way. I think it would be better to create a game with much more interesting freedom on a much smaller scale (or at least less detail) than it would to attempt to create a huge and detailed world where all of the details feel hollow and lacking.

I feel like most of the modern games are pouring far too many resources into eye candy. I'm sure that if graphics cards were never created, we would have much more interesting games (with a small subset of people struggling to make really fancy graphics work anyway).

FAR TOO MANY RESOURCES INTO EYE CANDY (I try not to be upset at this, but it's hard when so much time, effort and money goes into some kind of incredibly mediocre if pretty game)

[gimymblert]

Freeform game, you kill the king: What does the game do? Unless you have a pre-scripted event, the best thing that will happen is that you're banned from the kingdom, and maybe he'll be replaced by some other guy who has the same cookie-cutter dialogue.

Freeform game, you kill a shopkeeper: You might be able to steal his stuff, and will no longer be able to go to that shop any longer. The guards are now after you.

Freeform game, you kill a random peasant: The guards are pissed. You have no effect on the rest of anyone else at all.


The point:

Sometimes, when your actions do not have the intended WIDE-REACHING effect but rather have little effect (if any), it can feel MORE artificial than being unable to take that action at all.


edit:

However, I'm not saying I disagree with you in any way. I think it would be better to create a game with much more interesting freedom on a much smaller scale (or at least less detail) than it would to attempt to create a huge and detailed world where all of the details feel hollow and lacking.

The effect should be consistant to the dramatic importance of the player action, A king is more likely to have an important functional importance in the story structure than a peasant, the "simulation" should be able to respond to dramatic importance regarding the story thématics and goal (story context).

The first question we should be able to answer is "what the hell the story is about", only then we can map the different action (both the player and the system) in term of dramatic importance and function.

[droqen]

The effect should be consistant to the dramatic importance of the player action, A king is more likely to have an important functional importance in the story structure than a peasant, the "simulation" should be able to respond to dramatic importance regarding the story thématics and goal (story context).

The first question we should be able to answer is "what the hell the story is about", only then we can map the different action (both the player and the system) in term of dramatic importance and function.

I don't think you understood what I was getting at: of course the king versus peasant will be a big difference, but when you have a freeform game the effect that killing the king has is nowhere near the effect killing the king could have in a linear game where killing the king is meant to be a major event.

A linear game tries to answer the question "What is the story I want the player to experience?"
A simulation tries to answer the question "Can I do this?"
Only problem is, the answer tends to be "Yes, but it won't do anything." (exaggeration)

The simulation doesn't have a story, or it's just a linear game with simulation attached.

[gimymblert]

Well i think it's me that did not express myself with enough clarity

A king like a peasant can have nearly the same effect in term of DRAMATIC impact according to their FUNCTIONAL ROLE within the story.

I mean the king is only important if it fulfill a role that fit a dramatic function and there is a limited number of dramatic role (ie, enemy, gatekeeper, mentor, guide, etc...).

If the king or the peasant is a guide killing them left the player with no direction, they may also have a gating (for exemple a quest for the player to fulfill) in order to unlock their role (provide direction). That mean that the dramatic function define the importance of the event (and the system should be able to recognize that).

A freeform dynamic system should be able to self correct when a proxy for a function is destroy (create another way for the player to find direction, in this case, but still consistent with the rule of the universe), or, on a more static system, to provide enough element that serve that function only with increasing gating level, to make thing interesting, that is unlock base on previous player's action.

That mean it's not the system that tries to answer the question "Can i do this" but the player.
The system is still concern with "what kind of story i want the player to experience" and it can do it fairly easy by tracking the dramatic requirement needed (information, type of trials, distance to goal, resources available, mean and skills, etc...).

It's not entirely new, left 4 dead does this, even metroid does this on a physical level (when on low health more life are available). We just need to extend it in more narratively interesting way = more stake layer!

[droqen]

[Unconjugated verbs are surprisingly hard to read! D: but I'll manage]

I think I understand what you're getting at, though I believe we have different opinions on the subject.

There are three systems:

1. Linear + Story
2. Dynamic + Story
3. Dynamic, No Story

You're talking about a freeform system which can bounce back from anything the player does to guide him (or her) back to the storyline and eventual goal. This is still a system based mainly on a story, not a system based on no story and where the Player's decisions are ultimately key.

_____

And a bit unrelated to our discussion, but more to the thread in general:

Part of the reason why a linear story-based game can work better for a game is the same reason watching a movie with a plot works better than watching someone's life for 24 hours would.

In a predefined plot, interesting things are made to happen, and when you get too far away from that, the system does need to account for the fact that random unrelated events sometimes just aren't as interesting or alluring or engaging or entertaining as scripted ones which are specifically designed to do just those.

[gimymblert]

[Unconjugated verbs are surprisingly hard to read! D: but I'll manage]

Soory i didn't find anybody to correct me