next »

[mirosurabu]

Games before video games used to be abstract tests and so they were primarily logical. With the advent of video games, games are both logically and aesthetically engaging.

Thus, video games are a tight, immersive mix of tests and context.

Stories are one way to deliver that context, and they are absolutely the worst way to do it. People who love stories in their games do so mostly because of the promise - they want their games to be capable of dealing with a variety of different topics. I like the promise too, however, when I look closely at the gameplay of story-driven games, it's obviously bad.

The problem is: story-driven games have bad tests that often do not even match the context really well.

When you let your story dictate what kind of tests you have to design, you're really only giving up on game design.

You might be able to match every single moment of your story with a suitable test that is fun on its own, but what you will miserably fail at is test consistency.

Games aren't about individual tests. They are about the system of tests. When I like games, I don't like them because I like that single level or boss fight. I like them because of the way one fight moves to another fight. This is what test consistency is all about.

For tests to be consistent they have to share a lot in common. The knowledge that you learn from previous tests should be applicable in future tests. The rules that apply to one test, should in part apply to other tests. Tests should also be visually consistent. Going from shooting to driving mode shouldn't feel like switching from shmup to pseudo-3d formula racer. Basically, all tests should be derived from one, single core ruleset.

When you let story dictate your game, all the awesome game design variables will be left at random: difficulty curve, learning curve, pacing, etc and the game would end up feeling like a series of disjointed tests that are unfair.

To solve this problem some game developers use lowest common denominator test such as QTE, but QTE can hardly be variated, and so, you can't really have a continually interesting gameplay with it. Others, on the other hand, stick with one or two sorts of tests and try to variate them (e.g. Phoenix Wright), but they still ultimately fail at making their tests feel consistent (it boils down to guessing rather than deduction).

[stevobread]

Okay. I know for sure that I'm biased, but... For anyone saying that games absolutely should not have stories, do you even understand how a story works?

For one thing, a simple setting can potentially be a story in itself, at least if it has characters and some sort of chronology. I think what I'm referring to would be called 'minimalist' storytelling.

Also, if the story causes the gameplay to be too inconsistent, that would most likely be a problem with the quality of the story itself rather than the attempt to combine storytelling and game design.

Story isn't necessary, and it can cause a game to be worse, or it could end up making the game better. It's all up to the storyteller. The potential audience consists of people with different tastes, so who can say that games can't have stories if there will be so many people who would like those games anyway?

[Squid Party]

I think the story makes a game, just look at half life

[mirosurabu]

By that definition, everything is a story. My dog is a story. I am a story. You are a story. This whole forum is a big giant story. The thing is, wherever you look at, you can see a chronology of events. So, no, I don't think that chronology of events is enough to make something a story.

When I say story I really only mean traditional storytelling i.e. novels and films.

Setting is therefore not a story. Nor is emergent narrative a story. These things give meaning to the otherwise abstract tests. They may eventually become a story. If I score a really funny goal in Football Manager that may become a story if I decide to share it with other people. But Football Manager on its own doesn't have a story.

Also, if the story causes the gameplay to be too inconsistent, that would most likely be a problem with the quality of the story itself rather than the attempt to combine storytelling and game design.

A good story will most definitively limit what kind of tests you can put in your game. In other words, writing a story is optimized for engaging storytelling. It's not optimized for making engaging tests.

Making a compromise is probably the only solution, but not a single adventure game yet has managed to prove me that you can have both consistent and immersive tests within the context of a story. It's either immersive (Phoenix Wright) or consistent (Professor Llayton), never both.

[stevobread]

Looks like I was misunderstood... What I was saying is that a story can come from a combination of characters, setting, and chronology (which would be plot and backstory). Or, if I wasn't actually misunderstood, there are very simple things that can possibly be considered stories.

I'm not entirely sure if I can answer the second part. I don't play enough games as an aspiring developer... Might I ask if you could elaborate on those examples? What makes Phoenix Wright inconsistent, and what keeps Professor Layton from being immersive? And do you really think that what you're saying generally applies to games with stories?

[Azure Lazuline]

My suggestion is to just throw around random ideas until something fits. My games so far are mostly light on story, and in all cases but one, the story was made long after the game mechanics were designed. Example:

I have a game where you're in a Tron-like world blowing up robots and combining all their weapons. About 6 months into development, I asked my character designer and writer to come up with a story for it. He made a character who can copy other superpowers, and she got a virtual reality machine for her birthday in order to train those abilities and become more skilled. This is all told through exactly one cutscene in the first 1 minute of the game. It gives the player a reason to be there, even if it's not important to the gameplay at all, and all the people who were complaining about a lack of narrative are surprisingly satisfied now!

You can also consider telling the story indirectly. For example, come up with little biographies for all the minor enemies, but don't explain the main character and let the player fill in the blanks.

[mirosurabu]

Might I ask if you could elaborate on those examples? What makes Phoenix Wright inconsistent, and what keeps Professor Layton from being immersive? And do you really think that what you're saying generally applies to games with stories?

Majority of tests in Phoenix Wright are based on intuition. There is no consistent internal logic you can use to pass the tests. Instead, you have to intuit what characters' intentions are. Basically, there is no learning curve. The game teaches you nothing. And so, you might be able to solve some puzzles, but others, you will have to go brute force or walkthrough. Second game is especially bad.

Professor Layton on the other hand has somewhat consistent tests (albeit, didn't play it much, so I might be wrong) but it's not immersive. It's not immersive because, unlike Phoenix Wright, you don't feel like you're part of the world, and instead it feels like you're playing an abstract puzzle game wrapped inside a story.

[Hima]

mirosurabu, I really like what you said here. It does make sense, and I have yet seen a game that is both immersive and consistent.

If I understand you correctly, Phoenix Wright is actually consistent in term of the type of test they give you ( present evidence, find conflicts in witness testimonies), but the core rules of the test itself is inconsistent (detecting one lie doesn't help detecting the next ones) Correct?

Actually, Prof. Layton isn't really consistent as well, I think. Each puzzle stands out as its own puzzle, and has nothing to do with the previous one.

[mirosurabu]

mirosurabu, I really like what you said here. It does make sense, and I have yet seen a game that is both immersive and consistent.

If I understand you correctly, Phoenix Wright is actually consistent in term of the type of test they give you ( present evidence, find conflicts in witness testimonies), but the core rules of the test itself is inconsistent (detecting one lie doesn't help detecting the next ones) Correct?

Exactly.

Actually, Prof. Layton isn't really consistent as well, I think. Each puzzle stands out as its own puzzle, and has nothing to do with the previous one.

Just checked it on youtube and I stand corrected.

[rob]

Stories are cool, but so are thing that aren't stories. I think this is a really great article right here: http://boingboing.net/features/morerock.html