My impression of what you wrote is the same as his.
Maybe you could express yourself differently if that wasn't your intent.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Video Games Are Better Without Stories
- Thread starter RedlineRonin
- Start date
Maybe you could express yourself differently if that wasn't your intent.
Bioshock makes you ponder profound questions about your own existence preciously because it was told in an interactive medium. As a book or movie it would be just another twist that happened to a character.
Jokes in Portal are funnier because the interactive part of the game keeps reminding you that behind the facade there is something very dark and sinister going on.
Without its story Mass Effect would be just another terrible space shooter. Without its interactive part it would just another mediocre space opera. Together they make one the greatest piece of entertainment.
Fallout New Vegas' Vault 11, which is often considered one of the greatest "dungeons" in RPG, would not be same without its fucked up story. In fact, remove the story and lore out of Fallout and you remove the reason most of us love that series.
Jokes in Portal are funnier because the interactive part of the game keeps reminding you that behind the facade there is something very dark and sinister going on.
Without its story Mass Effect would be just another terrible space shooter. Without its interactive part it would just another mediocre space opera. Together they make one the greatest piece of entertainment.
Fallout New Vegas' Vault 11, which is often considered one of the greatest "dungeons" in RPG, would not be same without its fucked up story. In fact, remove the story and lore out of Fallout and you remove the reason most of us love that series.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
He is on point.
Boom.
Radical Edward
Member
Cool, I , too, put the fun value above anything else when I play games. Everything else is a bonus
Author is trying to justify why his preferences for games is the right preference for everyone. As some one who thinks the best improvement games have done since she was a child is actually having coherent stories that aren't so bad that you pretty much ignore them cause they don't matter. Sure,they aren't in general going to win great cinema/literature but they are good enough to get me to care about the story and want to find more. And good enough to immerse me in the story and make me feel that I'm in that world. To me that is much more important than "gameplay" honestly (I like good gameplay but the games I love the most are the ones I can either help create the story/rp in or can get into the story).
The thing that will motivate me the most in a game is finding little tidbits that tell you more about the world/tell you the story of the world/characters. Stuff like that story of the fisherman in TLOU or the survivalist in New Vegas's Honest Hearts DLC. And a game does rely on having something to reward you for succeeding in playing the game. The reward is different for different people (for me story is the best motivator though finding stuff I need to craft stuff also is a good motivator).
The thing that will motivate me the most in a game is finding little tidbits that tell you more about the world/tell you the story of the world/characters. Stuff like that story of the fisherman in TLOU or the survivalist in New Vegas's Honest Hearts DLC. And a game does rely on having something to reward you for succeeding in playing the game. The reward is different for different people (for me story is the best motivator though finding stuff I need to craft stuff also is a good motivator).
And I'm the complete opposite, for me it comes down to whether the underlying mechanical action being performed is interesting, not how it's dressed up and given an explanation consistent with the game universe.
Chasing rabbits in Mario sounds like such a childish thing, but that's only the scenario, meanwhile the gameplay itself is fun because of how the level design with strategically placed boost pads that give you x amount of speed for y amount of time tuned in a way that makes it abit of a challenge which results in a fun minigame. Whereas Uncharted is perceived as more exciting because of the scenario itself, like who wants to chase rabbits in a playground when you can swing around like a boss, landing on enemies while the camera sweeps around to frame the action in a cinematic fashion amirite? The problem is that the platforming itself is scripted and extremely shallow, meaning Mario wins because it offers a higher level of mechanical stimulation.
Lord of Ostia
Member
Honestly I think he makes some very baseless value judgements on certain mediums and areas of literature and story telling that he doesn't know much about. He's inexperienced when it comes to storytelling and narrative in games, and he's inexperienced when it comes to YA literature, at least that's what many of his points in this article suggest. He is very dismissive without any sort of evidence to back up those claims.
lvl99 Pixel
Member
ive lost count of how many people reduce Uncharted down to the scripted climbing sections. The actual gameplay outside of that is very polished and functions well even in the team based online modes.
But thats besides the point. If what you want out of games is purely gameplay you have so many great games to play. Direction and acting like in NDs games are kind of a rarity yet still somehow get people riled up about games being movies as if the sentiment makes you somehow more of a hardcore gamer. IMO Valve is the best at non intrusive writing with Half Life and Portal series.
Good stories are good. Bad stories are bad.
Unique stories that take advantage of the medium are good. Ones that don't are bad.
David Cage is a hack. The Last of Us is pretty generic pastiche that's far too concerned with imitating its betters, rather than creating something singular.
The only thing fucked up about New Vegas' Vaults was trying to navigate them with the game's shitty textures and compete useless map. I mean, jesus christ.
Unique stories that take advantage of the medium are good. Ones that don't are bad.
David Cage is a hack. The Last of Us is pretty generic pastiche that's far too concerned with imitating its betters, rather than creating something singular.
The only thing fucked up about New Vegas' Vaults was trying to navigate them with the game's shitty textures and compete useless map. I mean, jesus christ.
lvl99 Pixel
Member
Melchiah
Member
If we consider video games to be an art form, then there is no "correct" way to create them. It's an expression, and it can be expressed in whatever way the publisher/developer wants. Of course, they can be drawn to what makes more money, but that is besides the point.
I agree with this.
The author of the article seems to prefer games without stories. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. But stating that all games should be made to his tastes is pretty egocentric.
I agree with this.
The author of the article seems to prefer games without stories. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. But stating that all games should be made to his tastes is pretty egocentric.
timetokill
Banned
No. Come on, guys. Seriously.
So this guy has a Ph.D. in comparative literature, he has literally written books on games criticism, he's made games of his own, and he teaches interactive media at a university. He's been doing/researching/analyzing/studying games at an academic, high level for a pretty long time at this point. Certainly more than 99% of GAF has.
I know your instinct is to lash out, but attacking Bogost's credentials as though he's unqualified to talk about this stuff is patently absurd. Hell, it's beyond that. It's the exact kind of anti-intellectual dismissal of "the experts" that you'd see in right-wing circles. You guys are better than that. Just don't.
This was an article for the Atlantic, and he makes his point pretty well considering the article length limitations. Meanwhile you guys are demanding a treatise.
Instead of trying to attack the author, discuss the subject. You're trying to dismiss it out of hand, but that isn't critical thinking. Most of the arguments in here are "but I LIKE stories in videogames!" Okay? Cool? That doesn't contradict the idea that stories are best done elsewhere, or even that games are better without them.
Let me try putting this in a way that I know GAF will love: Stories in videogames are like pineapple on pizza.
Hey, lots of people like pineapple. And lots like pizza. And lots even like them together? But as we all know, "two great tastes taste great together" is not always true. As far as mediums go for storytelling, I don't think it's that crazy to argue that videogames right now are pretty bad at it compared to other mediums. It's very rare that we have a game where the story is enhanced by being part of a game rather than another medium. The bar is set exceedingly low. Furthermore the story of a game doesn't make a game "play" well. It illustrates how separated these parts of the medium are.
I think there's a lot to do with the language and mechanics of games and the story they inherently tell before we can really make that work. If you read something like Understanding Comics, you see that the form of the comics themselves contribute to the story in a way that makes them essential. The space between the panels implies something all on its own: the passage of time. It's a contribution to the narrative made by the form of the medium itself. Now think of videogames. Do we have a method through play that contributes to narrative? Or are we just aping other mediums and trying to piggyback off of their methods? To take Bogost's comments about visual rendering as story, if we display comic frames on screen in a game to show the passage of time, we're still getting the contribution from comics, not from videogames.
There's a difference.
Melchiah
Member
Another example of personal taste put on a pedestal. Here's a newsflash, it's not the same for everyone, and pineapple can be wonderful in pizza. I never make pizza without it, like I wouldn't play games without stories.
Lord of Ostia
Member
My dislike of his tone and some of the points he makes have nothing to do anti-intellectualism.
This is the statement he makes about YA literature. He doesn't think Gone Home is impressive as a work of story telling, so he says it's the equivalent of YA fiction...which suggests that YA fiction, an entire body of work with tons of different writers telling a vast array of different types of stories which vary widely in quality, can be viewed as a group of literature which is less than other literature, just by virtue of being written for young people.
I'm sorry, but that's a terrible argument. The quality of a work is not determined by its audience. Just because a work is written for young people doesn't make it less valuable as a work of fiction. It doesn't mean the writing, or storytelling is worse, all it tells you is who the intended audience of the work is. And that's just one value judgement he makes on an entire body of work with no justification.
lvl99 Pixel
Member
"Film, television and literature tell them better"
it's not a static comparison. Games have come a long way in their implementation of cinematic practices, and are are more maleable and changing faster than the other mediums. It's not something you get to just decide as the ultimate truth.
"why are games obsessed with narrative"
Maybe he means developers, but that just seems like hyperbole for the same of getting more clicks. There is no shortage of gameplay focused games, so im not sure where they're getting this obsession vibe.
it's not a static comparison. Games have come a long way in their implementation of cinematic practices, and are are more maleable and changing faster than the other mediums. It's not something you get to just decide as the ultimate truth.
"why are games obsessed with narrative"
Maybe he means developers, but that just seems like hyperbole for the same of getting more clicks. There is no shortage of gameplay focused games, so im not sure where they're getting this obsession vibe.
I think you are serving your own interests in defending this man's credentials. You share his reductive opinions, and ultimately want to be shielded by his legitimacy. However, what he wrote is stifling drivel and deserves to be disregarded.
More_Badass
Member
Yeah, you're right. It is pretty hypocritical to take that approach when I despise it elsewhere
I do feek there have been quite a few good posts here discussing and arguing those points, better than I could
But see, that's where I'd disagree. For one, the notion of the bar being "is the story enhanced by being part of a game" is kind of unfair. Like when I read a review of...idk, Mistborn, the review is never asking whether the story is worthy of being a book, or why it needs to be a piece of literature, if that story is enhanced because it's a book. You don't even really see that with film either, unless it's an adaptation.
It's taken for granted that it's a book, and that it is the story within the pages. To frame the quality of storytelling in games as "if the story is enhanced by being a game" doesn't make sense IMO
As for the second point, and I mentioned this earlier, the question of what "doesn't play well" even means. Is gameplay just being moving around a space and grabbing stuff "not playing well"? Or clicking text options? And so on. I've always felt that gameplay is a function of the individual game, and that the context and intent of the game defines what makes the gameplay good (or perhaps right is the better word). A game like Dear Esther or Stanley Parable doesn't need more interaction or mechanics to tell its story, so the mechanics being only movement and interaction is not bad or lacking. Less is more, or rather effective
And thirdly, of course we have method through play. Play itself is storytelling, a part of the storytelling. Character movement and animations, design, the way the character attacks and reacts, the kind of actions your controls prompt, the expectations and subversions that are built by your familiarity with the controls and mechanics. Taking controls away, limiting mechanics, is a means of storytelling too.
Consider the expectations built in The Last of Us with the ladder prompt. You pick up the ladder, press triangle at the spot, Ellie comes. It is ingrained that this is how the mechanic works across the entire campaign, with multiple characters. And then that one time, you do the prompt, you wait for a moment like always...and Ellie doesn't come. And you instantly realize something is different now
EventHorizon
Member
Mass Effect Andromeda is a worse game than the original trilogy because its story is worse than the original trilogy. Checkmate.
Lord of Ostia
Member
This is my problem with his core argument too. He seems to suggest that games need to prove that the stories they tell are improved by virtue of being in a game, rather than just being good stories regardless of the medium they are in. But why? Why does it matter whether a story in a game is original, or uses techniques not present in other mediums, or whether or not its quality is higher than the story telling of other mediums? All that should matter is whether or not the narrative conveys what it is trying to convey to the audience, that the audience enjoys it, that it achieves what it set out to do. Why do games need to justify the inclusion of narrative in a way that other mediums don't? He never sufficiently answers this question outside of citing his own preferences, and his preferences are frankly irrelevant because they don't mean more than my preferences or your preferences or anyone else's.
This will probably be long winded, but I figured eh, might as well write all my thoughts on the article.
Put it simply I'm a gameplay over anything else kind of person. And what I mean by that is that any other element of a game is negotiable to me. I can over look poor visuals, bad audio, bad acting, bad writing, bad story telling, even technical issues, but if I find value in the interactive aspects of the game, I can still see myself ending up thinking the game is at least okay or even good, dare I say great if the gameplay is exceptional.
And it doesn't need to be classic Street Fighter great, it can be great the way I think the interactivity in Shadow of the Colossus or Silent Hill 2 are great. The stories they tell, only really work, because of what the player is doing, the challenges the player is presented, and how the mechanics work in that game. Be it intentional (Shadow of the Colossus) or unintentional genius (Silent Hill 2's janky combat).
I mostly do not like games that sacrifice gameplay for the story. I am of the opinion that 2012's The Walking Dead season 1, is a good story, but it's not much of a game. The interactive aspects of it are the worst parts about the game, they add nothing of value to the experience, as often they are detriment to the story telling, and in the case of the choice stuff it's such a freakin illusion of choice, that I'm tired of. Because it ignores what happens when the illusion breaks. It's a parlor trick that might work the first time by, but it's gonna break on replays.
I'm bothered by calling it a good game, but a great one? To me great stuff should be stuff I can go back to, replayability or my mentality that I would come back to an experience again and again over the years is pretty valuable to what makes a great game to me this day. I still replay Super Metroid 20+ years later, I have beaten Bayonetta like 8 times now, and if the MCC wasn't broken and had a lively community, I'd still play Halo 2 like it was my junior year in high school.
And I'm even less fond of things like Gone Home, Dear Esther, The Path, Abzu or what have you; where the interactions are so simplified, but what the story is trying to convey isn't directly connected to what I'm doing. In fact of the minimalist-gameplay experiences I've really dug, Journey has been that lone exception.
So with all that said, my beef with the article is this idea that the medium is better for not trying. Listen, I think video game stories are shit, some exceptions like Planescape Torment and Mother 3 are genuinely good, but on balance, yeah I much prefer watching a flick or a tv show, and nowadays I read more books when I want a narrative with some meat to it.
I think often games are either overly ridiculous and rely on pulp narratives, and I don't think you derive much from pulp, or the story is this half baked experiment with trying to tie in this super simple n shallow game with this basic story that I probably could get better in the other story telling mediums.
And I still say, the medium is better with these games I dislike existing, than it is without them. I don't think we're a better medium without motion control party games existing, I don't think it's a better medium without risk takers (VR gaming for instance), experimental projects, and people willing to push the envelope.
I think games like Manhunt n Hatred need to exist, just to see how far we can push the envelope in making the player feel uncomfortable, how nasty we can get.
I don't think Video game stories should stop existing because they've been bad for so long. They can get better, and I believe they can get better. Because exceptions do exist, I just don't think they are going to tell the same stories that film n literature do, I don't think they tell the same type of character driven stories that those mediums can do.
Part of it is just the nature of what is a video game. Film n books (less so television) have the benefit of being more organic story telling mediums, if the next point in the story, is another logical talking sequences that's where the story will go in those mediums. They are inherently passive. Games, require us to get a game in. In the triple A space, eventually they need to force combat and conflict, and forced conflict in story isn't always a good thing, in fact often a detriment. But forced conflict in a game can lead to exciting gameplay sequences.
Likewise games must acknowledge that the gameplay is part of the story, stop pretending I should turn my brain off and not acknowledge the rules n mechanics when you're telling your story. You can't tell me a game can tell a story, and then tell me with a straight face I should ignore the gameplay.
And that's without getting into the crazier stuff in that we may never have an answer for how we handle fail states. Fail states are pretty fundamental to how we make games, and they are fundamental to what provides a reasonable and respectable challenge in games, and challenge can add to the depth of play in games. And a linear story, games are the only medium where you go, the last 20/30 minutes of you failing this sequence, the gameplay, never happened, it doesn't exist, Raiden totally wasn't getting his ass beat by Senator Armstrong.
I mention all this, because I sort of like, that while playing that Edith Fitch game, the writer for The Atlantic article asked this question
"Why does this story need to be told as a video game?"
Maybe that's the wrong way of looking at it, and I would prefer something like
"How does the story benefit from being interactive?" or "How well do the interactive elements convey the themes of the story"
Because what started as a cute experiment, is now a thing that to me has skated by with very little harsh criticism from the critical side of this medium, and it needs to be criticized if it has any hope of getting better. And that might be another long winded rant for another day, because on balance I find most gaming critics to be quite poor at being critics.
But that to me is the larger problem is how weak the criticism is in this field, not that this medium tries. I'll continue to support mechanics heavy experiences that benefit from as little story or treat the story the way porn treats a story be it something like Rocket League or something as irreverent as Bayonetta. But I'll probably still foolishly support Night in the Woods, hating every second of my interactions with that game, but hanging on to things like "Man, I really like this beatrice character, I just wish more of this story impacted me from interactive means"
And yeah sure plenty of games are misguided for the sake of a story. The Order is rubbish, and Naughty Dog wastes my time with utterly shallow elements for story beats that aren't even that good sans The Last of Us (which is quite good), I think there are tons of gameplay ideas that could still be explored if game devs focused less on immersion n story telling in certain cases, and were thinking more about making more interesting mechanics and gameplay scenarios.
But again, it's not a better medium with less diverse games being made. That's what I love about modern PC gaming, there are so many different type of games being made today that cover a range of experiences.
I'm happy that there are outlets for people who want to take risks who want to try to push the envelope with the idea of what exactly "counts" as a game. I'm glad that so many people have jobs and the opportunity to make money of their work with these different type of games.
I'm happy that it will expand the audience in terms of who will play games.
Telling a bunch of creators to give up on their ambitions, is the opposite of the medium I want.
Put it simply I'm a gameplay over anything else kind of person. And what I mean by that is that any other element of a game is negotiable to me. I can over look poor visuals, bad audio, bad acting, bad writing, bad story telling, even technical issues, but if I find value in the interactive aspects of the game, I can still see myself ending up thinking the game is at least okay or even good, dare I say great if the gameplay is exceptional.
And it doesn't need to be classic Street Fighter great, it can be great the way I think the interactivity in Shadow of the Colossus or Silent Hill 2 are great. The stories they tell, only really work, because of what the player is doing, the challenges the player is presented, and how the mechanics work in that game. Be it intentional (Shadow of the Colossus) or unintentional genius (Silent Hill 2's janky combat).
I mostly do not like games that sacrifice gameplay for the story. I am of the opinion that 2012's The Walking Dead season 1, is a good story, but it's not much of a game. The interactive aspects of it are the worst parts about the game, they add nothing of value to the experience, as often they are detriment to the story telling, and in the case of the choice stuff it's such a freakin illusion of choice, that I'm tired of. Because it ignores what happens when the illusion breaks. It's a parlor trick that might work the first time by, but it's gonna break on replays.
I'm bothered by calling it a good game, but a great one? To me great stuff should be stuff I can go back to, replayability or my mentality that I would come back to an experience again and again over the years is pretty valuable to what makes a great game to me this day. I still replay Super Metroid 20+ years later, I have beaten Bayonetta like 8 times now, and if the MCC wasn't broken and had a lively community, I'd still play Halo 2 like it was my junior year in high school.
And I'm even less fond of things like Gone Home, Dear Esther, The Path, Abzu or what have you; where the interactions are so simplified, but what the story is trying to convey isn't directly connected to what I'm doing. In fact of the minimalist-gameplay experiences I've really dug, Journey has been that lone exception.
So with all that said, my beef with the article is this idea that the medium is better for not trying. Listen, I think video game stories are shit, some exceptions like Planescape Torment and Mother 3 are genuinely good, but on balance, yeah I much prefer watching a flick or a tv show, and nowadays I read more books when I want a narrative with some meat to it.
I think often games are either overly ridiculous and rely on pulp narratives, and I don't think you derive much from pulp, or the story is this half baked experiment with trying to tie in this super simple n shallow game with this basic story that I probably could get better in the other story telling mediums.
And I still say, the medium is better with these games I dislike existing, than it is without them. I don't think we're a better medium without motion control party games existing, I don't think it's a better medium without risk takers (VR gaming for instance), experimental projects, and people willing to push the envelope.
I think games like Manhunt n Hatred need to exist, just to see how far we can push the envelope in making the player feel uncomfortable, how nasty we can get.
I don't think Video game stories should stop existing because they've been bad for so long. They can get better, and I believe they can get better. Because exceptions do exist, I just don't think they are going to tell the same stories that film n literature do, I don't think they tell the same type of character driven stories that those mediums can do.
Part of it is just the nature of what is a video game. Film n books (less so television) have the benefit of being more organic story telling mediums, if the next point in the story, is another logical talking sequences that's where the story will go in those mediums. They are inherently passive. Games, require us to get a game in. In the triple A space, eventually they need to force combat and conflict, and forced conflict in story isn't always a good thing, in fact often a detriment. But forced conflict in a game can lead to exciting gameplay sequences.
Likewise games must acknowledge that the gameplay is part of the story, stop pretending I should turn my brain off and not acknowledge the rules n mechanics when you're telling your story. You can't tell me a game can tell a story, and then tell me with a straight face I should ignore the gameplay.
And that's without getting into the crazier stuff in that we may never have an answer for how we handle fail states. Fail states are pretty fundamental to how we make games, and they are fundamental to what provides a reasonable and respectable challenge in games, and challenge can add to the depth of play in games. And a linear story, games are the only medium where you go, the last 20/30 minutes of you failing this sequence, the gameplay, never happened, it doesn't exist, Raiden totally wasn't getting his ass beat by Senator Armstrong.
I mention all this, because I sort of like, that while playing that Edith Fitch game, the writer for The Atlantic article asked this question
"Why does this story need to be told as a video game?"
Maybe that's the wrong way of looking at it, and I would prefer something like
"How does the story benefit from being interactive?" or "How well do the interactive elements convey the themes of the story"
Because what started as a cute experiment, is now a thing that to me has skated by with very little harsh criticism from the critical side of this medium, and it needs to be criticized if it has any hope of getting better. And that might be another long winded rant for another day, because on balance I find most gaming critics to be quite poor at being critics.
But that to me is the larger problem is how weak the criticism is in this field, not that this medium tries. I'll continue to support mechanics heavy experiences that benefit from as little story or treat the story the way porn treats a story be it something like Rocket League or something as irreverent as Bayonetta. But I'll probably still foolishly support Night in the Woods, hating every second of my interactions with that game, but hanging on to things like "Man, I really like this beatrice character, I just wish more of this story impacted me from interactive means"
And yeah sure plenty of games are misguided for the sake of a story. The Order is rubbish, and Naughty Dog wastes my time with utterly shallow elements for story beats that aren't even that good sans The Last of Us (which is quite good), I think there are tons of gameplay ideas that could still be explored if game devs focused less on immersion n story telling in certain cases, and were thinking more about making more interesting mechanics and gameplay scenarios.
But again, it's not a better medium with less diverse games being made. That's what I love about modern PC gaming, there are so many different type of games being made today that cover a range of experiences.
I'm happy that there are outlets for people who want to take risks who want to try to push the envelope with the idea of what exactly "counts" as a game. I'm glad that so many people have jobs and the opportunity to make money of their work with these different type of games.
I'm happy that it will expand the audience in terms of who will play games.
Telling a bunch of creators to give up on their ambitions, is the opposite of the medium I want.
A round of applause for this man, please.
I should clarify; I meant in novels and films, primarily.
This is where linearity in games becomes an issue for me; if you're not taking advantage of the unique freedoms that the medium offers, then you're going up against a significantly higher level of competition and 99.99% of games aren't even as well-written as the most mediocre 50% RT film. Which is a problem.
TLOU is a great cinematic experience ... for a game. But not when compared to... actual cinematic experiences, like film. Does what I'm saying kind of make sense?
(Also, I just find dystopia to be one of the dullest, least inspired genres out there. Heavy handed allegories galore zzzz)
A+ post, thank you.
More_Badass
Member
Honestly, I'd say, compared to most recent zombie movies and shows, it's easily one of the best things in the genre in the last decade
For some context, I'd list Rec, I Am Legend, Dead Snow, Zombieland, Pontypool, The Horde, Train To Busan, Walking Dead games, and the book World War Z as what I'd consider the good to excellent genre stuff.
And I don't see the problem with linearity. Open world, sandbox, whatever isn't the unique freedom the medium offers. It's interactivity, and linear or more open can be effective depending on myriad factors.
Head of Vengarl
Banned
Man, this is one of those times where someone articulates my exact thoughts way better than I ever could have. I have nothing to add to your words - you've described exactly how I feel about this article and video games in general.
It's why I will always pick a game like Dark Souls 3 (outstanding gameplay/controls with minimal storytelling) over a game like The Witcher 3 (outstanding storytelling with mediocre combat and janky controls).
Thank you for this post.
If The Last Of Us' story was told in some other form than a videogame, would anything be missed?
Yes and no. Joel and Ellie's Story could be easily placed in a movie and you wouldn't miss a beat. While the world that the Last Of Us is set in is something that would be missed considerably and for me is the far more interesting narrative.
This is a problem that Naughty Dog Games have with storytelling. They're fine romps but nothing about them being told in a video game heightens them. They have the talent to and the efforts they make to tell a story contextually is always undermined by a sudden jump to a cutscene where perspectives temporarily change, pacing and control taken away from you and you've been transported away from the moment you were just at.
While I love Joel and Ellie, the real draw for TLoU was it's world and the many personal stories that could come out of it. I really hoped ND would have realised that they have something of a winner in world building but instead they've decided to continue the Joel and Ellie narrative. And I'll stay waiting for them to finally tell a story more emergent and naturally instead of using the same old story telling model used since the PS1 days.
Yes and no. Joel and Ellie's Story could be easily placed in a movie and you wouldn't miss a beat. While the world that the Last Of Us is set in is something that would be missed considerably and for me is the far more interesting narrative.
This is a problem that Naughty Dog Games have with storytelling. They're fine romps but nothing about them being told in a video game heightens them. They have the talent to and the efforts they make to tell a story contextually is always undermined by a sudden jump to a cutscene where perspectives temporarily change, pacing and control taken away from you and you've been transported away from the moment you were just at.
While I love Joel and Ellie, the real draw for TLoU was it's world and the many personal stories that could come out of it. I really hoped ND would have realised that they have something of a winner in world building but instead they've decided to continue the Joel and Ellie narrative. And I'll stay waiting for them to finally tell a story more emergent and naturally instead of using the same old story telling model used since the PS1 days.
More_Badass
Member
A lot of TLOU's storytelling is done through the gameplay. Just the general aspect of being paired with a character for 10-15 hours. How her assistance in combat changes as the game progresses. The shift during Winter. The opening and finale. The visceral feel of the combat accentuating the tone and atmosphere of the world.
Melchiah
Member
So, it succeeded then, as a game. I have no idea why it should be compared to movies, since movies and books aren't compared to other mediums the same way. If they were, I could say that the story and characters in the last two Star Wars movies paled in comparison to what the best story-driven games offer, and Rogue One was a snoozefest.
Lord of Ostia
Member
Not to mention the visceral nature of the extreme violence on display is heightened by the fact that you as the player are performing those actions as Joel. The Last of Us is one of the few games that made me feel uncomfortable about what I was doing in game, which I believe is entirely intentional. You also feel tension in many parts that is enhanced by your control over Joel and progression, like when in the hotel trying to retreive the key card.
lvl99 Pixel
Member
it still benefits from set design, acting, directing, writing, blocking etc some of which benefit from being a 3d scene in a game which affords you some real freedoms for camera movement directly into gameplay (this is done flawlessly a few times in UC4) or using a scene to introduce a gameplay mechanic. I did assume you meant movies, which im wondering which ones you thought the game was an amalgamation of. This is what artists do, they take inspiration from predecessors and make something their own, which especially in post apocalyptic zombie stories is going to be tough to do, but they still made it their own.
I agree the average quality of videogame narrative is below cinema, but I wouldn't include TLOU as one of them, and I dont think its something that has to be that way.
More_Badass
Member
This too. Reviews for comics, books, etc. don't usually say how the story is fine for books but it would be a bad move or show. They discuss them within their medium, and they'll discuss the inspirations from other works and mediums, but outright rating quality as how it would be compared to another medium? Like could you imagine how movie reviews would be if criticism was approached from that angle. Fast 7 is a pretty fun movie, but this story would make for a poor piece of literature.
RodrigoDorta
Member
Not trying to be dismisive here, but alot of the questioning you made are adressed in his books. Its impossible to understand where he came from by just reading a short article, because its from a extensive research spanning years.
Melchiah
Member
Most horror movies wouldn't work as well as books either, yet they are never compared to them. The way games are smells like hypocrisy to me, that's purely meant to serve a personal agenda.
lvl99 Pixel
Member
we shouldn't be required to read his books to fully comprehend this stand alone article, right?
Bit of an issue there is that those last two Star Wars movie, aren't considered among the best stories film produced in those respective years.
Because this medium's drama equivalents start getting compared to the drama equivalents of the last 2 years in films be it The Salesmen, Moonlight, Sicario or what have you, I wouldn't exactly come away thinking that's a favorable matchup for video games.
I think the problem for people like me, who watch a shit ton of movies. It's hard to swallow that I have to judge these game stories in a vacuum. With all due respect to the last of us, it's a pretty generic post apocalypse story. It's inspirations are fairly obvious given that even the reductionist take that it's Children of Men meets The Road isn't that out of line. I think it's a good game, and I think it's well acted and well executed. I think some of its story beats are absolutely conveyed through its systems, where as other aspects of its gameplay do more harm to the story. Between how scripted certain things are (the sniper window) to how it's ridiculous in terms of how the enemy AI doesn't respond to Ellie during stealth.
I get the mechanical issue there, but even then the solution could have easily been keep ellie super snug with with Joel. The way she moves around does more harm to the carefully cultivated immersion that Naughty Dog is aiming for, and iti is a pretty significant portion of that game. I mean their camera choice being squarely on Joel's back for instance is indication of that.
Although I'm apparently on the crazy side of Gaf, where I think The Last of Us actually has good, often great gameplay.
Lord of Ostia
Member
It shouldn't be necessary to read his book to get an explanation for an argument he makes in this article. The purpose of this article is to successfully argue the claim he makes at the beginning, and he fails to adequately do so in the article.
I have no interest in reading his books if this is the kind of mindset he has. It's reductive, dismissive, and he is unnecessarily insulting in it without justification.
Drillary Clinton
Banned
Gravity Rush 2 is not one of my favorite games of all time just because of the exhilarating gameplay, but because of the story and its characters.
Persona 5 is a very competent JRPG in regards to its gameplay, but the life-sim aspect and the story are what make it my second favorite game this year.
Spec Ops: The Line is a very solid third person shooter, but its story is what makes it a near masterpiece and one of the most underrated games of last gen.
Mafia III is a game with a beautifully designed open world filled with garbage, open world fodder progression and a very satisfying shooting mechanic. However, the world, story and characters keep it from being a mediocre game.
Sensing a pattern here? This is just some examples off the top of my head. I absolutely don't agree with this sentiment.
We can have one or the other or in rare cases, both.
Persona 5 is a very competent JRPG in regards to its gameplay, but the life-sim aspect and the story are what make it my second favorite game this year.
Spec Ops: The Line is a very solid third person shooter, but its story is what makes it a near masterpiece and one of the most underrated games of last gen.
Mafia III is a game with a beautifully designed open world filled with garbage, open world fodder progression and a very satisfying shooting mechanic. However, the world, story and characters keep it from being a mediocre game.
Sensing a pattern here? This is just some examples off the top of my head. I absolutely don't agree with this sentiment.
We can have one or the other or in rare cases, both.
Melchiah
Member
I mentioned SW specifically, because of the avatar of the one I quoted. If (s)he finds dystopia to be one of the dullest and least inspired genres out there, the same goes for the more light-hearted family friendly sci-fi, that SW represents, as far as I'm concerned.
TLOU and SH2 stand among the best story-driven experiences I've ever had in any medium.
Lord of Ostia
Member
Is it really necessary to compare TLOU to those films though? Just because those films are better at storytelling doesn't mean The Last of Us shouldn't have bothered with storytelling. The article is claiming that because video game stories have not been better than the best stories of other mediums, they shouldn't bother with storytelling.
There is nothing wrong with wanting storytelling in games to be better; there is something wrong with wanting games to abandon storytelling altogether.
Melchiah
Member
Good post.
Not to mention, that no other medium could tell a story like What Remains of Edith Finch did. So, why should we be without such experiences, that we aren't getting anywhere else?
cripterion
Member
Sounds like an excuse for games that do badly and have a shitty story behind haha.
Really enjoyed my time lately with Horizon Zero Dawn, Persona 5. Heavy story games.
On the contrary, FFXV was absolutely awful, and that was majorly due to the crap story slapped on this title .
Really enjoyed my time lately with Horizon Zero Dawn, Persona 5. Heavy story games.
On the contrary, FFXV was absolutely awful, and that was majorly due to the crap story slapped on this title .
TheRedSnifit
Member
He's correct that even the best video game stories really aren't very good.
Man, I love Mother 3 and Silent Hill 2. But the reality is that having the world's greatest video game is being like the world's tallest midget, or the world's greatest Spy main.
Man, I love Mother 3 and Silent Hill 2. But the reality is that having the world's greatest video game is being like the world's tallest midget, or the world's greatest Spy main.
timetokill
Banned
I think my entire post (as well as Bogost's article) went way over your head if that's what you got out of it. Come on.
It's a running theme in this thread.
His next sentence literally says it's nothing to be ashamed of. I guess it comes down to whether you think YA is, or CAN BE, the pinnacle of the written word. Personally, I love YA. But I wouldn't point to it and say, this, this is what literature can aspire to. This is the pinnacle of the medium.
Bogost is arguing, by contrast, that a YA level of storytelling IS the pinnacle of storytelling in videogames. That videogames have come up to the wall, and its best examples, the ones we point to, are mostly told via mediums co-opted into the game environment. Cutscenes/movies that we insert, or the spoken word (oral storytelling), etc.
Many in this thread seem to think Bogost is saying these games shouldn't be made. This is a fallacy borne out of defensiveness. Please, cite for me where he says these games should stop being made. Bogost isn't saying to stop making walking simulators any more than he's saying to stop writing YA fiction.
His article has his justification for his opinion laced throughout it. Unfortunately, since you disagree, you are blinded to it and therefore think the justification does not exist.
Believe whatever you want. I don't entirely share his opinions, but I do think they are justified and that he has an argument. If the best that you have is that he wrote "stifling drivel" and you feel it should be disregarded, please do us all a favor and remove yourself from a critical conversation the rest of us are trying to have.
I'd argue that we don't see that in book reviews because (1) the medium is well-established by our standards and (2) we recognize already that books are a stellar medium for storytelling.
As far as videogames go, (1) may come in time, but part of Bogost's argument is that videogames aren't exploring the medium as much as they're attempting to ape other mediums. And as far as (2) goes, I think it's clear that culturally we don't view videogames as one of the best places to find great stories.
Beyond that, we do argue constantly the merits of stories told in book form vs. movie form, of comic stories vs. their cinematic counterparts, etc. The method storytelling is inevitably DIFFERENT from medium to medium, and I think we can agree on that. If we can agree on that, however, we must accept that videogames therefore cannot tell stories in the same way as these mediums. And yet, that is mostly how videogames try to tell stories: through cutscenes, through comic inserts, through oral storytelling, through a picture.
Well, if we take Sid Meier's definition, you could say that a game is a series of interesting choices. It's critical to establish that a choice is not inherently interesting, however. The choice to stand still or walk forward in Dear Esther is not an interesting choice. It makes no comment on its story. I actually enjoy Dear Esther, for what it's worth, and I'm friends with its creators. I'm not in any way trying to disparage it. But its story is not really told through gameplay at all. It could arguably have been told just as well (or better!) by having the character automatically walk to the required places. But the strength of the game is in the feeling you get having that agency -- though again, that is still not storytelling. And so we get to your next segment.
I don't think I ever said abandon story telling though. In fact my long ass post says the opposite. But I do think The Last of Us being as cinematic as it is, and how passive some of it can be translates into me getting a lesser movie not so much as a game. It's less of an issue in TLOU though, but one I couldn't stand in UC4.
Way too many laid back, climbing sections, or crate on a wheel shit, or super scripted stuff like the gala where the game is trying to convey this level of tension of how the Drakes are working in plain sight, but as a player I'm going this is insultingly by the hand and doesn't even need me to or want me to participate.
Which I think Naughty Dog's games have a bad habit of.
More to it, I don't think there is anything wrong with someone who watches a lot of film or reads a lot of books, to then explain why they weren't all that impressed by the story and be as critical of Naughty Dog's story.
Melchiah
Member
I replied to a common misconception I spotted in there with an equally clever retort.
Ghostmaster
Member
He seems to underestimate the story elements woven into some of the highly praised gameplay elements that are part of the reason they are held in high regard.
People now joke about the "you see that mountain you can go there", but free exploration is one of the key elements which makes games stand out from books and movies.
The fact that you can see a fort or a smoke signal and go there and check it out works on both a gameplay and story level that is impossible to achieve in any other medium, for you are in other people's hands in books and movies most of the time.
You go to those places you saw in the corner of your eye to see if there is something interesting there, and that can be both a gameplay achievement or a story achievement. You may find loot there or an NPC you never saw before, a quest you had no idea was there, hell even finding loot can be a story achievement, because that might be the sword of the boss that killed you 20 times, 10 hours prior, and now thanks to you taking a chance of going to some random fort you might finally find out something more about him.
There is also the sense of immersion and atmosphere that is unqiue to games, because you can do it at your own pace, you want to spend an entire day going around villages in BOTW- you can; want to watch the sunset on a snowy mountain top- you can; sunrise in the desert- sure; and once again this works on both a story and gameplay level because it is fun to traverse the world and explore its crevices, but the longer you stay there and the more you see, the more engrossed you become in that place and the people and creatures that reside in it.
To this day no movie has ever rivalled the atmosphere of Bioshock for me. The art, the sound, the fact that you had to choose when to engage big daddies and that you had to decide when to move in on that gang of splicers that were just singing a lullaby to a dead baby all contributed to it.
People now joke about the "you see that mountain you can go there", but free exploration is one of the key elements which makes games stand out from books and movies.
The fact that you can see a fort or a smoke signal and go there and check it out works on both a gameplay and story level that is impossible to achieve in any other medium, for you are in other people's hands in books and movies most of the time.
You go to those places you saw in the corner of your eye to see if there is something interesting there, and that can be both a gameplay achievement or a story achievement. You may find loot there or an NPC you never saw before, a quest you had no idea was there, hell even finding loot can be a story achievement, because that might be the sword of the boss that killed you 20 times, 10 hours prior, and now thanks to you taking a chance of going to some random fort you might finally find out something more about him.
There is also the sense of immersion and atmosphere that is unqiue to games, because you can do it at your own pace, you want to spend an entire day going around villages in BOTW- you can; want to watch the sunset on a snowy mountain top- you can; sunrise in the desert- sure; and once again this works on both a story and gameplay level because it is fun to traverse the world and explore its crevices, but the longer you stay there and the more you see, the more engrossed you become in that place and the people and creatures that reside in it.
To this day no movie has ever rivalled the atmosphere of Bioshock for me. The art, the sound, the fact that you had to choose when to engage big daddies and that you had to decide when to move in on that gang of splicers that were just singing a lullaby to a dead baby all contributed to it.