Support NeoGAF

[AniHawk]

I would have loved to hear Ancel's take on this.

it's too bad he's dead.

 

[AniHawk]

there's a story a professor told me about one of his first days in graphic design class. the first assignment was to bring something to help explain something about themselves. it was him, about 20 other art majors, and an econ major. over the next week, he made this badass image with all his favorite things on it. he was proud of it too (he considered himself a good artist).

so everyone puts up their images. everyone had done something like he had except for the econ major. instead, she took a push pin and put her varsity swim team goggles on the wall. the art majors kinda snickered at the thought. she either didn't get the assignment, or she wasn't capable of pulling it off.

so his professor goes around the room, asking people to explain their works. when it got to him, his professor asked the same question. he told her that the image had a surfboard because he liked surfing, a smiley face because he was usually a pretty happy guy, and a bunch of other things that were on the page. she thanked him for explaining it and moved on.

then she finally got to the end of the wall, looked at the goggles, and turned to the econ major.

'so you're on the swim team?'
'yeah'
'varsity, huh?'
'yeah'

and that's all the professor had to say. the goggles told her everything she needed to know. the econ major, who was only taking the class for the art credit, had understood the problem assigned better than any of the art majors- because design isn't art. it's about finding the right answer to solve the problem. and if you think design is art, you'll find yourself needing to explain yourself when your work should speak for itself.

now that's not to say something that's designed can't have artful things about it, but i think approaching video games as a medium for storytelling first is an inherently wrong way to go about it.

 

[kinoki]

And only one person of the bunch "gets it".

I don't think storytelling in video games has matured so much in the last decade. Currently there are two techniques of storytelling. The first is to communicate story to the audience in an organic way (text -> voice -> visual information such as acting). The second is to restrict the amount of information you provide to the audience like Japanese Haiku, and leave the rest to the audience's imagination. Both of these techniques were used in ICO and Shadow of the Colossus that I produced.

The story structure of a game is more like a poem than a book or movie. A book or a movie that conveys a story must be structured in a certain way. Poems and games have an interactivity quality that is lacking in movies and books. So, either you use one or you use the other. No real maturity here. It's just become a bit more seamless with modern technology. I like both of them and they complement eachother really well.

Also, I don't think Valve pioneers the way in storytelling in games. The only two games I think actually do are ICO and SotC since the producer actually spent some time trying to understand the medium.

 

[Night_Trekker]

I think this feature would be a lot more interesting if they interviewed a wider range of developer types. An indie developer is likely to have different opinions than a big name, blockbuster-creating developer. Dave Grossman's assertion that storytelling in games is harder because games also have to be "fun" is a good example of what I'm talking about. I've played plenty of games that weren't traditionally "fun." Entertaining? Sure, but not "fun." But a bigger developer has no choice but to deliver a fun romp if they want to sell to enough gamers to make a healthy profit and stay in the business. Anyway...

I wouldn't have believed it, but David fucking Cage and Ueda (okay, I might have believed that) are two of the only people responding to the first question with anything worth reading.

Right off I see one of the most infuriatingly wrong opinions (yes, they can be wrong) either stated or implied from a majority of the developers interviewed, the same opinion I see expressed all the time on these forums: "passive cutscenes are the enemy." "Passive cutscenes are ideally to be avoided." "Passive cutscenes are by their nature an inferior choice to interactive cutscenes." No. No no no no no.

But yes, a lot of gamers (maybe even a majority) would say! Games are a new, interactive medium. Interactivity is what makes games unique. Therefore, it's hard to deny that non-interactive cutscenes are "lazy" storytelling devices by developers trying to make movies, right? Why would you emulate another medium instead of pressing forward by utilizing the unique strengths of this new kind of interactive medium?

Because cinema does not in any sense own the experience of passively watching something play out. True, the first thing we thought of when we saw our first cutscene was probably "This is just like a movie!" But that does not mean a game using a cutscene is making a mistake and trying to ape cinema. What can a cutscene accomplish with strict control of camera angle and perspective, movement, blocking, etc. that an interactive cutscene can't? It depends on what you're trying to do, but I would argue "a lot."

Sometimes when you're telling a story, it benefits you to have very strict authorial control of what the audience sees/knows/experiences/whatever, and a cutscene can allow that. This is not "cheating." Such an position is based on the fallacious and absurd assumption that interactivity makes everything better. (Well, maybe if you're trying to keep the interest of someone who wants frenetic gameplay as often as possible, but why would you try to tell a story to someone like that anyway? They want something very narrow from their games and they will at most tolerate anything else.) I could discuss for hours moments in games I have experienced that just wouldn't have had the same impact had they not taken total control away from me. (And there are many example of the polar opposite, too: sometimes making the player watch instead of play is a mistake.)

Cutscenes are a storytelling tool, no more and no less. Like any tool, they should be used in the most effective manner to tell the story you want to tell and deliver the experience you want to deliver. Sometimes keeping things interactive will be a better choice and sometimes it's better to go for passive cutscenes.

But, once again, the big issue here is that big developers (hell, most developers) are trying to craft fun experiences (which are similar to earlier fun experiences) in order to entertain a large number of people... and they're trying to shoehorn storytelling into that after the fact. In other words, narrative in service of gameplay, not the other way around. Big surprise that that doesn't often turn into gold. (Though I think it sometimes has resulted in great games with great stories.)

And while I appreciate Ueda's input, he's wrong that video games aren't a suitable storytelling medium. If you're talking about mass market games, then no, they're not always suitable for telling the same kind of linear narratives we assume "stories" have to be, but that doesn't mean they're not worthwhile for telling stories at all. Developers just have to figure out what it means to tell a story in this new medium. In fact, I think they have to reevaluate what a "video game" has to be.

now that's not to say something that's designed can't have artful things about it, but i think approaching video games as a medium for storytelling first is an inherently wrong way to go about it.

Only if you assume a game has to be one of many things we assume, for no real reason, that they must be to qualify as a "video game." And only if you assume the story told has to be a traditional linear narrative.

Also, I don't think Valve pioneers the way in storytelling in games. The only two games I think actually do are ICO and SotC since the producer actually spent some time trying to understand the medium.

That is quite a claim. I could point out several games that indicate the developers have thought deeply about the medium. Ueda is one of those developers, I think, but he's not the only one, and I'm not even sure he's the best example I could come up with.

 

[Mortrialus]

And only one person of the bunch "gets it".



The story structure of a game is more like a poem than a book or movie. A book or a movie that conveys a story must be structured in a certain way. Poems and games have an interactivity quality that is lacking in movies and books. So, either you use one or you use the other. No real maturity here. It's just become a bit more seamless with modern technology. I like both of them and they complement eachother really well.

Also, I don't think Valve pioneers the way in storytelling in games. The only two games I think actually do are ICO and SotC since the producer actually spent some time trying to understand the medium.

Books, I agree. Performance arts like movies and theaters are interactive in a very similar way as video games. As I mentioned before, video games have always felt like movie or theater except where the player is simultaneously the lead actor and the audience. Think about a screenplay for a movie or play. The person who wrote it doesn't have authoritative control. The actors are interacting with the movie or play and it will change depending on what actor they have playing. Heck, the actors will not always give the same performance on any take. Ever.

 

[WrikaWrek]

Ugh, didn't start hearing that term till this gen and that's when I knew...movies were starting to influence games to a dangerous level

Well unless you only subscribe to "emergent gameplay", and feel an irresistible urge to control everything about a videogame as if it was real, then i don't understand the "fear".

 

[HK-47]

I will have your babbies, Night Trekker

 

[kinoki]

Books, I agree. Performance arts like movies and theaters are interactive in a very similar way as video games. As I mentioned before, video games have always felt like movie or theater except where the player is simultaneously the lead actor and the audience. Think about a screenplay for a movie or play. The person who wrote it doesn't have authoritative control. The actors are interacting with the movie or play and it will change depending on what actor they have playing. Heck, the actors will not always give the same performance on any take. Ever.

You misunderstand me. Movies and books are set in print. You can't change the outcome after it goes to the store. A poem is interactive in that it requires something of the participant, the same way a game does.

That is quite a claim. I could point out several games that indicate the developers have thought deeply about the medium. Ueda is one of those developers, I think, but he's not the only one, and I'm not even sure he's the best example I could come up with.

I may have exaggerated a bit. Ofcourse there are other games that manage to tell a story through both these methods. Silent Hill 2, Flower, BioShock and REZ are some examples of this.

 

[etiolate]

Trekker

Cutscenes are a storytelling tool, no more and no less. Like any tool, they should be used in the most effective manner to tell the story you want to tell and deliver the experience you want to deliver. Sometimes keeping things interactive will be a better choice and sometimes it's better to go for passive cut-scenes.

But what happens to a passive viewing experience when it is surrounded by interactive events? Can a cut-scene be used properly and not seem weaker by comparison to actually doing? Can it be used and not jar the player out of their fiction?

Also, maybe we should clarify what we mean by cut-scenes. Some games will take over control of their character or the character's viewpoint for a story purpose, but I have not considered those cut-scenes.

 

[Fimbulvetr]

well, yeah, as a fish-out-of-water character he makes the other characters elucidate. standard technique.

But the game never bothers to really explain things until later, through massive info dumps via Lucy.

And other times characters tend to explain things Desmond doesn't care about or need to know about anyway.

This speaks for itself.

The act of killing and shooting things appeals to a small market; namely angry young men. Why can't we have other means of resolving conflict? Phoenix Wright games are not adversely affected by the lack of guns and combat! Give me more of that, please.

That still doesn't explain why violence is suddenly an inherent flaw in storytelling.

This seems to be the most controversial point, but I don't understand why.

The video game industry is obsessively concerned with technology and its application to playing games (graphics, polygons, frame-rates, 200-button controllers). If we are serious about improving the narrative in our games, then we need to concentrate on creating a narrative as the core of our products and applying the technology to realise that creative vision.

Yes, we are playing games, and gameplay is king, but when was the last time you played a game that seemed to be crafted around its story? Instead, games seem to be crafted around the gameplay mechanics, which limits the creative expression of the storyteller. Games seem to have storyline elements shoehorned into the plot to justify the "cool" tech that the developer has created.

I want to be compelled to continue the game by its interesting story, not just because I might get a bigger kill-stick just around the corner. I can honestly say that I have never sympathised with a game protagonist (good or bad) in my life. Their fate has never concerned me at all. On the other hand, I can say that I have sympathised very closely with countless movie, television and literary characters.

Why? Because at their core, films, television and books are not about the technology, but they are about the characters and their individual stories.

I could also talk ad nauseum about how it is stupid that every game seems to reinvent the mechanics of the gameplay, but that is another issue entirely.

One word: Limitation

Your idea is exactly as flawed as what you're complaining about because it sees gameplay, story, graphics, etc. as completely separate elements, as opposed to parts of a whole that both limit and build upon each other.

At some point of the development process, no matter what is made first, it's going to have to change once the other elements start to get developed.

Take, for example, Vagrant Story:

The game was originally planed as a party based RPG with an optional co-op mode.

Eventually the devs realized they wouldn't be able to implement a party system into the game, so it became a single character dungeon crawler. The main character no longer had allies to depend on, he would have to be written as someone who was completely self-sufficient to justify his survival during the game's events.

At the same time, his character development would have to be focused more on introspection, because he has nobody to talk with to fuel or have input on his development. The story's themes would also have to be either completely changed or portrayed in different ways to account for their new lone wolf of a protagonist.

The would-be allies of the protagonist would now need to be completely removed from the story or have their roles altered.

Dialogue would have to be rewritten for obvious reasons.

Notice how that one change to gameplay has already caused major alterations to the script?

 

[Night_Trekker]

But what happens to a passive viewing experience when it is surrounded by interactive events? Can a cut-scene be used properly and not seem weaker by comparison to actually doing? Can it be used and not jar the player out of their fiction?

Good question. Again, I think the mindset that a passive experience is necessarily weaker than an interactive experience is mostly the product of a particular mindset, one that assumes that interactivity is "the point" of games and that it should always be present if possible. I think that's not necessarily true, even though most gamers expect and want constant actions from their games. But most gamers don't play games to have a story told to them, either. They might expect one in this day and age, but they primarily want to have fun, and to them a story should always be in service to gameplay.

But anyway, I think it's situational. I think in some games (we could discuss the reasons why and list examples forever) passive cutscenes are more intrusive than in others. Cutscenes are not always a good idea. We've all played games that needlessly break the gameplay up with cutscenes that seem to exist for no reason at all.

And as for the jarring change, sometimes I think that's the entire point.

I've used this example before, but it's fitting: the Encounter chapter of killer7 opens with a video of Curtis Blackburn casually executing several strangers... from a similar first-person perspective to the one the player uses when shooting at the Heaven Smiles. The juxtaposition is striking, and it wouldn't be if you had any control over what was happening. Instead of thoughtlessly gunning down targets which are presented to us (which, let's face it, we very well might do if we decided, "the game isn't going to continue unless I do this"), we watch in horror, and the camera doesn't turn away. We've just met Curtis Blackburn and we already detest him, maybe even fear him.

Grasshopper wouldn't have gotten that particular effect without taking control away from the player. (And in fact, you can make a case for "the illusion of control" as one of many themes the game explores.) I think that example alone is enough reason to wave off detractors of passive cutscenes.

But what happens when players get bored with cutscenes they don't control? Gamers have been conditioned to expect narrative in service of gameplay. I think there's real value in exploring gameplay in service of a narrative, even though I doubt a mainstream audience will be interested in that (at least at first). I'm sure many gamers just want their familiar game designs and don't care for the rest, but I think if any degree of interactivity can change a storytelling experience, we should study that and experiment with it.

Also, maybe we should clarify what we mean by cut-scenes. Some games will take over control of their character or the character's viewpoint for a story purpose, but I have not considered those cut-scenes.

Well I guess that isn't technically a "cutscene," but it is taking control away from the player to further the story, so it amounts to the same thing (and I'm sure it similarly pisses some gamers off). The line is blurry to be sure, which is part of what makes this all so fascinating to me.

This reminds me of something that happens at the end of Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory. The gameplay seamlessly transfers to a in-engine "cutscene" that is not player-controlled... aside from the camera, which functions just like the gameplay camera. I have a lot of problems with the narrative fuck-ups of the SC series, but I thought that was one of the most brilliant moments I had ever seen in game-specific storytelling.

That still doesn't explain why violence is suddenly an inherent flaw in storytelling.

It isn't necessarily an inherent flaw, but it is polarizing. It will turn off a large portion of possible players from trying your product, it risks boring players who are already inundated with video game violence in everything else they play, and it does suggest the adolescent male power fantasy which is at the root of many video games.* And it can also really strain your suspension of disbelief at times, which is bad for storytelling purposes.

*(That's not to say violence is really a "male" thing, but individual peoples' attitudes towards violence in media are informed and affected by social attitudes, and women and grown men are "not supposed" to revel in violence, society tells us.)

 

[choodi]

That still doesn't explain why violence is suddenly an inherent flaw in storytelling.

I dont want to only focus on this point, because you have got some really good points that I would like to address further, but I am on my phone so just a quick note.

Violence is not in itself a flaw and has been used to drive some of the best stories in human history, but when it is the only motivation for 99% of the medium, then it does become a significant flaw.

 

[HamPster PamPster]

Why do all these developers hate cutscenes? So sad Not that every game needs them but to see nearly an entire industry dismiss them really limits what could be done. Someone must have been the opinion leader on this! I demand to know who!

Anyway I'm probably biased since I still have pleasant memories of games like the PS1 era Final Fantasies. You know I'm sure Story-Gaf would tear apart something like FF9 but one thing those games got right was making the story feel rewarding. You get out of the woods and watching Atmos destroy that city as Dagger collapses in that field was far better than any new loot, spells or levels.

I haven't felt that way about a game in a long time. Maybe it was the unique combination of CG being so far ahead of early 3D that made it special but whatever it was I'd like to feel that way again.


The article really could use more faces. Wheres the guy that created Love? I loved him on 1up Yours when they discussed stories in games. You could almost see him blowing John's mind with that Super Mario Bros comment.

 

[beastmode]

But, once again, the big issue here is that big developers (hell, most developers) are trying to craft fun experiences (which are similar to earlier fun experiences) in order to entertain a large number of people... and they're trying to shoehorn storytelling into that after the fact. In other words, narrative in service of gameplay, not the other way around. Big surprise that that doesn't often turn into gold. (Though I think it sometimes has resulted in great games with great stories.)

Team Fortress 2 and Portal are genius because their characters, setting, and story are a perfect match for the gameplay (and in TF2's case, the community experience that develops around a multiplayer game.) I think it's a huge mistake to design your game the other way around, like a Read Dead Redemption or Grand Theft Auto IV, where the player is going to be noticing all the problems in the execution of the open world inherent to the type of stories they want to tell with today's technology.

 

[NotTheGuyYouKill]

Why do all these developers hate cutscenes? So sad Not that every game needs them but to see nearly an entire industry dismiss them really limits what could be done. Someone must have been the opinion leader on this! I demand to know who!

Dunno, but I like cutscenes... well, well-done cutscenes. As long as it's not KZ3 levels of intrusive or MGS4 length... more like Uncharted.

 

[timetokill]

Why do all these developers hate cutscenes? So sad Not that every game needs them but to see nearly an entire industry dismiss them really limits what could be done. Someone must have been the opinion leader on this! I demand to know who!

If you ask me, cutscenes represent a failure on the part of the developer. It's better to let the player do rather than to make the player watch.

But CG cutscenes are the worst of them all. At any rate, it just seems backwards to have a non-interactive video be the "reward" for the gameplay. I'd rather the act of playing the game and the play scenarios that arise out of that be its own reward.

 

[Boss Doggie]

Eh, I don't really call it a masterful storytelling if it all revolves around a villain sue/boring invincible villain, as Valve does it (though I commend them for

Spoiler

making Chel escape the facility with GlaDOS actually letting here escape

).

 

[King of the Potato People]

I don't want storytelling to advance if it's going to take hundreds of big-budget failures.

 

[Fimbulvetr]

I don't want storytelling to advance if it's going to take hundreds of big-budget failures.

What makes you think massive budgets are needed to advance stories in videogames?

 

[tiff]

What makes you think massive budgets are needed to advance stories in videogames?

If anything it'll be smaller budget games that would be more willing to take risks, generally.

 

[Fimbulvetr]

If you ask me, cutscenes represent a failure on the part of the developer. It's better to let the player do rather than to make the player watch.

Doing is not always possible due to basic limitation in control and gameplay (not unless you want QTEs for every thing up to and including exposition).

Also some ideas are too complex to portray through action alone.

 

[beastmode]

Also some ideas are too complex to portray through action alone.

Then don't portray them.

 

[timetokill]

Doing is not always possible due to basic limitation in control and gameplay (not unless you want QTEs for every thing up to and including exposition).

Also some ideas are too complex to portray through action alone.

Eh, I think QTEs are often a failure, too. They're often used extremely poorly.

What was great about a game like Shadow of the Colossus is it took something that a lot of games would make into a cutscene (climbing atop various giant monsters) and made it part of the gameplay.

The point is, it sucks when you're playing a game and the coolest stuff your character does is completely out of your control because it's in a cutscene.

I don't mind cutscenes much at the beginning/end of things, as setting or whatever. But I think that game designers should be thinking of new, interactive ways to convey ideas rather than aping cinema. Cinema had to start somewhere too, and so did photography. Let games develop their own language.

 

[Fimbulvetr]

Then don't portray them.

So you either want to limit the type of stories that can be told or any gameplay system that does not eliminate cutscenes as a device?

Good luck with that.

Eh, I think QTEs are often a failure, too. They're often used extremely poorly.

What was great about a game like Shadow of the Colossus is it took something that a lot of games would make into a cutscene (climbing atop various giant monsters) and made it part of the gameplay.

The point is, it sucks when you're playing a game and the coolest stuff your character does is completely out of your control because it's in a cutscene.

I don't mind cutscenes much at the beginning/end of things, as setting or whatever. But I think that game designers should be thinking of new, interactive ways to convey ideas rather than aping cinema. Cinema had to start somewhere too, and so did photography. Let games develop their own language.

Cutscenes exist as more than excuses to have choreographed action scenes, you know that right?

Why do you think I mentioned exposition?

Also, by your logic movies should portray every facet of their story through visuals. No dialogue, that shit is for books.

 

[zoukka]

Also, by your logic movies should portray every facet of their story through visuals. No dialogue, that shit is for books.

Soundbooks?

 

[HK-47]

Eh, I think QTEs are often a failure, too. They're often used extremely poorly.

What was great about a game like Shadow of the Colossus is it took something that a lot of games would make into a cutscene (climbing atop various giant monsters) and made it part of the gameplay.

The point is, it sucks when you're playing a game and the coolest stuff your character does is completely out of your control because it's in a cutscene.

I don't mind cutscenes much at the beginning/end of things, as setting or whatever. But I think that game designers should be thinking of new, interactive ways to convey ideas rather than aping cinema. Cinema had to start somewhere too, and so did photography. Let games develop their own language.

Yeah cinema started by aping photography and theater...and still does in many ways.

 

[HK-47]

Eh, I don't really call it a masterful storytelling if it all revolves around a villain sue/boring invincible villain, as Valve does it (though I commend them for

Spoiler

making Chel escape the facility with GlaDOS actually letting here escape

).

Tropes Are Not Bad. If GlaDOS is a villian sue, I'll take some more villian sues.

 

[zoukka]

Cut-scenes are needed in some Hollywood storytelling derived genres. It's not that these non-interactive scenes are absolute evil, because they are needed for character/world exposure for the type of gamer who consumes similar stuff in other medias.

Not many are invested enough in a game to find out clues and tomes about the world.

Once videogames achieve certain quality in writing/directing, the cut-scenes will get more tolerable.

 

[AniHawk]

Once videogames achieve certain quality in writing/directing, the cut-scenes will get more tolerable.

let's just hope and pray scientists make some serious advances in skip button technology then.

 

[zoukka]

let's just hope and pray scientists make some serious advances in skip button technology then.

A few sacrificial gamers are needed for the rest of us to advance I'm afraid.

 

[bjaelke]

Storytelling in Games: Part 2 - Players and Challenges

 

[AniHawk]

Storytelling in Games: Part 2 - Players and Challenges

Game design teams and story design teams are gradually figuring out how to work together much more closely. At Ubisoft, we're taking significant steps toward this. I think Assassin's Creed II is a good example, but there's still a lot of work to do.

the assassin's creed ii that had a four-fucking-hour long tutorial because someone decided it was relevant information that desmond knew of ezio's past as a troublemaker on the streets instead of starting him at ezio's assassin training? that's a good example?

 

[zoukka]

Well it's a dev talking about their own game so...

 

[AniHawk]

and it's already sold a bajillion copies. he can go ahead and admit it was an example of what not to do.

edit: also, i think i may be in love with fumito ueda.

 

[Mael]

there's a story a professor told me about one of his first days in graphic design class. the first assignment was to bring something to help explain something about themselves. it was him, about 20 other art majors, and an econ major. over the next week, he made this badass image with all his favorite things on it. he was proud of it too (he considered himself a good artist).

so everyone puts up their images. everyone had done something like he had except for the econ major. instead, she took a push pin and put her varsity swim team goggles on the wall. the art majors kinda snickered at the thought. she either didn't get the assignment, or she wasn't capable of pulling it off.

so his professor goes around the room, asking people to explain their works. when it got to him, his professor asked the same question. he told her that the image had a surfboard because he liked surfing, a smiley face because he was usually a pretty happy guy, and a bunch of other things that were on the page. she thanked him for explaining it and moved on.

then she finally got to the end of the wall, looked at the goggles, and turned to the econ major.

'so you're on the swim team?'
'yeah'
'varsity, huh?'
'yeah'

and that's all the professor had to say. the goggles told her everything she needed to know. the econ major, who was only taking the class for the art credit, had understood the problem assigned better than any of the art majors- because design isn't art. it's about finding the right answer to solve the problem. and if you think design is art, you'll find yourself needing to explain yourself when your work should speak for itself.

now that's not to say something that's designed can't have artful things about it, but i think approaching video games as a medium for storytelling first is an inherently wrong way to go about it.

/thread?

 

[LEGGZZZZ]

there's a story a professor told me about one of his first days in graphic design class. the first assignment was to bring something to help explain something about themselves. it was him, about 20 other art majors, and an econ major. over the next week, he made this badass image with all his favorite things on it. he was proud of it too (he considered himself a good artist).

so everyone puts up their images. everyone had done something like he had except for the econ major. instead, she took a push pin and put her varsity swim team goggles on the wall. the art majors kinda snickered at the thought. she either didn't get the assignment, or she wasn't capable of pulling it off.

so his professor goes around the room, asking people to explain their works. when it got to him, his professor asked the same question. he told her that the image had a surfboard because he liked surfing, a smiley face because he was usually a pretty happy guy, and a bunch of other things that were on the page. she thanked him for explaining it and moved on.

then she finally got to the end of the wall, looked at the goggles, and turned to the econ major.

'so you're on the swim team?'
'yeah'
'varsity, huh?'
'yeah'

and that's all the professor had to say. the goggles told her everything she needed to know. the econ major, who was only taking the class for the art credit, had understood the problem assigned better than any of the art majors- because design isn't art. it's about finding the right answer to solve the problem. and if you think design is art, you'll find yourself needing to explain yourself when your work should speak for itself.

now that's not to say something that's designed can't have artful things about it, but i think approaching video games as a medium for storytelling first is an inherently wrong way to go about it.

Great post (I'm a Graphic Design student myself).

 

[Fimbulvetr]

Color me surprised, they actually mentioned ludo-narrative dissonance in one of their subjects.

and it's already sold a bajillion copies. he can go ahead and admit it was an example of what not to do.

But then they won't be on the list of interactive story pioneers.

edit: also, i think i may be in love with fumito ueda.

I saw him first, tramp.

 

[Radogol]

/thread?

Of course not, because the point of a forum is to present different viewpoints that don't have to be mutually exclusive. Although personally, I share AniHawk's approach.

 

[AniHawk]

I saw him first, tramp.

i'm fine with it being unrequited.

 

[mescalineeyes]

People who think Silent Hill 2's combat isn't visceral enough are the reason we can't have nice things.

Also, everyone who bought Heavy Rain.

 

[HK-47]

So is this gonna become a full on ludology vs narratology debate?

Keep in mind that as an audio visual medium, its inevitable that people will want to tell stories using it.

 

[AniHawk]

Also, everyone who bought Heavy Rain.

i'm sorry, i was expecting there would have been lessons learned.

THE OPENING PART OF INDIGO PROPHECY WAS NEAT!

 

[Boss Doggie]

If there's one thing games have over movies or books though, is that in a single package, you can pretty much develop everyone.

For instance, in Kung Fu Panda, the main character and those that revolved him are the only ones who developed. They had to release a supplementary Secrets of the Furious Five to show more about the side characters. For video games, you can pretty much have that info in the game as a sidequest or optional stuff. That way, they do not hinder much of the storytelling.

 

[HK-47]

If there's one thing games have over movies or books though, is that in a single package, you can pretty much develop everyone.

For instance, in Kung Fu Panda, the main character and those that revolved him are the only ones who developed. They had to release a supplementary Secrets of the Furious Five to show more about the side characters. For video games, you can pretty much have that info in the game as a sidequest or optional stuff. That way, they do not hinder much of the storytelling.

Umm books have that easier than anyone. Obviously games can develop more characters than movies, since they tend to be longer. There isnt really restriction on length save budget.

 

[Boss Doggie]

Yeah books can do that, but usually enough they end up feeling like filler, so they tend to be supplementaries.

 

[HK-47]

Yeah books can do that, but usually enough they end up feeling like filler, so they tend to be supplementaries.

Since books can focus on more detail, you often get a better picture of secondary characters. Or you can switch POV. Being in a character's head in a book is so far beyond the understanding any other medium can hope to impart about said person. You cant even know people in real life like that.

 

[Boss Doggie]

Since books can focus on more detail, you often get a better picture of secondary characters. Or you can switch POV. Being in a character's head in a book is so far beyond the understanding any other medium can hope to impart about said person. You cant even know people in real life like that.

Yeah, but usually requires being well-written. Still, I see your point.

 

[Mael]

Of course not, because the point of a forum is to present different viewpoints that don't have to be mutually exclusive. Although personally, I share AniHawk's approach.

Well yeah but seriously people (mostly devs though) tend to forget that when playing games what's incredibly important is design.

If the design sucks the whole point is lost, even people who excell at this tend to not be conscious on that even.
I mean we had an interview of Miyamoto, the guy who designed Mario from a functionnal point all theses years ago, that went into making Mario 64 a game where the enjoyment was to control Mario.
I mean it's like he wasn't even aware why people played the Mario games or what?

 

[krzy123]

While Dead Space didn't have the most original story, I liked the way it unfolded using the text/video/audio logs, especially using the HUD to view the items. While there were bits that yanked control away, they were not too many or were pretty short. Kept it nice and clean.

 

[beastmode]

So you either want to limit the type of stories that can be told or any gameplay system that does not eliminate cutscenes as a device?

Good luck with that.

Yes, I want to be an actor while playing a game, not a spectator.

Cutscenes exist as more than excuses to have choreographed action scenes, you know that right?

Why do you think I mentioned exposition?

This assumes games need exposition, and even if a game does, it can do it in other ways than cutscenes (e.g. another character in the world, by radio (Cortana & Codec calls.)

Also, by your logic movies should portray every facet of their story through visuals. No dialogue, that shit is for books.

Depends on what you see movies as, I see them as a way of capturing real life, so the only big complaint about the medium I have is music, I don't want to be hearing a score. So yeah, <3 The Wire.