next »

[Melly]

There might not be a 'right' way to go about this. Some would say you should have the theme/meaning/message laid out beforehand and work the game completely around them, and some say that you should stick the themes onto the practically finished game.

However, if you are trying to convey an idea at all (as your primary goal), I believe you should definitely start with it and build from it. Most games nowadays say they have deep themes when it fact they're as shallow as you can possibly imagine.

Bioshock devs, for example, say you have moral choices in the game, when all it really has is "Choose 1 for angelical bringer of justice or choose 2 for demon from the pits who pisses liquid malevolence". Part of that was possibly due to the fact they tacked those 'moral' choices onto the game after it had already been into development for a good while (I'm not sure of this though, but it certainly feels that way), and having those choices be deeper and mean more to the experience would probably have required practically a rewrite of the game, or at least a crapload more content. And the game was also from a big company, with huge budget, tight deadlines, and a NEED to sell, not convey messages, so that was probably another reason it doesn't really strike many cords.

So yeah, while I admit the possibility that it isn't the only approach, if you're gonna pass on a message at all I think you need to have it as your central focus.

[Seth]

No, Django is right--The Wizard of Oz is an allegory. If you read the book (as opposed to merely watching the movie) the thing that gets Dorothy home from Oz are silver slippers (i.e. the silver standard).

Maybe so, but my point was that the concept for Dorothy's story was probably developed before (or independently) of the concept of writing an allegory of the Great Depression.

There might not be a 'right' way to go about this. Some would say you should have the theme/meaning/message laid out beforehand and work the game completely around them, and some say that you should stick the themes onto the practically finished game.

I wouldn't say you should go with either of those, in each of those choices some aspect of the game will become superficial.  I think it would be more natural and make everything more cohesive if the two are developed simultaneously.  (in my previous post I did not mean to suggest to consider themes only after the game is done, just only after you have somewhat of a solid base to work with)

[GregWS]

ok, so in the vein of architekt's awesome threads about different video gaming discussions, i thought i'd start one over a question i have hammered myself over the head with over and over for a while. 

also sorry architekt your threads were so awesome i had to steal your idea because i'm just that much of an asshole

Thanks for the kind words, I wasn't even sure that my threads were that good.  The more of this kind of discussion going on the better, as far as I'm concerned.  So no, I don't think you're an asshole.

Oh, and if these threads are that good, then someone (maybe even me?) should skim them and compile all the good stuff into one stickied post, so that everyone has quick access to any good (and agreeable) conclusions we've reached.  I'm thinking of XUE's stuff in the original Games as Art thread as a prime example.

I don't think we'll ever be able to make incredible games until we have a better idea of what it is we're actually trying to achieve (that goes for industry designers too), and I think these threads help us all to clarify what exactly we should be trying for.

This is one reason I love games with "archeological storytelling", as I've seen mentioned, where you find out about characters, events and places through logs and messages strewn around the world, as well as, obviously, great characters you can interact with.

...and that's why I love Metroid Prime (1).  It does this almost flawlessly, and the remnants of the past everywhere make the atmosphere all the more convincing.

Melly, if you made that phrase, I'd go ahead and get to work on a presentation about it so that you can take full credit for it.

I've got to second this, especially since I'll be using that phrase myself now.

******************my rant****************

OK, so games unique thing is interactivity, and this is what completely fucks up storytelling for it.  Why?  Because meaningful choices are very very hard to implement.  I'd mentioned this elsewhere, that there is always one meaningful choice during a game, and that is to stop playing the game.  I think it was chutup who said he'd stopped playing Muslim Massacre, and made his meaningful choice.  Now, I think that the "keep playing or quit" choice should be avoided whenever possible, as it technically isn't part of the game.

Here's an example: in Shadow of the Colossus wouldn't it be more meaningful if could just leave the forbidden land never to return whenever you want, instead of having the game forcing you to fight the Colossi?  I don't even think meaning would be lost, because for each of those alternate endings, a brief scene from later in the main character's life could be shown.  These scenes would reflect how much darkness he has in him.  Of course, any player could just re-load their save and keep playing through the game and killing Colossi, even though that's obviously a stupid thing to do.  They could even, if they really wanted to, experience all of the extra endings.  I accidentally got the earliest ending in Cave Story because, in the moment, I though you were supposed to escape on the dragon.  So I just quit and reloaded my save.

I think having a "walk away" feature built directly into the gameplay is a bare minimum.  And that's especially true for games that put you in sticky moral situations.

Next, you don't need to design a game's gameplay first; it could actually be left for quite a while.

Example:  Knytt Stories isn't about gameplay, it's about atmosphere.  I don't know how Nifflas designed it, but he could have created a significant amount of KS's world without having to consider the gameplay.  If KS didn't have traps and enemies, then he could have created the entire atmosphere, and then decided on a "gameplay" that would let you traverse that atmosphere.

I have some 3d models of buildings I've done over the years, and if there was a program out there that easily let me layer gameplay on top of them, then I might actually give it a try.  Player's would be able to properly experience the atmosphere I'd already created.  And how they interacted with that atmosphere would be decided in the gameplay I chose.

All of what I just said applies to story as well.  You can start with a story and build a very good game around it, it is just a very challenging thing to do.  I think this method requires giving the player very few meaningful choices, and making them not care about that oversight in the process.  The story has to captivate the player, and they have to enjoy it enough to push it forward.

I grew up playing the classic Sierra and Lucas Arts adventure games, and I think these are games that are very story based, and don't have tacked on gameplay like RPGs (I'm just not a fan of that genre, so please excuse that insult).  The only real gameplay they had were some simple puzzles that were commonly a part of the story, and necessary to push the story forward.  It made sense why you had to solve the puzzles, so the gameplay wasn't just something you did in between cut-scenes that pushed the story forward, as with gameplay in many RPGs.

Phew, I don't know if I've got much else to say about this right now, but to summarize:

Games should always have a "walk away" option built into them, especially if sticky moral situations are involved.

Gameplay never needs to be designed first.  Story, atmosphere, or even music could come first.

Good games with good stories have gameplay that is fully integrated into the story.  Many RPGs suffer from a divide between gameplay (eg. grinding) and story (eg. cut-scenes), so while some have excellent stories, they aren't necessarily good games.

[Bree]

Games should always have a "walk away" option built into them, especially if sticky moral situations are involved.

Gameplay never needs to be designed first.  Story, atmosphere, or even music could come first.

Good games with good stories have gameplay that is fully integrated into the story.  Many RPGs suffer from a divide between gameplay (eg. grinding) and story (eg. cut-scenes), so while some have excellent stories, they aren't necessarily good games.

You're certainly on the right track, if nothing else. I wonder, though, exactly how one develops atmosphere?

[GregWS]

I wonder, though, exactly how one develops atmosphere?

Ask Nifflas?  Him or Retro Studios (creators of Metroid Prime) could probably teach us mountains of useful stuff when it comes to atmosphere.  They've both been very successful at creating atmosphere, on numerous occasions.

[DjangoDurango]

Or Manhunt. That game was nothing but atmosphere. And repetitive gameplay.

If I had to guess, I'd say atmosphere is more a matter of graphics, sound, music, and interactions than story. It's sensual.

[Thorst]

I don’t see the significance of being able to walk away from a choice.  How is a do-nothing option more meaningful than any other option?

As far as integrating story with gameplay, the age-old story/game hybrids known as riddles are perhaps the only successful examples.  Riddles and similar puzzles in adventure games are stories that withhold their endings until you interact with them by figuring them out.

[Melly]

Unless the riddles are moved by moon-logic.

[GregWS]

I don’t see the significance of being able to walk away from a choice.  How is a do-nothing option more meaningful than any other option?

I don't think "do-nothing" captures what I'm trying to say very well.  Though certainly you should be able to have full control in any moral situation.  Generally speaking, you shouldn't have to turn the game off to make the right moral choice.  Whenever a game forces you down a moral path that you didn't choose, there's a huge loss of agency there.

Here's a better example: in Muslim Massacre how much more meaningful would it have been if there were US troops around that you could have started firing on?  That would have made it pretty clear that the game was satire, and maybe a hidden good ending could have been achieved if you started fighting your fellow Americans instead of just taking orders and shooting the Muslims in a patriotic frenzy.  All of that said, I didn't play the game because I'm not one to "play make believe" in games and do whatever.  To a certain extent, I bring my morality into the game with me.

Like I'd said before, you can put the player on a set narrative path, but you have to put them in a place where they're wanting to do what the character is supposed to do.  Games give the player agency, something other mediums can't, and if they don't give the player agency when put in moral situations, then the player can be forced to act in a way different from how they would in reality, just to move the plot ahead.  And because this goes contrary to what games can uniquely offer, I think it is counterproductive.

Unless the riddles are moved by moon-logic.

I don't even know how to respond to this. 

[Shambrook]

No, Django is right--The Wizard of Oz is an allegory. If you read the book (as opposed to merely watching the movie) the thing that gets Dorothy home from Oz are silver slippers (i.e. the silver standard).

When Baum was asked about this he said it had nothing to do with it and was written purley for the enjoyment of younger readers.
Interperet how you like but it wasn't the original intention of the author.

A better example would probbably be the Narnia books being a way to introduce christ to younger generations.

[agj]

Games dabble more in surreal imagery than perhaps any other entertainment medium *insert tired joke about the absurdity of Super Mario Bros. here*, so the only thing that's missing is making those images mean something.

I love what you just said here, because you're so incredibly right.

Talking about infusing meaning or themes, I think it should be done afterward rather than starting your game with that focus.  I think if there is a unique setting or mechanic you want to make a game out of, do it!  Then, take a look at it and see what sort of themes you had been dealing with all along (if you make your work personal at all, themes you are interested are bound to be in your own work, whether you are aware of it or not).  The next step is working to take those themes out of the muck they are in and illuminating them and expanding on them.

This approach is one that the surrealists would back, for sure. You just reminded me of Kenichi Nishi and Newtonica, by the way. It's not the only way of going about it, of course.

Regarding atmosphere: The more appropriate word is aesthetic. Everything has an aesthetic quality to it, and when you manipulate it for a specific purpose, you're creating a particular atmosphere. This not only includes visuals and sounds, but gameplay and narrative as well.

[Lucaz]

Games work good with story and themes. But it should be done before or while the gameplay is being done. If the story and themes sre just trown over an almost completed game, it won't work out well, it'll be just linear and boring. The story and themes must be a basic part of the game. Roleplaying your character should be a essential part of any plot-heavy game. At any given point you should be able to say "What would my character do?", and act accordingly. Otherwhise the player-game relationship is unbalanced and one sided, and the game fails to use the player interactions. The main reason for this is, what's the value for the player of doing something, if he had no choice of doing it another way?

But I think an emphasis on roleplaying should be done. A story based game should have a strongly defined character. Meaning that the player should have limited choices. The game has to give the player the possibility, not to do what he wants or what he would do, but what his or her interpretation of the character would do, instead. The first game that comes to mine with this is I Have no Mouth and I Must Scream.

The other option is for the game to give the player an undefined character, and open roleplaying situations, so that the player can define his character. This is a hard one, the game must be able to support a whole spectre of different characters. A good example of this is Fallout.

There are games that work outside both paradigms, like Cave Story. They don't have a strong character, but also lack open roleplaying situations. Just a good story. Yet, I don't think Cave Story is too plot based.

Also the game can be based on the setting and ambient instead of plot. It lacks plot, but has a strong strong setting, with a nice open ended world, and gives the player the chance to do his own story, with his own characters. This is what sandbox games like Sid Meier's Pirates! and Darklands do.

[Thorst]

I am skeptical of this whole idea of being able to make choices which define a character or plot.  It seems that the gameplay in between the choices would still be largely unrelated to the story.  And all that the choices do is create needless complexity by fracturing the story into a number of branches.

I still think the only effective way to make a story interactive is to make it a riddle for the player to solve.

Unless the riddles are moved by moon-logic.

This means logic that only a creature from the moon would understand.  And it's often an accurate description of graphical adventure games.

[Bree]

I'm not totally sold on the idea of players asking, "What would my character do?" It can be tricky for one to put themselves into a role, and even harder for a developer to make a player stay in character. In this case, it'd be apt to describe the potential player as being the worst actor imaginable.

[Tobasco Panda]

Escapism doesn't necessarily mean that you can't talk about issues- it just means that you have to find a more imaginative way of doing it. Don't forget that The Wizard of OZ has been speculated to be a metaphor for the Great Depression itself; the Yellow Brick Road as the Gold Standard, Dorothy as the Everyman and innocence of America, and the Tinman as the industrialized factory workers of the North.

You've got your time period wrong, it wasn't the great depression it was the late 1880' and early 1890's. The 'Ruby' slippers were actually SILVER and it was about bringing the silver slippers along the gold brick road to the emerald (or greenbacked) city. The Populists (precursers to the Progressives) wanted to have the USD backed by silver as well as gold (at the time, the country only allowed enough money into the market that they could back up with gold, thus Fort Knox).

But that is enough history for one day! Onto the topic at hand...

Bioshock did a fantasic job of meshing gameplay and story. I won't spoil it, but those of you who have played it know what I am talking about.

I think falling back on story as your primary motivating factor for a player is a trap. If the gameplay offers nothing interesting, then really you should be reading a book.

The reason that so many people here adore Shadow of the Colossus is that it  had great gameplay and fantastic story telling. It manages to express a very wide range of emotions for the player to experience all without having to fall back on beating the player of the head with contrived dialog to express "your guy is sad now."

There is more than one reason that the film industry still looks to silent films for how to affect emotional response. They used the stregths of the medium to envoke emotions, so with the obvious strengths of games being gameplay, it makes sense to many of us to explore story there.

[Bree]

Ah, shoot, Panda, you're right! Fine, you win this time... *shakes fist*

I do agree, dialogue isn't the only way to tell a story- it'd be nice if developers created digital actors with more character. I hate it when a character is crying, while his face is completely dead. Valve's animators do a pretty great job, especially with Alyx and Dog.

[Craig Stern]

I think falling back on story as your primary motivating factor for a player is a trap.

...

so with the obvious strengths of games being gameplay, it makes sense to many of us to explore story there.

Wait. So you're saying story should not be used to motivate players, unless it's story expressed through gameplay? Isn't this just another way of saying "don't rely on 15 million cut scenes to advance the plot"?

[Tobasco Panda]

I think falling back on story as your primary motivating factor for a player is a trap.

...

so with the obvious strengths of games being gameplay, it makes sense to many of us to explore story there.

Wait. So you're saying story should not be used to motivate players, unless it's story expressed through gameplay? Isn't this just another way of saying "don't rely on 15 million cut scenes to advance the plot"?

That is one thing to take from it. I'll use Cave Story as an example for a moment. Please skip if you haven't played it yet and want to avoid spoilers.

So one of the things that the game pulls off very well is Quote's relationship with Curly Brace. Having the player start out having to fight her helps that she is a strong fighter and is defending the group of orphans with her. It starts out with a misunderstanding, and during the fight most players I have talked to didn't really want to fight her. Having her offer you a much better weapon right after the fight and reconciliation was a brilliant move that helps make the player LIKE her right off the bat.

Fast forward to the part before getting to the Core; you are running through the tunnels and you are both killing stuff like crazy, she is super strong the music is pumping and has this total 'good times with Curly' vibe. This does a much better job of establishing a connection and sense of loss than a hundred cutscenes in an RPG.

Otaku42's example of Half-Life 2 is another great example of using the gameplay to really tell the story.

[Lucaz]

I am skeptical of this whole idea of being able to make choices which define a character or plot.  It seems that the gameplay in between the choices would still be largely unrelated to the story.  And all that the choices do is create needless complexity by fracturing the story into a number of branches.

That's why I said this is a hard one. The game should have fixed plot events, that happen independently of what the player has done so far. His actions might change slightly these events, but they would act like choke points for the plot, stoping it from expanding, and would be chapter endings and the like. Player's choices should have only small everlasting effects, or just temporal bigger effects, that dissappear in the plot choke points.

I'm not totally sold on the idea of players asking, "What would my character do?" It can be tricky for one to put themselves into a role, and even harder for a developer to make a player stay in character. In this case, it'd be apt to describe the potential player as being the worst actor imaginable.

Well, the game should guide in some way so that the player knows what his options are, instead of giving him a completely open roleplaying situation. So, instead of being "What would my character do?", it would be "My character would do this or that?". That way, the player can do his own choices and have some effect on the plot, without the designer needing to think every possible choice the player can do.

[Thorst]

OK, I can see that.  Choosing between self-contained plot snippets might function like choosing abilities or stat improvements.

architekt: I think I agree that games give you agency and stories do not.  So, you might have agency within a game's gameplay, but you cannot have agency within a game's story.  A choice between two actions does not produce agency in a story; it produces two stories.