Support NeoGAF

[Kuni]

I just respectfully disagree fully. Some of my favourite games are because of their stories as well as others for just having great gameplay.

As many others have pointed out, why not both.

 

[nycgamer4ever]

I didn't say it did. But even simple game play has to be enganging and responsive.

If you play an adventure game that has very small item click boxes, to the point where you have to click multiple times just to examine an item you need to progress, you're probably going to quit playing the game no matter how good the story is. Because the game play isn't responsive enough to make you want to progress without getting frustrated that the game is not responding to what you're attempting to make the game do.

Good game play is always going to be more important than good stories in video games because game play is the bulk of what you're doing when youre engaging with the game, and game play is what leads you from point A to point Z of the story.

Both are important. A great story can elevate a game with mediocre gameplay and a game with great gameplay can make up for a lack of story. That is why the tweet by Druckman makes the most sense. And since we are talking about gameplay what do you consider gameplay? IMO it's not just shooting things and running around. The simple act of walking is gameplay. Just looking around, opening a door or reading a note. These gameplay mechanics can be used to move a good story along. Conversely a good story can compel us to continue walking, looking, exploring to see more of the story.

Using your example that gameplay is what leads you from point a to point z of the story, The story is what is telling me why am I doing these things that is leading me to another point. If I don't know why I am doing what i am doing then why continue with it?

 

[AzureFlame]

i like stories that only possible in video games, i don't care if it has the best writing, i just want it unique and good.

 

[Ansatz]

The two are definitely at odds with each other. The more you pull in one direction the worse the other aspect becomes. When people say "the gameplay is great" in a game designed around narration it just means that it's serviceable, meaning it does it's job to enhance the contextual scenario at hand.

I urge people to play the original Box Boy on 3DS, that is how all games should be structured from the ground up. It's the ultimate video game format. Yes Portal etc. also employs this style but I think the message gets muddled between all the production values and voice overs. It's game design in its purest, most elegant form.

 

[SavoyPrime]

While some video games can get away without stories because of the gameplay being so damn fun, most games need a good/great story to hold my interest. Personally, I've ran into more entertaining video game stories than movie or television stories.

 

[zkorejo]

I am glad the writer of that article does not make games.

I'm not saying EVERY game needs a story, but if a game has a good story it only makes it a better experience. I love a good story and if a video game tells a good one then it makes a much bigger impact than a tv show or a movie.

Its better/easier to not play the kind of games you dont like or understand rather than questioning their existence.

 

[BigEmil]

Nintendo games prove this.

Nearly all their games story is hardly existent and just rolls into the sequel the same pretty much yet still sells and reviews well alot.

 

[Andrew Korenchkin]

He is on point.

.

Also, more of this stupid "all games are middling compared to movies/books!" crap. Anyone who tries to tell someone that their feelings and the meaning they get from games is somehow not right and they should feel bad about getting the meaning from the game should....well never mind.

 

[Host Samurai]

I think there is room for both, but I would love to see more games that just say "fuck story" and just throw shit at you with no explanation as to why like in most NES/SNES games. I like to just go with it.

 

[titiklabingapat]

Most if not all videogame stories are terribad and cringey. It's why I like Nintendo's very simple 'story'. If I wanted trash stories, I'd pick up a Manga or those young adult novels.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Both are important. A great story can elevate a game with mediocre gameplay and a game with great gameplay can make up for a lack of story. That is why the tweet by Druckman makes the most sense. And since we are talking about gameplay what do you consider gameplay? IMO it's not just shooting things and running around. The simple act of walking is gameplay. Just looking around, opening a door or reading a note. These gameplay mechanics can be used to move a good story along. Conversely a good story can compel us to continue walking, looking, exploring to see more of the story.

Using your example that gameplay is what leads you from point a to point z of the story, The story is what is telling me why am I doing these things that is leading me to another point. If I don't know why I am doing what i am doing then why continue with it?

Game play is literally anything where you interact with the game. Be it walking, shooting, spinning a puzzle piece, it doesn't matter.

And there are plenty of games without stories at all. You absolutely don't need a story to make a great game. If a game is good enough, you don't even need to know why you're going from A to B, you're just enjoying the experience of the journey.

Journey is actually a great example of this. You're never explicitly told WHY you're going on the Journey, hell, there's not even intelligible dialogue in the game if I remember correctly. Overall, it doesn't really matter if you have a reason to go at all, the journey itself is the enjoyable part.

 

[PolarGamer]

Gone Home is a game that makes me understand and, in a way, agree with the article. Also Firewatch to a lesser degree. When the story becomes almost everything, and gameplay is mostly walking, I find it hard to enjoy. Finished both games though.

 

[Budi]

I grew up with arcade games of the 1980s and 1990s. Arcade games, both retro and modern, are still my favorite types of games.

I love gameplay, first and foremost. I don't need story to be there at all. But the article is wrong. As we all know, video gaming has grown into so much more since the late 1970s and early 1980s.

To be fair, we had plenty of narrative driven games in mid 80's and the seeds had been planted in late 70's already. In 1975 to be exact. It's almost like we've always had those.

Edit: Unless this is exactly what you ment by mentioning those time periods.

 

[petran79]

Recently there has been an interactive multimedia adaptation of Finnegans Wake.

Text adventures could have become the future of literature. You would feel as if you were inside the book, influencing the events of the story.
Unfortubately this never moved that far,probably because there wasnt an audience for it.

 

[Breakfast at Noon]

A game can be fantastic without a story, a game can be great with a story.

 

[BRSxIgnition]

Yeeaaahh.... No.

 

[Bronetta]

Doesn't change the fact that they're both experienced and informed individuals within their fields, and the guy who wrote this article isn't

Not that you have to be in a field to critique said field, but when you start making broad statements on the nature of a medium and its innerworkings, having hands-on experience and knowledge matters


If you think Inside doesn't have a story or narrative, you should play it again

I've played through it 3 times. Everything's left to the player's imagination.

Of course there are details in the background which help you piece stuff together (stuff like the pods in the forest at the beginning or the secret ending) but the game never outright tells you anything, ever.

What are the shockwaves?
What is that creature?
What the hell was that ending?

The game never answers these questions. It leaves just enough clues to piece together theories.

I guess it does have a story but one that's very minimalist.

 

[WaterAstro]

Nope. Video games without story are intellectually boring.

 

[J2 Cool]

I think games need to take a step back, and start experimenting more with how to implement storytelling, ala Metal gear solid 1. When gamers expectations were being manipulated, and you would have gameplay with credits over it, etc.

Obviously the issue isn't "having a story", but that how to tell a story has become so formulaic. The scripted sequences, that aren't to the benefit of the gamer but allow developers to patch a game together without having to figure out the gameplay elements that should make a cohesive experience. Its "story" at the expense of gamer control.

I don't mind B-movie type stories. Videogames are the perfect medium for it, they just have to be good. And the gameplay is a massive element (along with visuals) to making them good.

I dont think people necessarily want to play Oscar worthy stories with every game. Its silly to compare them, and silly to consider games should want to be them. Its an entirely different experience. Game's have the advantage of attachment. You play as a character, you play over 20-40 hours to where you strongly identify as your character.

That's where game's have originality to how they present story. If you burn down your character's home 2/3's through the story, and you can't go back to it, that's a much more dramatic situation than a movie. A movie you may say "oh no their house is burned down, what are they gonna do??". In a game the gamer says "oh no MY house is burned down, where do I go next?!". It become's go time, the noose gets tightened to go confront this boss ir enemy.

Which isn't to say one's better or worse, but that game's are always going to have the possibility of being a unique experience the way their told. Its just about if developers notice or take advantage of that. And what I think this article sees is game developers overly comfortable in how they implement story, as sequences, and using it to cover up their inabilities as game designers.

All whilst obviously falling short of top notch film/television writing, to where its at the detriment to gamers. If you're going to approach gaming stories that way, then yes, focus on gameplay and atmosphere and interactivity. Regardless, focus on something of value and innovation. Nobody's ever looked at a Mario game, and thought it was lacking in any way.

I also get very bummed out in games that I can't interact with a swingset that's sitting in field. That the physics of the swing as I run through it are extraordinarily simple. And it works as a slight prop piece for same story they're mediocrely telling. If you out something in your game, have a purpose and make it feel part of it truly.

That's what I loved about Ico way back in 2001. It had a physicality to its environment. The water rippled, other items swung. This isn't a technology thing, its a creative choice thing, and too often story and scripted sequences are the band-aid for poorer, less developed game design. Or people circle "the story" as the reason for a game, when its story is meh and its game design is worse.

Which says nothing to the extent that game's CAN tell stories. Because they can. It should just be unique and unexpected in how its implemented, and not come at the detriment of a game's design ambitions too severely.

 

[Mosse]

But given that it's interactive, couldn't you just stand there like you normally would during a cutscene if you really wanted to?

Giving the player the ability to do something else doesn't mean that they have to use that ability.

These are games made to feel like a more cinematic experience. Many of those scenes are very focused on the acting and cinematography, some times pre-rendered. They are made to play out the way the devs intended, scripted moments often motion captured where the playable character must interact with other characters or objects in a specific way to advance the story. Sure the devs could have the player doing whatever they want during those scenes, or just add a qte just because, I just don't see how that would make the more scripted cinematic moments better.

Just because you could doesn't mean you should, some things work better in some games while not in others. How would you for example handle scenes where the playable character is not even in the scene for example?


Edit: I belive the developers should do what is best for the kind of game they want to make. In some parts of the game the story maybe works better when the player can interact with things, while other moments maybe works better without interactions from the player to give a more directed view of the story. I don't think games should be something that has to only work in one way, but something that could tell a story in different ways depending on what game it is and what's happening in the game.

 

[Ansatz]

The problem with modern video games is exactly what Egoraptor expresses in his OoT video: "just because the scenario is treacherous, doesn't mean the game is actually treacherous"

The circumstances around Nathan Drake in Uncharted and the facial expressions of the characters are supposed to make me feel the intensity of the scenario, but in fact it has the opposite effect since it's practically impossible to fail as a player and as a result there is a disconnect between what the game makers want you to feel and what the gameplay actually conveys. This is the fundamental problem of mainstream game design and why I don't get any enjoyment from Uncharted except on a superficial, popcorn movie level.

 

[Messofanego]

INSIDE is a game with no story whatsoever.

Shit just happens as you go and its up to you to figure it out. As much as I love that game, having even just a little bit of story would have put my mind at ease as its so frustrating to be intrigued by this world Playdead created but there is no information as to what it is or what's going on.

I've played through it 3 times. Everything's left to the player's imagination.

Of course there are details in the background which help you piece stuff together (stuff like the pods in the forest at the beginning or the secret ending) but the game never outright tells you anything, ever.

What are the shockwaves?
What is that creature?
What the hell was that ending?

The game never answers these questions. It leaves just enough clues to piece together theories.

I guess it does have a story but one that's very minimalist.

That doesn't mean Inside doesn't have a story, it just doesn't have explicit explanations for everything. But plenty of that is discernible. There are whole Youtube videos analysing each aspect. There is a narrative going on. There is a natural progression from nature to industrial and then back to nature. The game is about the theme of control.

Just like there are plenty of arthouse films that don't explain everything but are still considered to have stories. It's all about leaving things to your interpretation. Letting you think about it and be an active participant in the discussion of the work.

 

[yyr]

To be fair, we had plenty of narrative driven games in mid 80's and the seeds were planted in late 70's already. In 1975 to be exact. It's almost like those have always been here.

Edit: Unless this is exactly what you ment by mentioning those time periods.

Mid 80s is when console RPGs and narrative-type things started to show up, yes. True, seeds had been planted, but there were few-to-zero narrative elements in most games out of the late 70s/early 80s. I don't really count things like "you good, them bad" or "aliens invading, shoot them" or "girl captured, save the girl."

 

[InsaneFandom]

Yeah that's nonsense. Plenty of beloved games already exist for which the main draw is the story.
Games without story hold very little appeal for me personally outside of local multiplayer or 5 minute 'time wasters'. I'm sure some people strongly disagree, which is why having a variety of games is awesome.

No doubt others feel differently, but I'd say I can actually get more invested in video game stories than I do TV shows or films. Sure, the best video games stories haven't reached the heights of the best TV shows & films from a narrative perspective but I find the inherent interactivity in games helps overcome that - they're much more personal and intimate experiences.

As far as methods of storytelling go, listening to a great story being read by a talented orator is still king imo. Does that mean other forms of media shouldn't be telling stories? Of course not.
Books, TV, film & games each have unique ways of telling their stories.

 

[Aizo]

I'm someone who is very critical of stories in games, but that doesn't mean I want them gone. I often critique stories which people say are fantastic, because those stories may be something new for games that are done better in old movies and books. The truly unique stories exist in games that tell their stories in ways that only the medium could, so I'm really into the way it's done in NieR, NieR Automata, and Undertale, for instance.

Arguing that something is preferred a certain way is subjective and totally understandable. Telling everyone how all games should be based on your opinion, as if you're the one who chooses what is fact, is bullshit. I don't like what I read of the article.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

These are games made to feel like a more cinematic experience. Many of those scenes are very focused on the acting and cinematography, some times pre-rendered. They are made to play out the way the devs intended, scripted moments often motion captured where the playable character must interact with other characters or objects in a specific way to advance the story. Sure the devs could have the player doing whatever they want during those scenes, or just add a qte just because, I just don't see how that would make the more scripted cinematic moments better.

Just because you could doesn't mean you should, some things work better in some games while not in others. How would you for example handle scenes where the playable character is not even in the scene for example?

The bolded is exactly what I see as the problem. Making a cinematic experience does not play into the strengths of a video game or it's story telling. It takes the interactivity out and imitates another artistic medium. And many of those times its unnecessary.

As for your example, I would give the player control of the camera so they could move freely around whatever scene they're in. It doesn't take the interactivity out of the players hands, and even allows them to frame and direct the scene how they want or feel the scene should be conveyed. All while not losing out on whatever details would have been told to the player through the cutscene.

Video games shouldn't be striving for cinematic moments as the baseline for its storytelling. All it does is limit the medium. It would be like if you were reading a comic book and when you turned the page, there was no art. Just a bunch of paragraphs explaining what is happening. At that point, the person isn't playing into the visual aspect of comics, and instead of using those pages to let an artist convey the authors words, they decide to imitate novels and literature and just write a few paragraphs.

 

[Ansatz]

INSIDE is a game with no story whatsoever.

Shit just happens as you go and its up to you to figure it out. As much as I love that game, having even just a little bit of story would have put my mind at ease as its so frustrating to be intrigued by this world Playdead created but there is no information as to what it is or what's going on.

Ever heard of show don't tell?

 

[Budi]

Mid 80s is when console RPGs and narrative-type things started to show up, yes. True, seeds had been planted, but there were few-to-zero narrative elements in most games out of the late 70s/early 80s. I don't really count things like "you good, them bad" or "aliens invading, shoot them" or "girl captured, save the girl."

Text adventures! Colossal Cave Adventure even had deaths and limited lives so there's a fail state and you also could rack up points, before anyone says it isn't a game because it doesn't have either of these. Developed between 1975-1976 for PDP-10 and later ported to other platforms. Then there were games like Zork and Adventureland. And legendary Roberta Williams was making graphical adventure games starting from 1980.

Edit: Not sure why you specify console RPG:s, like computer games wouldn't count? Maybe you didn't mean it like that, just made me wonder.

 

[Tumle]

Don't give me a story and I m out. I like to know why I m doing x and y. Heck even games like Mario would be boring. I mean why the fuck I m defeating Bowser ?

Yea.. even in multiplayer, im more likely to choose objective based scenarios, than free for all.. it's not really a narrative, but it gives me a reason to kill the enemy😋

 

[Glass Shark]

.

 

[Mosse]

The bolded is exactly what I see as the problem. Making a cinematic experience does not play into the strengths of a video game or it's story telling. It takes the interactivity out and imitates another artistic medium. And many of those times its unnecessary.

As for your example, I would give the player control of the camera so they could move freely around whatever scene they're in. It doesn't take the interactivity out of the players hands, and even allows them to frame and direct the scene how they want or feel the scene should be conveyed. All while not losing out on whatever details would have been told to the player through the cutscene.

Video games shouldn't be striving for cinematic moments as the baseline for its storytelling. All it does is limit the medium. It would be like if you were reading a comic book and when you turned the page, there was no art. Just a bunch of paragraphs explaining what is happening. At that point, the person isn't playing into the visual aspect of comics, and instead of using those pages to let an artist convey the authors words, they decide to imitate novels and literature and just write a few paragraphs.

No saying games shouldn't do this, or shoulnd't do that is limiting the medium. Just because you don't like cinematic games doesn't mean they can't exist together with less cinematic games. Naughty dog for example is known for their cinematic storytelling, they make the games they want to make and their fans want to play. They don't need to change how they tell their story to please people that don't enjoy it when there is a lot of people that like what they do. There's plenty of games that doesn't use that kind of cinematic storytelling and would be worse if they took away too much player control. There is room for all kinds of storytelling in this medium.

Let the artist mix and experiment with which ever medium they like, that only gives us more ways the experience games. Only allowing games to tell their story in one way limits what the developers can make. Don't play it if you don't like it, but we shouldn't limit the ways games are made when there is a lot of people that enjoy every different form of storytelling in this medium.

 

[Chac]

For me, without story there is an inherent lack of drive to play. This is why my favorite games are almost always RPG and Adventure. The exception comes from multiplayer games where you're really just having a good time with others, like a board game, effectively creating a story within those interactions.

 

[BlastProcessing]

The bolded is exactly what I see as the problem. Making a cinematic experience does not play into the strengths of a video game or it's story telling. It takes the interactivity out and imitates another artistic medium. And many of those times its unnecessary.

As for your example, I would give the player control of the camera so they could move freely around whatever scene they're in. It doesn't take the interactivity out of the players hands, and even allows them to frame and direct the scene how they want or feel the scene should be conveyed. All while not losing out on whatever details would have been told to the player through the cutscene.

Video games shouldn't be striving for cinematic moments as the baseline for its storytelling. All it does is limit the medium. It would be like if you were reading a comic book and when you turned the page, there was no art. Just a bunch of paragraphs explaining what is happening. At that point, the person isn't playing into the visual aspect of comics, and instead of using those pages to let an artist convey the authors words, they decide to imitate novels and literature and just write a few paragraphs.

Actually, the best way to limit a medium is to make blanket decrees about what it can and can't do.

Surely you see the irony.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

No saying games shouldn't do this, or shoulnd't do that is limiting the medium. Just because you don't like cinematic games doesn't mean they can't exist together with less cinematic games. Naughty dog for example is known for their cinematic storytelling, they make the games they want to make and their fans want to play. They don't need to change how they tell their story to please people that don't enjoy. There's plenty of games that doesn't use that kind of cinematic storytelling and would be worse if they took away too much player control. There is room for all kinds of storytelling in this medium

I'm not saying they shouldn't exist. I'm saying they shouldn't be the standard for storytelling in video games. Which is what they are.

It's really bad for an artistic medium when it's main means of expression of ideas is doing nothing but imitating the way other artistic mediums express their ideas. Video games have a very unique means to express ideas, but the industry standard is to ignore those means in favor of imitating movies and TV.

Actually, the best way to limit a medium is to make blanket decrees about what it can and can't do.

Surely you see the irony.

Maybe if I said this type of story telling shouldn't exist then I would. But I didn't.

 

[SunBroDave]

The Witcher 3, considering by many to be one of, if not the, greatest game of all time, begs to fucking differ.

 

[Von Krukru]

They're pretty bad most of the time. I'm more interested in inovative storytelling on a simple story. Or just pure gameplay games.

 

[ryseing]

I am glad the writer of that article does not make games.

I'm not saying EVERY game needs a story, but if a game has a good story it only makes it a better experience. I love a good story and if a video game tells a good one then it makes a much bigger impact than a tv show or a movie.

Its better/easier to not play the kind of games you dont like or understand rather than questioning their existence.

Bogost does make games. He made Cow Clicker.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

Really, the only thing you need to counter this is:
A lot of people like stories in games. Whether those stories are the most amazing thing ever written doesn't matter. At all.

And most of all, are they better stories than the more popular and proven ones in the cinema, on television, and in books?

What's that even supposed to mean? More popular? Who cares? It's not like the most popular movies right now tell the best stories.

Man, this article is just all kinds of bad.

 

[cryptosporidium]

Nier Automata is a near perfect marriage between gameplay and story.

 

[CloudWolf]

I'm just wondering hoe the fuck playing What Remains of Edith Finch got him to this conclusion, since Edith Finch happens to be one of those rare first person games that tells it's narrative in a way that would be pretty much impossible in any other medium.

Anyway, the purely ludist approach to gaming is an awful way to view games.

 

[Mosse]

I'm not saying they shouldn't exist. I'm saying they shouldn't be the standard for storytelling in video games. Which is what they are.

It's really bad for an artistic medium when it's main means of expression of ideas is doing nothing but imitating the way other artistic mediums express their ideas. Video games have a very unique means to express ideas, but the industry standard is to ignore those means in favor of imitating movies and TV.

Maybe if I said this type of story telling shouldn't exist then I would. But I didn't.

Why is it bad that many games uses ideas from other mediums? Because you don't like it? The industry seems to be doing fine and there is more ways to experience stories in games today then before.

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

Nintendo games prove this.

Nearly all their games story is hardly existent and just rolls into the sequel the same pretty much yet still sells and reviews well alot.

Prove what? Nintendo games aren't objectively better than others. I'd much rather play a title like The Last of Us over anything Nintendo has put out over the last 20 years.

Doesn't mean TLOU is better, it just means there's room for both types of games in the market.

 

[Radical Edward]

INSIDE is a game with no story whatsoever.

Shit just happens as you go and its up to you to figure it out. As much as I love that game, having even just a little bit of story would have put my mind at ease as its so frustrating to be intrigued by this world Playdead created but there is no information as to what it is or what's going on.

I disagree that there's no story in Inside

 

[Fraeon]

Nope. Video games without story are intellectually boring.

Games are toys. They're better if they aren't trying to be "intellectual".

 

[Mosse]

Games are toys. They're better if they aren't trying to be "intellectual".

I think more of games like a form of entertainment. They can be how "intellectual" they want depending on the genre.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Why is it bad that many games uses ideas from other mediums? Because you don't like it? The industry seems to be doing fine and there is more ways to experience stories in games today then before.

Again, because it limits the medium.

It's not about what I like and what I don't like. I like plenty of games with cutscenes. It's not like I avoid them.

What it's about is video games exploring unique ways to convey emotions and stories. And that progress is constantly lessened the longer the industry sees "Let's just imitate movies." as the standard.

 

[OrbitalBeard]

Games are toys. They're better if they aren't trying to be "intellectual".

Some of you have a very narrow view of a what a video game can be.

 

[More_Badass]

Games are toys. They're better if they aren't trying to be "intellectual".

If video games are toys, just fun stuff with no other merit, then so is every other medium

 

[Plum]

That doesn't mean Inside doesn't have a story, it just doesn't have explicit explanations for everything. But plenty of that is discernible. There are whole Youtube videos analysing each aspect. There is a narrative going on. There is a natural progression from nature to industrial and then back to nature. The game is about the theme of control.

Just like there are plenty of arthouse films that don't explain everything but are still considered to have stories. It's all about leaving things to your interpretation. Letting you think about it and be an active participant in the discussion of the work.

The reason why I heavily differ from the general opinion on INSIDE is not that it doesn't have a story, but because it has too much defined story. It's world, whilst stylised, is clearly meant to be 'real' in said universe, so when it introduces a concept I expect said concept to be applied throughout the entire game. For example: When it shows you that dogs can detect non-zombies you'd expect that to be brought up again, but it isn't despite it making no logical sense for it to not be. The

Spoiler

Ringu things kill you one minute then, a tad bit later, they're just there to give the kid gills or something to breath underwater.

.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm nowhere near averse to films. One of my favourite films is Eraserhead which is, on a surface level, a stream of weird nonsense, but because Lynch uses his medium to create a sense of unreality in the film's universe whilst ditching any pretence of a single narrativehe's able to focus solely on that which serves the themes and message. INSIDE aims for a Lynchian style of storytelling but fails as it presents itself as a single, linear story. Therefore, when said story loses consistency I begin to ask questions that don't serve the overall theme. So, whilst I should be asking "what does the ending mean?" I'm instead asking questions such as "Why, in a civilization with a zombie-slave factory, is everything decrepit and in disrepair?"

Though it doesn't help that the true ending points to it being another story in a game about

Spoiler

playing games. "You're controlling a character" is as shocking a revelation to me as saying I press play to watch a film. In my eyes you need to have something more to say such as in Dark Souls or Spec Ops: The Line if they're going to go all Meta.

 

[Nepenthe]

I feel it's necessary for video games to borrow from other mediums by design because A.) Games inherently share basic characteristics with other mediums despite the interactive element, and B.) Other mediums have a better grasp upon narrative through design than games do, and as a result, reference is necessary.

It's one thing to downplay the fake "Hollywood" model, but sometimes it gets to a point where I wonder how far deep this rabbit hole goes. Like, how do you direct a good cut scene if you don't know how the hell film works?