next »

[azeo]

We all have our own idea on why stories in games are, on the whole, not that very good (not important enough, not enough time devoted to it, not developed enough etc.) However, how does everyone feel about the over abundance of "genre" games?
By Genre, I of course mean established book genres like sci-fi, fantasy, historical fiction, mystery etc. I have nothing against genre books, but I can't help but feel that its part of the reason that game stories aren't that great.
But they also fit the best. They provide easy avenues for game play and objectives, so unless you make an "art" game about a guy whose dog dies and he contemplates suicide, it kind of doesn't mix that well.
So, what do you guys thing about genres prominence in games? Do you think it worsens it, or that it's its only hope?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i think comparing genre in novels to games is a bit of a stretch: genre in games depends more on mechanics, genre in books more on setting or motif.

an equivalent of 'genre' in games would be: zombies, space, fantasy, etc. -- not shmup, fps, platformer, etc.

[azeo]

I was talking more in terms of the story, only to say that it's usually inspired by genre fiction. I wasn't talking about the genres in terms of gameplay.
Sorry if there was any confusion.

[mirosurabu]

@Paul:

I think his point is that games are similar to genre fiction. Genre fiction got its name and separation from fiction mainly because it's written to appeal to certain group of readers who previously proved that they like that sort of fiction. It's directly related to its target audience and has very strict conventions that one should never try to break, cause then it wouldn't appeal to that audience.

That's how games are made too. An analogy would be that most games are "genre games" and some games are non-genre games, like art games.


Also, I'm foreseeing art games discussion on page 3 if not 2. Not to say its a bad thing, just to say it before someone else says it in a harsher tone.

[William Broom]

I think the whole concept of "genre fiction" is a bit bogus. Asking "Can we create better game stories by avoiding genre writing?" basically means the same as "Can we create better game stories by avoiding bad writing?"

[SundownKid]

I think that the difficulty of incorporating "highbrow" fiction into games is that it necessarily has to be more linear to tell a more detailed story. For example, a game like Heavy Rain that focuses intricately on the characters must be controlled using QTE's and forces the player character into a small area. On the other hand, a "genre game" with a larger, overarching setting can support more exploration of the world.

[umezono]

Story-driven games are good, but sometimes attention to story can drag down a game and make it, to be blunt, boring. Long-winded cutscenes detailing everything in a meticulous factions and 5+ minutes of character development per scene is good for people who like that sort of thing, but to the average gamer who believes the mantra of "gameplay > story" it's alienating. For example, the Tales of games, while having an engrossing story, tend to bore me. Sometimes larger storylines can find a balance with the actual gameplay, like some of the Fire Emblem games. Then there's games like Lost Odyssey which is completely boring and drawn out.

edit: Visual novels being the exception here. 999 and Phoenix Wright and all those sorts of games are fine with me. I mean, the story kind of is the gameplay there.

On the subject of genre stroytelling in gaming: I've never had a problem with the cliches of certain genre writing in video games. If anything, it's part of the charm to me. For example, Destry All Humans just screams the cheesy sci-fi writing of yesteryear, and then you have the whole zombie game thing, which is in itself a genre.

I don't see a problem with appealing to a certain gamer demographic, it's part of the process.

[baconman]

Genrefication can happen intentionally, too. RPG's are practically synonymous with Dungeons & Dragons, which itself is synonymous with medieval settings; although they can divert from them, they generally don't stray too far from the cliches thereof. Which is why I LOVE FF6 (which had the balls to do so), and have hated every FF since then. I mean, think about it; it had no "clear cut destined hero." It had no "princess" to rescue. Wasn't all hung up on dragons or orcs or goblins, either. Just a bunch of people, each with their own sordid pasts, naturally entangling with one another and trying to make right of the world. Against the one villain in the history of the entire series who actually succeeds in conquering the world. But few titles really push the creative envelope that far, or so it seems.

Genres (in the fiction sense primarily) can overlap to create great things. In fact, most of my favorite games, books, and movies have all had a terrific intertwining of futurist sci-fi or mysticism (or intellectualism), romantic/sexual tension (or occasionally outright lewdness), action, and comedy. Terrific movie/show examples include The Mummy, Demolition Man, The Fifth Element, and Farscape. Ninja Gaiden had this in spades long ago, as well; though the humor mostly came in the absurd methods of YASD. Cross-genrefication of gaming genres has produces some pretty potent results, as well. (PokeMon = Tamagochi + RPG, for instance; or Sonic 2 = Platformer + Racing.)

[Seth]

As much as I would like to see the video game equivalent of Revolutionary Road or The Sun Also Rises, I always struggle to imagine something of the sort.

The problem with literary fiction as games is that in literary, the conflicts and dilemmas the protagonists face are generally morally ambiguous and highly personal.  In a detective novel or LOTR situation, it's easy to see what should be done (beat the bad guys)--the difficulty is in doing it.  In literary fiction, it's much more common that a protagonist doesn't know what to do, or even what he wants to do.  Or if he does know what he should do, he may find himself unable to do it (think Tommy Wilhelm from Seize the Day).

Not only is it a problem from the fact that there is rarely a clear objective, it's a problem because one of the most powerful parts of fiction is that the protagonist has his own mind--he doesn't do what the reader wants him to do.  IMO that's where literary fiction gets its strength--that we are viewing characters that are not us.  But you can't translate that into a video game--people like video games because they are in control.

Because of this, I don't think compelling narratives will ever be a strong point of video games.

[tsameti]

I don't know, I think that the place where games can exceed other fiction in storytelling is where it presents the player with a difficult choice and then explores the consequences of that decision.

That's a powerful narrative device.

[Smithy]

Story-driven novels are good, but sometimes attention to story can drag down a book and make it, to be blunt, boring. Long-winded exposition detailing everything in a meticulous fashion and 10+ pages of character development backstory is good for people who like that sort of thing, but to the average reader who believes the mantra of "good story > bad story" it's alienating. For example, the Lord of the Rings, while having an engrossing story, tends to bore me (he goes on for like ten frikkin pages about the hobbits doorknob being located precisely on the center of his hobbit door, for fucks sake.) Sometimes larger storylines can find a balance between progression and backstory, like the original Dune novel. Then there's books like the DaVinci Code which are completely boring and drawn out.

fix'd

I don't know, I think that the place where games can exceed other fiction in storytelling is where it presents the player with a difficult choice and then explores the consequences of that decision.

That's a powerful narrative device.

I agree with this.

The Shiva was a fitting indie example. The game had a very strong narrative exploring a complex issue of morality, and it did so effectively through the use of branching results based on your choices. It could not translate into a novel, but it wasn't necessarily worse than one.

Good writing in games will look different from good writing in novels, but it will still be good writing, despite what pedantic hacks who took creative writing courses too seriously might say.

[RobHaines]

One of the major issues with game writing is the conflict between character and plot at the climax of the story. In many of the best novels, particularly in regard to genre fiction, a satisfying ending is achieved through a number of different elements (internal character epiphany, inter-personal development, primary and secondary plot threads) reaching resolution either simultaneously or in fairly rapid succession.

Games, in general, naturally gravitate towards the action-based climax. In terms of mechanics, this makes sense; ramp up the intensity of gameplay, give the player a big set-piece to go out on. And yet, the vast majority of these climactic battles fall flat, since the only thing that happens is the action. Character moments are either set aside until post-climactic cutscenes, or are banished to the background while the action takes centre stage.

The best game writing (or technically plotting) finds ways of threading these elements into a dramatic climax; Mass Effect 2, for example, combines the tension of the promised suicide mission with the player being forced to make literally life or death decisions based on the loyalty and abilities of your team. Yet even after all that, the final boss battle still fels narratively empty, as though the 'game' part of ME2 couldn't be set to rest without the big action standoff.

[Seth]

I don't know, I think that the place where games can exceed other fiction in storytelling is where it presents the player with a difficult choice and then explores the consequences of that decision.

That's a powerful narrative device.

Yeah, I mostly meant narrative in the sense of a single linear story.  I've yet to personally see a game that used choice in an interesting way, though.  And I typically end up feeling that I never actually made a choice, just that I chose from two or three decisions that the developers had written scenarios for, and I end up feeling as though none of the choices are what I really would have done.  I haven't played The Shiva, though.

despite what pedantic hacks who took creative writing courses too seriously might say.

Who are you referring to?

[gimymblert]

The failing of moral dilemma in game  is the "qte like" surprise pop up format of choice. There is no real build up to let the player ponder the dilemma before having to choose one option (and be tempt by alternatives) and generally it's an "out of gameplay" choice. That's not how internal conflict work.

But I would really see real QTE choice prompts choice you have to do in a split of second.

[tsameti]

Mass Effect 1. There's a point where you make a particular decision, you have two choices and you don't get any excuses or tricks to get out of it.

It's not QTE, but honestly that's why it worked as well as it did. I had to put the controller down for a minute, it was a hard decision. But man, if it HAD been QTE, I would have sh** myself.



game SPOILER for context: when you have to choose which of two teammates die

[RobHaines]

Apparently that was something Alpha Protocol did a fair amount of: Mass Effect style conversation decisions in a QTE format. I never played it myself, and apparently the rest of the game wasn't that hot, but it's an interesting idea.