Support NeoGAF

[KingK]

I think there's ample room in the market for more high score/competitive driven gameplay experiences and narrative driven gameplay experiences. It always baffles me when people seem to be upset that there's a variety in games. I would probably stop gaming (or at least game a lot less) if all games were about scores/competition with minimal narrative.

He is not saying that games shouldn't have narrative, only that the narrative should not get in the way of the gameplay. Deus Ex was used as an example because control was rarely taken away from the player to maintain the narrative drive of the game.

I haven't played Deus Ex, but if it's anything like the way Half-Life 2 handles its narrative progression, I would much prefer just straight up cutscenes. I hated all of the "cutscenes" in games like HL2 where it gave you an illusion of freedom and control by letting you jump around and shoot the walls like a dumbass while the scene is happening.

I prefer the way the storytelling is handled in something like Uncharted, where there is often meaningful dialogue between characters happening while you're actually progressing through a level/shooting some folks, and then more pivotal story events are just handled with well done cutscenes.

I guess what I'm saying is I'd rather actually have control taken away from me momentarily to deliver a cutscene, than to keep me in control while gaining nothing of significance in gameplay and weakening the delivery of the story.

 

[trimon]

I love Resident Evil: Outbreak because you could create a really good story playing and interacting with other people online in a campaign. There were a lot of funny moments and even tragic moments that made feel all kinds of emotions like loneliness, terror, and a sense camaraderie.

 

[sonicmj1]

Im glad you beat me to the punch on the subject of God of War. Maybe he's just had a change of heart since he left the series in other hands?

Jaffe has had a change of heart about story in games, considering his project post God of War was also heavily narrative-focused. It was quite literally attempting all the things he's saying now are bad.

I've enjoyed my share of game narratives, but I still largely agree with what he's saying, and I think his "Saving Private Ryan" example illustrates it well. As a directed experience, you get one kind of emotion, but as gameplay (in, say, Medal of Honor) it's a different thing, a frantic fight to accomplish basic goals of survival. The player is concerned with the goals of the game, not the brutal reality of war.

That's generally how things work. We worry ourselves with gameplay, and only after that can we really think about the story. When the directed narrative is at odds with what we want to do, we're more liable to get frustrated than get engaged.

That isn't to say there's no place for story in games. Context is a wonderful thing. And I think that stories that act in concert with the player's gameplay desires yield some pretty impressive results, even in a linear context. Ico may not make Jaffe as sentimental as that cookie commercial, but the story works with the gameplay, and it makes each stronger. I might go farther and say that as long as the narrative action is driven by what the player does in the game, then a story can complement gameplay well. Otherwise, each sort of works against each other, like chocolate and tuna.

I have liked games that are not quite like that, and I think there's room for all sorts of stories in games. But it's true that games just aren't really well-suited to being heavily story driven, and I don't think making games more story driven is a very effective use of time and budget.

 

[Teknoman]

I always wondered what the story of Bonk was all about.

The amazing adventures of a boulder head kid, attempting to disrupt the activities of a tyrannical reptilian-overlord.

 

[HK-47]

Stories are hard guys =(((

 

[ElRenoRaven]

You know. I just happened to be listening to his PAX speech too and he has a section that is a lot like this speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i060D2MzjSU

I'd suggest watching it if you want to hear some of his other thoughts cause he again talks about how classic gameplay travels as he put it. The truly great games one of the first things you think of is gameplay.

 

[Anth0ny]

Sonic 3&K is still my favorite example, as the variety of environment changes and visual progression going from level to level, punctuated by short and effective transitions, makes for a fluid, replayable, and surprisingly-cinematic experience.

They laughed at me when I said Sonic 3K had the best cutscenes ever.

Voice acting? Long, drawn out dialogue? Orchestrated music? It's nice, sometimes. But is it necessary? Hell no!

 

[injurai]

David Jaffe on What is wrong with MGS4...

 

[Teknoman]

They laughed at me when I said Sonic 3K had the best cutscenes ever.

Voice acting? Long, drawn out dialogue? Orchestrated music? It's nice, sometimes. But is it necessary? Hell no!

Exactly. If the story in the game is simple enough to be conveyed in small scenes like that, then do so. Dont try to make the game into something it isnt.

 

[GreggTheGrimReaper]

The amazing adventures of a boulder head kid, attempting to disrupt the activities of a tyrannical reptilian-overlord.

That's what I figured. Basically a prime example for a game that doesn't need a deep emotional and/or "epic" story to be awesome!

 

[dark10x]

I STRONGLY disagree with him and feel that there is more than enough room for all sorts of games. Interesting regardless.

 

[Cartman86]

As I others have mentioned he is right. He's not saying you can't have a story. He's saying that it should compliment your gameplay because you're making a game first and foremost. Instead some developers will focus on telling the story instead of making a game that is fun to play. If they want to tell the story at the expensive of gameplay then why not make a fucking movie? It's a point I've asked many times with some of these games.

Because you can't interact with a movie? Because a game might play to a creators strengths? Look I think there are plenty of mainstream examples of game stories that just don't work, but why put this limit on what a video game can be? This argument is as old as time. Some people like narration in film while others think it's a waste of the medium that should remain in books. This whole argument is tied up with what a game is anyways. At what level of interactivity do you make a "good" game? I love the Ace Attorney series and most of those games are talking. The act of investigating (no matter how primitive) over the course of 14 hours is quite different then watching a private dick solve a murder in a 2 hour film. Games like Flower have no obvious goals or game mechanics, but could you make that experience with a book or film? Stories in games like Flower are of course different than the ones you find in Uncharted, but I think these arguments are all tied together.

 

[Red]

As I others have mentioned he is right. He's not saying you can't have a story. He's saying that it should compliment your gameplay because you're making a game first and foremost. Instead some developers will focus on telling the story instead of making a game that is fun to play. If they want to tell the story at the expensive of gameplay then why not make a fucking movie? It's a point I've asked many times with some of these games.

It is an important point. "Story" in games is fluff. It's dressing. It can be good, and it can complement the content, but it should never ever be central.

I think the saying "form follows function" is applicable here. If you want to tell a story, tell it in a way that is conducive to storytelling.

Much of the book A Theory of Fun for Game Design is based around this concept.

 

[Rabbi_Vole]

Sounds like Jaffe is aligning himself with Nintendo...

 

[Teknoman]

That's what I figured. Basically a prime example for a game that doesn't need a deep emotional and/or "epic" story to be awesome!

Yeah, i'm all for games being "epic" when they need to be ( Darksiders series for example), but when someone tries to do something like say... Sonic 2006?

Lets just say Super Mario Galaxy is about as epic as a platformer should get. Kirby's return to dreamland shoot em up scenes/areas as a second.

 

[HK-47]

It is an important point. "Story" in games is fluff. It's dressing. It can be good, and it can complement the content, but it should never ever be central.

I think the saying "form follows function" is applicable here. If you want to tell a story, tell it in a way that is conducive to storytelling.

I've played games with mediocre gameplay but great story, atmosphere, dialogue, whatever and loved them. Some of my favorite games of all time are these.

 

[we.are.the.armada]

He's making the argument for player authored experience over story telling; the former being the best way to present the fiction of the game in my opinion and I agree with him wholeheartedly.

But, I feel that this is the best way to achieve satisfaction at the lowest common denominator with the demographic. Some gamers want to be told a convoluted story and also feel as if they can control, to a degree, the character and the many ways in which interactions present connections to the gamer. Persona 4 does this is and is possibly the greatest fucking JRPG ever made.

EDIT: Bah, I'll save my Vampire: The Masquerade argument for the latter for another time.

 

[Red]

I've played games with mediocre gameplay but great story, atmosphere, dialogue, whatever and loved them. Some of my favorite games of all time are these.

I don't care and still disagree.

 

[Net_Wrecker]

People keep bringing up God of War, but that, along with Resident Evil 4, were 2 of the biggest advocates of "DO STUFF IN-GAMEPLAY" on consoles at the time. Just because the game had a narrative, let's not act like Jaffe hasn't been pushing gameplay first for a long time.

 

[HK-47]

I don't care and still disagree.

Deal with it then. Like Tetris and SMB are going anywhere.

 

[Red]

Deal with it then. Like Tetris and SMB are going anywhere.

Tell that to my jack d's

 

[sonicmj1]

Because you can't interact with a movie? Because a game might play to a creators strengths? Look I think there are plenty of mainstream examples of game stories that just don't work, but why put this limit on what a video game can be? This argument is as old as time. Some people like narration in film while others think it's a waste of the medium. This whole argument is tied up with what a game is anyways. At what level of interactivity do you make a "good" game? I love the Ace Attorney series and most of those games are talking. The act of investigating (no matter how primitive) over the course of 14 hours is quite different then watching a private dick solve a murder in a 2 hour film. Flower has no obvious goals, but could you make that experience with a book or film?

But would you say that the dialogue in Phoenix Wright is the same thing as (to borrow the example he uses) the start of Arkham City where you're strapped in and can't do anything but look around?

I don't think it's the same. In Phoenix Wright, the game establishes the player as a lawyer and (for some reason) investigator. Looking around, talking to people, and winning arguments is what you do. All the dialogue is in service to that. This is generally true for adventure games.

In Batman, you are Batman, a man who beats the crap out of people and lurks on rooftops. You expect to go around and solve problems with your fists or your gadgets. You don't play Batman to listen to exposition.

Naturally, game creators can do whatever the hell they want, and if people like it, they like it. But I think some practices play to the medium's strengths more than others, which can detract from the player's experience.

 

[HK-47]

But would you say that the dialogue in Phoenix Wright is the same thing as (to borrow the example he uses) the start of Arkham City where you're strapped in and can't do anything but look around?

I don't think it's the same. In Phoenix Wright, the game establishes the player as a lawyer and (for some reason) investigator. Looking around, talking to people, and winning arguments is what you do. All the dialogue is in service to that. This is generally true for adventure games.

In Batman, you are Batman, a man who beats the crap out of people and lurks on rooftops. You expect to go around and solve problems with your fists or your gadgets. You don't play Batman to listen to exposition.

Naturally, game creators can do whatever the hell they want, and if people like it, they like it. But I think some practices play to the medium's strengths more than others, which can detract from the player's experience.

Except Batman in all media has traditionally had lots of exposition. Batman has a strong mythos and characters. Its part of the appeal.

 

[thomasmahler]

So he's saying that stories in games can't be told because your brain in action games works the same way as it does in real life and that there's not enough brainpower left to absorb the subtleties of what's going on around you?

Games like Portal split pure gameplay from storytelling and it'd be a shame to miss out on something like that. So why is there anything wrong to begin with?

One of the bigger clues to how an interactive story can be done is this indie game for me:

http://www.kongregate.com/games/GregoryWeir/the-majesty-of-colors

It's so simple, it has a few different outcomes and it's great. Why not keep doing it? Everyone denied animated films could ever be 'good enough' for emotional material until Disney made Bambi. Same thing happened with CG films until they made Toy Story.

Just because you have some control over what's going on doesn't mean the entire medium is doomed, so I wonder what went on with Heartland, cause it seems that game broke him.

 

[Kinyou]

I guess he did a really bad job with God of War then, cause I really liked the story in those.

 

[Helscream]

Well ultimately I think gameplay will always be the strength of the medium. Story is cool, and it obviously is capable of developing very emotionally moving experiences. But I find myself more critical of gameplay than I do story.

I remember a interview that Todd Howard had a ways back about Fallout 3/Oblivion. I am paraphrasing, but it went a lot the lines of this.

"Basically at the end of the day the player is just going into a dungeon, killing monsters and getting loot. This is of course a oversimplification of the game, but ultimately this is what our game is at it's core. So we need to find a way to make our gameplay as refreshing as possibly so that when you do go into a dungeon and kill stuff for loot, you are have as much fun as possible in the process."

I ain't here to discuss whether or not his games have good gameplay, but the mentality he has is right.

Story can be used to help fill in the seems and/or help improve the gameplay experience. The Best example I can think of is the dialogue sequences in Deus Ex:Human Revolution where you had to pay attention to the dialogue of the NPC. If you won the dialogue sequence that could help in your journey. This is not just pure gameplay mechanics, but a combination of story and gameplay.

The only real change I would like to see with story in games is giving the player more interactivity with the Story of the game in real time.

What I would REALLY like to see in games is deeper gameplay mechanics and offer more elaborate challenges that offer greater complexity. Gameplay mechanics in this generation are so damn flat and one-dimensional.

Imagine how Heavy Rain would have been without all of that interactivity? Imagine if you just had to watch the sequence of Ethan Mars severing his pinky instead of actually participating in that scene.

My main point is, gameplay will always have a greater legacy in video games than story ever will. But if there is Story in a videogame. Please give the player more interactivity with that Story.

 

[Firefox]

This coming from a guy who made stories for GOD OF WAR, and FMV endings for Twisted Metal.

 

[sonicmj1]

He's making the argument for player authored experience over story telling; the former being the best way to present the fiction of the game in my opinion and I agree with him wholeheartedly.

But, I feel that this is the best way to achieve satisfaction at the lowest common denominator with the demographic. Some gamers want to be told a convoluted story and also feel as if they can control, to a degree, the character and the many ways in which interactions present connections to the gamer. Persona 4 does this is and is possibly the greatest fucking JRPG ever made.

EDIT: Bah, I'll save my Vampire: The Masquerade argument for the latter for another time.

But I think part of what makes Persona 4 so cool is that a lot of the story in that game is really player-driven through the Social Link system. Getting to know people better and helping them out gives you narrative and makes you more powerful, so there's plenty of reason to care. Managing those social links is something you do yourself, and it provides another layer of meaningful context for the rest of the game. It brings you closer to each of your party members and to the town of Inaba.

If the "whodunit" mystery of P4 stood on its own, I don't think I would have enjoyed my time with the game as much as I did. The first three hours of the game, for example, are about as weak as it gets in terms of RPG openings.

 

[Cartman86]

But would you say that the dialogue in Phoenix Wright is the same thing as (to borrow the example he uses) the start of Arkham City where you're strapped in and can't do anything but look around?

I don't think it's the same. In Phoenix Wright, the game establishes the player as a lawyer and (for some reason) investigator. Looking around, talking to people, and winning arguments is what you do. All the dialogue is in service to that. This is generally true for adventure games.

In Batman, you are Batman, a man who beats the crap out of people and lurks on rooftops. You expect to go around and solve problems with your fists or your gadgets. You don't play Batman to listen to exposition.

Naturally, game creators can do whatever the hell they want, and if people like it, they like it. But I think some practices play to the medium's strengths more than others, which can detract from the player's experience.

In the Batman example I thought that opening part was awesome. Looking around and realizing you are looking at yourself in the mirror was a cool experience. Then figuring out you had to rock back and forth to topple the chair over was brilliant. I think what works for me is when I'm given control of a scene in real time (like Batman or Half-Life) whether it be full control or limited as long as their is a context I'm fine with it. If I'm not given some form of control I need full blown cutscenes, and it needs to be consistent throughout the game. So I will say that I did find it a little strange in Batman when it would be in-game then it wouldn't be.

 

[Dragoon En Regalia]

Complexity is always better when handled correctly, of course. From complexity comes depth of play, from which players can become skillful to the degree permitted by the game rules (and, eventually, the meta-game rules). But this is the generation of instant accessibility over all else. I can't say I'm surprised at what's going on in the industry right now.

 

[Doc Holliday]

This coming from a guy who made stories for GOD OF WAR, and FMV endings for Twisted Metal.

he admits to that and i think it actually gives a lot more heft to what he's saying. I'm sick of the wanna be movie directors using games as their plan B. You see the same thing with animators, and artists.

 

[The Xtortionist]

I don't disagree with Jaffe. Stories in games generally have little effect on me. I often find my mind slipping into a sort of "game mode" where my only goal is to complete the game objectives as efficiently as possible. While in that state of mind, it becomes very difficult to accept narrative.

 

[sonicmj1]

Except Batman in all media has traditionally had lots of exposition. Batman has a strong mythos and characters. Its part of the appeal.

But playing as Batman (being Batman?) isn't the same as reading Batman or watching Batman. And just as you change things adapting from a book to a movie (look how long it took filmmakers to realize that the camp that played well in the Batman TV show wasn't suitable for the big screen), some elements play better or worse in a video game.

I can't speak to Arkham City, but I certainly enjoyed the time I spent playing Arkham Asylum more than the time I spent walking alongside the Joker looking around. Exposition is nice, but it's pretty restricting as a player.

 

[Perfect Cha0s]

I think creating a lore-rich world that is very accessible (the lore, that is) to the player is much more important than the game's story narrative. That's not to say they can't go hand in hand; much of my favorite games combine good story-telling with a world I always want to know more about.

Take the Elder Scrolls, for example. The main story itself is actually quite lackluster, but the game universe feels massive because of the history, the in-game literature, the characters, etc.

IMO, a game that constantly leaves you asking "Who did that?" "How did that happen?" and "What is this place?" just from the world itself can make a much bigger impact on you than one that simply marries gameplay with a story that comes passively at you as you progress in the gameplay.

 

[erpg]

You know. I just happened to be listening to his PAX speech too and he has a section that is a lot like this speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i060D2MzjSU

I'd suggest watching it if you want to hear some of his other thoughts cause he again talks about how classic gameplay travels as he put it. The truly great games one of the first things you think of is gameplay.

That just reinforced what I was thinking in my last post. He takes his things really hard. I feel like Heartland might've really bloomed this whole disillusionment with structured story.

 

[Opiate]

http://www.gamespot.com/shows/gamespot-live/?event=twisted_metal_david_jaffe_dice_session20120209

Still trying to figure out what I think of it all. On a gut level I don't agree with most of what he said, but it's a good watch.

I don't buy that video games are like sports or board games. To me that's like comparing them to films or books. They aren't any of these things. I do think he's spot on with his pointing out of the lip service devs give about what their game is "about". Comparing it to Breaking Bad and other shit when in reality they haven't thought for a second about the gameplay.

EDIT: As always watch it all to get his entire point.

I don't really agree with you analysis.

Board games, sporting games, video games. All of these are, by explicit definition, different types of games.

Films and books are not games. They are much less similar to video games than are other types of games, such as sports or board games or role playing games.

 

[RustyNails]

Disappointed this is coming from Jaffe. Just because your latest game is narrative-lite doesn't mean all games should follow that philosophy. God of War 1 was narrative-heavy and in my list of one of the most engrossing stories in videogames.

 

[Rawker]

people are confused, this is about alot of shit games seeing the light of day because someone has and idea and alot of money. the industry is backwards, when indie/arcade games out shine full releases then there is a problem with the direction of the publishers intentions. its understandable because of the increase in development costs for full release games. its the old EA style of spend just as much marketing as developing. it sucks because the market has grown so fast that to just stay alive developing games you have to sell your soul to just make games but that doesnt mean you get to make games you like or believe in but rather work for the machine.

everything is rehashed from 10 years ago or "safe". jaffe is calling for the revolution where original games are able to be developed, exist, and profitable.

i play arcade/indie games and online against people in a variety of games but havent touched a single player game in years. last one was alan wake and i lasted 2 hours before i shut it off and never touched it. i watch a movie in 2 hours and get the games message, why spend 20 hours?

i want creative expression to establish my own memories through exploring a games depth of gameplay and lack of boundaries.

its funny how i can remember killing 8 ppl in a championship ladder game to take over first spot in ghost recon on pc like 10 years ago but cant remember what the story in metal gear solid was.

anyways i agree with jaffe, smart guy

 

[Orayn]

I think creating a lore-rich world that is very accessible (the lore, that is) to the player is much more important than the game's story narrative. That's not to say they can't go hand in hand; much of my favorite games combine good story-telling with a world I always want to know more about.

Take the Elder Scrolls, for example. The main story itself is actually quite lackluster, but the game universe feels massive because of the history, the in-game literature, the characters, etc.

IMO, a game that constantly leaves you asking "Who did that?" "How did that happen?" and "What is this place?" just from the world itself can make a much bigger impact on you than one that simply marries gameplay with a story that comes passively at you as you progress in the gameplay.

Likewise, you can communicate a tremendous amount about the universe in which your game takes place with hardly any dialogue, as we see in Demon's Souls and Dark Souls. The levels, from their visual motifs to the way they're navigated, speak volumes without slowing the player down to let them know that "story is happening."

 

[Bollocks]

wtf is jaffe talking about?

 

[Purexed]

Ignoring the obvious contradictions with Jaffe's portfolio and prior statements related to Heartland, I agree with the overall argument. As I've grown older with my time diminishing for things like gaming, I find myself gravitating towards games that allow me to play and jump out on time. If I have an hour to spare, I'm going to be more likely to fire up FIFA or MW3 rather than Catherine or Uncharted.

With the exception of a handful of games I enjoyed for the story, I am not really affected or impressed by most stories and their story telling. Metal Gear Solid 4 in particular was a royal pain in the ass for that reason. I liked the action, but there wasn't enough of it, and I had to sit through hours of philosophic drivel and cooking eggs that took me out of the immersion. Funny thing is that I absolutely adored MGS1 as I talked to Meryl all the time to catch all the conversations. Just me.

Story just needs to set the scene for me, give context for why I'm chopping heads or killing terrorists. If a game is all about the story, make sure the marketing and publicity is focused on communicating what it is rather than being dishonest to get something sold (Hi Gears!).

 

[kitzkozan]

http://www.gamespot.com/shows/gamespot-live/?event=twisted_metal_david_jaffe_dice_session20120209

Still trying to figure out what I think of it all. On a gut level I don't agree with most of what he said, but it's a good watch.

I don't buy that video games are like sports or board games. To me that's like comparing them to films or books. They aren't any of these things. I do think he's spot on with his pointing out of the lip service devs give about what their game is "about". Comparing it to Breaking Bad and other shit when in reality they haven't thought for a second about the gameplay.

EDIT: As always watch it all to get his entire point.

Videogame are more often than not like sports or board games. Because they emulate an actual sport or are competitive which can stimulate basic human instinct of survival, dominance behavior, etc. You thus are more concerned about the gameplay which will help you survive and overcome tasks than reflecting upon human nature or think about the story.

It's not and probably never will be the premium method of delivering stories, but it is possible. Planescape: Torment did it, although at the cost of interesting gameplay. Great story, setting and writing but mediocre at best gameplay.

 

[Svafnir]

Eh I disagree with a lot of it, to each there own.

 

[evilromero]

fucking excellent points. can people please listen to this man? The story the gamer creates for him/herself learning the mechanics of a game and mastering them, is the only story in my view that has any merit. anything else delves into the interactive movie space and should be thought of as much.

The story should be told via the space and not explicitly. Good examples are The Legend of Zelda and Metroid. All engrossing games because the story of the game is actually its spacial architecture. That is the advantage games have. The other part of the story is simulation, something that definitely has more in common with boards games like chess. So between spacial storytelling and simulation that is all that a game needs.

 

[Cartman86]

I don't really agree with you analysis.

Board games, sporting games, video games. All of these are, by explicit definition, different types of games.

Films and books are not games. They are much less similar to video games than are other types of games, such as sports or board games or role playing games.

Most video games are definitely closer to traditional games than films or books, but the fact remains that they aren't just games. By the very existence of this discussion and the ongoing debate if calling them "video games" is even a good description. The interactivity, ever changing tech, and the visual/aural components gives video games the opportunity to be something different than all those other mediums. Do table top games like D&D and Vampire stick to this strict definition of traditional games? I really don't want to get into the definition of video game argument though.

 

[Hyuga]

Always love Jaffe, but I couldn't disagree more with him.

Probably in the minority around here, but story, a game's "fiction" is a lot of times the main reason why I play through something.

THIS!
No story / story mode = no buy!

The story should be told via the space and not explicitly. Good examples are The Legend of Zelda and Metroid. All engrossing games because the story of the game is actually its spacial architecture. That is the advantage games have. The other part of the story is simulation, something that definitely has more in common with boards games like chess. So between spacial storytelling and simulation that is all that a game needs.

That's... uh... your opinion, ok!

 

[Htown]

Best part of the speech was near the end, where he talked about the executive going "yeah I can see that," but what you're really seeing is the trailer to a movie that doesn't exist.

That said, my opinion on stories in games is that they are and always will be optional. It's fantastic if a game has a good story, but if a game DOESN'T have a good story, it shouldn't be knocked for that.

Games are not an inherently narrative medium, and there's nothing wrong with that. That doesn't mean that games are a lesser form than mediums that ARE narrative, it's just different. Music doesn't have to tell a fantastic story to be worthwhile. Neither does a painting, or a dance, or a sculpture, or a board game, or a sport.

If you can get as much (or more) enjoyment from a game by watching someone else play it on Youtube as you can by playing it yourself, it's not a good game. It's a good movie wrapped around a crappy game.

 

[erpg]

Ignoring the obvious contradictions with Jaffe's portfolio and prior statements related to Heartland, I agree with the overall argument. As I've grown older with my time diminishing for things like gaming, I find myself gravitating towards games that allow me to play and jump out on time. If I have an hour to spare, I'm going to be more likely to fire up FIFA or MW3 rather than Catherine or Uncharted.

And I'm more likely to put in Catherine or Uncharted. I'm fine with saying both need improvement in gameplay (Catherine probably needing a complete re-do), but I was invested in both, primarily because of the story (and text-messages in Catherine's case). And the lack of player-driven anecdotes due to an abundant amount of scripted sequences didn't matter.

 

[taoofjord]

He's said nothing new. Most developers know this already. It's the publishers that don't (care).

 

[rdrr gnr]

Jaffe is just so refreshing to listen to. And, I agree to a certain extent. For me, it's not why we shouldn't tell stories; it's why everyone shouldn't tell stories, or why not every story needs to be told. The overwhelming majority of video games stories are just plain awful -- horrendously awkward dialogue, forgettable voice acting, terrible character development, and a generally nonsensical overall plot. The question is: how much of that is a consequence of the lack of talent (quality writers) and how much of it is a consequence of the medium itself? To me, it's a combination of both. Games will and are getting better at cohesive storytelling, but I don't think they will ever reach the heights of English literature and serious cinema -- at least not in their current form. Interactivity and gameplay are inherently diluting agents of storytelling. One immediately enters this meta-realm of being aware of your position in reality (the clicking of a button, the moving of a mouse, a shifting of a brightness setting -- or if you would like, incredibly jarring experiences like quicktime events and motion controls), rather than the position of a character, a contrast that is more apparent in games than in books (one rarely thinks about the physical act of moving your eyes to read when reading; and even if one does, it does not dilute the words on the page). I agree with Jaffe that the strength of gaming is this removed and mechanistic experience, but I disagree with the solution. I think have this dichotomous approach to game design is remedy that cures all. If you wish to have a story focus, build the game from the ground up to enhance that story in every way imaginable, and anything short of this dedication means the story is not an important enough factor in your design, so allocate all resources to focus on engaging gameplay (and many games have done so successfully: Dark Souls, Demons' Souls, Borderlands, and most appropriately, Twisted Metal).