Support NeoGAF

[bigdaddygamebot]

One of the visionaries of the industry. Great stuff as always.

He's getting really close to figuring things out. It's a shame that he's struggled a bit with putting out a blockbuster in the last few years.

I don't get so much that "there shouldn't be stories at all" but moreso his message being "stay true to your initial idea and don't fucking half-ass extra shit into your game in order to satisfy executives and/or focus testing."

 

[Dylan]

I enjoy story in my games. If the backstory doesn't exist, the environments you visit don't make sense or fit into the context of the whole picture. Characters with no motivation, outside of a platformer like Mario or something, are boring.

I don't think Jaffe is railing against the existence of stories in games, necessarily. The point is, "don't use a game to try to tell a story like a movie".

I think the prototypical "right" way to do this is Super Metroid. You have a game that tells, almost entirely through game mechanics, an extremely deep and immersive narrative from beginning to end. There is a backstory, a full story arc, and a conclusion, but at no point* does it rely on "movie" mechanics to fill us in. We play the whole thing.


*(save for a 3 second space-ship scene and some text in the intro)

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

I couldn't agree more. You should be the story in a video game.

 

[brandonh83]

I love how the Silent Hill games are presented, at least the first three or four. For example, for as much depth and symbolism that SH2 has, there aren't that many cutscenes at all and they're pretty short. A lot of the information you get is very natural and feels organic within the context of the game.

 

[Dylan]

I don't agree with his sports analogy. Take Tim Tebow for instance, he is a average player with average stats. It is Tebow's story and character that sell tickets and improve ratings, not his actual gameplay. I enjoy sports talk commentary sometimes more than the games. I actually get a bigger kick out of watching the guys on ESPN debate whether or not Tebow is a "good QB'. I find the whole circus entertaining. The games sometimes lack the same luster of the pregame commentary.

"It was called the rematch of the century, pitting a revenge-hungry Tom Brady and his three Super Bowl Rings against the oft-underrated Eli Manning."

Tom Brady's story is just as important to Super Bowl 46 as the game itself. The story just adds extra incentive to watch/play even harder. Expert commentators have a way with storytelling that can make you cry for the losing team. What does this have to do with video games?

I see video game stories sorta like a fight promotion. If any of you have ever seen Mike Tyson fight, you know it is a sight to behold. How many of you have watched his fights promoted? The promotion is just as important if not more important to the actual fights.

This is acknowledged in his talk though. Jaffe even sets the audiences expectations early in his talk by saying that he has no problems with stories "that emerge from gameplay", which is exactly your Tebow analogy.

The people that designed the game of football don't design the rules of the game around telling the story of Tim Tebow. They design a fun experience and stories emerge from it. This is what Jaffe argues that video games should excel at.

 

[sonicmj1]

I think David Jaffe's argument is wrong on so many levels. First of all, games like Deus Ex and Metal Gear Solid disprove his entire argument. I could get into this in more detail, but for now I don't think it's necessary. He also mentioned that people who wanted to "say something" or "get something out of them" whether that be some political issue/stand or philosophy then they should just write a book, become a politician/philosopher, etc.

What if this mindset/philosophy applied to music? Should music be purely mechanical? If you applied what David said in this presentation to music then bands should just be solely instrumental. What about bands who try and "say something" through the use of music and lyrics? What about bands like Rage Against the Machine? Or really any fucking band for that matter!?

I don't think any form of media should just be ONE thing and only ONE thing, as David seems to be suggesting here.

There is a lot more I have to say about this, but I just wanted to get that out, for now.

As someone already mentioned, your analogy misses the point, and one of the examples David uses in his talk shows why.

There's nothing wrong with going for a certain mood, or even trying to communicate an idea. But if you're going to do that, you need to answer how, and the answer has to relate to the act of playing the game. As a developer, you can't just pitch a mood/concept and a CG trailer, you need to answer how playing the game will connect you with that idea.

Music has a long history of conveying ideas and moods. There's a reason it often accompanies religious ceremony. And rap has its roots in spoken word poetry. Music, lyrics, and idea reflect off each other to produce a whole. Rage Against the Machine wouldn't have its rage without the rock behind it.

Jaffe may not have made it sound this way, but I think there's room in his talk for games with "ideas" or a "philosophy". But those things have to arise from the gameplay, which is synonymous with the story the player creates for himself while he's at the controls. Flower is an example of this. Deus Ex is an example of this. Metal Gear Solid, in its best moments, is an example of this. Wherever the idea begins, it manifests in how you play.

 

[Cyber Caesar]

This is acknowledged in is talk though. Jaffe even sets the audiences expectations early in his talk by saying that he has no problems with stories "that emerge from gameplay", which is exactly your Tebow analogy.

The people that designed the game of football don't design the rules of the game around telling the story of Tim Tebow. They design a fun experience and stories emerge from it. This is what Jaffe argues that video games should excel at.

The game of football doesn't sell the tickets it's the "promotion" of football that sells tickets. The media devotes so much coverage to one game it becomes a media eclipse. Notice the NFL All Star"Game" has no such reception. Perception is based on promotion. Good storytellers are gameplay promoters. Don King was a great storyteller/liar.

 

[dark10x]

There's nothing wrong with going for a certain mood, or even trying to communicate an idea. But if you're going to do that, you need to answer how, and the answer has to relate to the act of playing the game. As a developer, you can't just pitch a mood/concept and a CG trailer, you need to answer how playing the game will connect you with that idea.

The best story driven games already do all of this (to varying degrees of success).

Just as there are examples of poor story telling within games there are gameplay focused titles that fail to deliver as well.

 

[Jake Tower]

Jaffe is 100% right about sports and stories. The sport that is about story is pro wrestling, which isn't a sport.*

*not a competitive sport. The wrestlers are often gifted athletes who perform entertaining stunts (that are sometimes really dangerous), and are often great actors (their heel or face persona), but the sport part of pro wrestling isn't the same as other pro sports.

 

[Dylan]

The game of football doesn't sell the tickets it's the "promotion" of football that sells tickets. The media devotes so much coverage to one game it becomes a media eclipse. Notice the NFL All Star"Game" has no such reception. Perception is based on promotion. Good storytellers are gameplay promoters. Don King was a great storyteller/liar.

I totally agree. But the people who design game mechanics or sports rules aren't the people promoting sales.

In the same way as a good sports promoter will exploit the emerging stories of sports teams (e.g. Will Lemieux finally knock Gretzky off his throne? Find out this Tuesday...etc"), a really effective games ad might portray the experience of playing, rather than getting into the nitty-gritty of the story.

A great example of this would be the World of Warcraft ads. Instead of having William Shatner tell the audience "Look out! Arthas is reigning havoc from his Frozen Throne etc etc..." the ad has him tell his personal experience with the game. i.e. "I am a mage! I can cast spells!".

 

[bigboss370]

i feel like ultimately he's talking about innovation, on a big budget level.

 

[Dark Octave]

Funny that my 7 week old daughter who hasn't pooped in 3 days suddenly started letting loose and filled her diaper 5 minutes into Jaffe's speech. I disagree with some of his views (one console future?) and as he was telling his speech, I started to think about the games he made that I liked and I could only think of two, Twisted Metal and God of War. But the ironic part about it is the only parts of God of War that I cared about were it's story and cut scenes. I could not get into the gameplay to save my life. But with all that said, I have a lot of respect for the guy still.

I think overall what he is talking about is games like Heavy Rain and Asura's Wrath (the demo anyways). Heavy on QTE and not so much on other inputs from the player. These games are story first and gameplay second. I'd like to address his comment about someone who wants to tell a story being "better off to write a book instead of making a game". To be honest, as someone who plays more games than reads books, I'm glad that the writers of Heavy Rain and Metal Gear Solid's (maybe not the best stories ever but they work for me) stories made games instead of writing a book, because I most likley would have never read them and I'm glad I got to play the stories in a way that speaks to me the best.

 

[Neuromancer]

So I didn't watch the video BUT I did read the Gamasutra piece on his talk and I have to say I agree with him 110%. Most recently I encountered this issue with the Darkness 2 demo. I just want to play the game, not sit through 10 minutes of semi-interactive cutscenes before getting full control of my character.

 

[Basslover]

I think Kajima here made a pretty good post here, I will try to expand a bit with my own experience:

I usually make a distinction between a game world (setting, music, lore, etc) and the same game actual story.

For example Final Fantasy 8: I really liked the world, towns, rebellions, political intrigue and all that along with the actual gameplay, now the actual story of the game is pure garbage and it makes no absolute sense at least in its english version. Well the fact that there is a theory in which everything post disc-2 is a squall slip-second dream before dying makes more sense for some people is very telling.

So IMHO investing time and money in creating a world setting is great, it enriches the game, now wasting time and money and my personal time as a player watching badly directed scenes with poorly motion capture actors, uncanny valley faces and terrible voice acting makes the game poorer and is fucking terrible specially on replays.

Oh and is even worse if that money and time could have been spent on more content of more refined gameplay mechanics.

Some JRPG examples:

Crappy story that was minimized in favour of great gameplay: FF5
Lacking gameplay that was minimized in favour of bad story: FF13
Cool gameplay that was held back because of a truly horrible story/direction: Star Ocean 4

Kinda medium between the two: FF6 (in before the opera scene, in that one you don't just watch you have to sing, be in the backstage operating everything and then fight an octopus!)

More or less: FF7

Sweet spot: Chrono Trigger

 

[rdrr gnr]

I'd like to address his comment about someone who wants to tell a story being "better off to write a book instead of making a game". To be honest, as someone who plays more games than reads books, I'm glad that the writers of Heavy Rain and Metal Gear Solid's (maybe not the best stories ever but they work for me) stories made games instead of writing a book, because I most likley would have never read them and I'm glad I got to play the stories in a way that speaks to me the best.

He isn't saying everyone who wants to tell a story should do so in another format, but he is simply asking: why is it, if you have story to tell, you choose the worst medium possible to convey that story? Which is a perfectly rational question to ask.

If video games stories are the stories that speak to you the best, I'd suggest reading more books.

 

[Dark Octave]

So I didn't watch the video BUT I did read the Gamasutra piece on his talk and I have to say I agree with him 110%. Most recently I encountered this issue with the Darkness 2 demo. I just want to play the game, not sit through 10 minutes of semi-interactive cutscenes before getting full control of my character.

I find that if I'm playing a demo, especially of a game I am not super excited about, I tend to develop ADD for the story as well. Why invest the time if I'm not going to see the rest any time soon? This is why I believe the best demos get right to the action.

He isn't saying everyone who wants to tell a story should do so in another format, but he is simply asking: why is it, if you have story to tell, you choose the worst medium possible to convey that story? Which is a perfectly rational question to ask.

If video games stories are the stories that speak to you the best, I'd suggest reading more books.

Yeah so he's basically saying they should do it in another format. If I ask you why are you going left and telling you that it's the worst way to go, I'm basically telling you not to go left.

And I'm a gamer. If books did for me what games do, I'd be a book worm instead. I enjoy being involved, being the character and enjoying a story while seeing the facial expressions, action and hearing the cool music. Books and movies can never do that for me. Games really are the ultimate entertainment for me and if that makes me look less educated or cultured, I'm fine with that.

 

[AngryMoth]

I've heard David say before that he's the type of gamer that doesn't really pay attention to cutscenes and is just interested in playing the game. I think he might have talked about it on Weekend Confirmed actually. Most of my friends are like this (whenever someone tries to play a game in our front room everyone gathers round to make fun of it), but I am the polar opposite, and love it when games take their stories seriously. Its just a personality difference.

However, to slightly contradict myself I would assert that the only case when games are a preferable storytelling medium to tv or film is when the players actions influence the story.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Yeah so he's basically saying they should do it in another format. If I ask you why are you going left and telling you that it's the worst way to go, I'm basically telling you not to go left.

No. It would be like asking, "Why are you going left, when everyone knows, the leftward path is filled with thugs, robbers, drug dealers, and murderers?" And then, depending upon the elicited response, you can assess the rationality of going in that direction. Jaffe's whole point is that a totally convincing answer has not yet been presented, while the rightward path remains filled with blowjobs, money, and pizza.

And I'm a gamer. If books did for me what games do, I'd be a book worm instead. I enjoy being involved, being the character and enjoying a story while seeing the facial expressions, action and hearing the cool music. Books and movies can never do that for me. Games really are the ultimate entertainment for me and if that makes me look less educated or cultured, I'm fine with that.

Um, facial expressions? Those don't exist in movies? Just like action and cool music don't exist in movies? I'd like to know your repertoire of literature and film.

 

[Neuromancer]

I find that if I'm playing a demo, especially of a game I am not super excited about, I tend to develop ADD for the story as well. Why invest the time if I'm not going to see the rest any time soon? This is why I believe the best demos get right to the action.

That's a good point.

 

[Dark Octave]

No. It would be like asking, "Why are you going left, when everyone knows, the leftward path is filled with thugs, robbers, drug dealers, and murderers?" And then, depending upon the elicited response, you can assess the rationality of going in that direction. Jaffe's whole point is that a totally convincing answer has not yet been presented, while the rightward path remains filled with blowjobs, money, and pizza.

That sounds like "take the easy path" to me, only it's not. It's not any easier, it isn't any better and in actuality, the left path is just as good as the right. I enjoy both forms of storytelling and feel that there is room for both, which obviously there is currently.

Um, facial expressions? Those don't exist in movies? Just like action and cool music don't exist in movies? I'd like to know your repertoire of literature and film.

While being the character and being involved? You must have missed that part.

 

[Cyber Caesar]

So what are the limitations of video games versus the limitations of movies? I would argue that video games can convey more than movies, video games may need to be considered the superior medium. It is simple, Spectate vs Participate. I think Jaffe was trying to find where does the spectate end and the participate begin.

Could Rockstar make a game similar to Shawshank Redemption? Jaffe would probably say what the fuck does that mean could Rockstar make Shawshank Redemption.

Why do we look down upon our games as lacking something important to say? Why do they need to say something important? These are the important questions.

 

[Dark Octave]

So what are the limitations of video games versus the limitations of movies? I would argue that video games can convey more than movies, video games may need to be considered the superior medium. It is simple, Spectate vs Participate. I think Jaffe was trying to find where does the spectate end and the participate begin.

Could Rockstar make a game similar to Shawshank Redemption? Jaffe would probably say what the fuck does that mean could Rockstar make Shawshank Redemption.

Why do we look down upon our games as lacking something important to say? Why do they need to say something important? These are the important questions.

To simplify it, I think it's the stop go stop go nature of cinema heavy games that he is talking about. Part of his argument was at the point of watching the story, you are no longer playing a game and the game designers are trying to dip into another medium.

I think games are, can be and will be the perfect blend of all media entertainment. Our only limitations are with hardware. Games this gen can be taken a little more seriously than last gen and last gen more than the one before it. As the characters begin to look more realistic, they also become more believable. This will help to drive stories in cinematic heavy games much better.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I've been saying this for years. Videogames have too much focus on story these days with lackluster gameplay. Game play should be king. It's a distraction, it should be fun all the way through.

Why do you think it's fair to say this about every game out there? I think it may be a problem with calling the media "video game". Something like "interactive media" would be more appropriate.

People don't demand that movies be all about visual effects do they? Just like there are many parts to a movie, there are many parts to a video game. I enjoy all sorts of stuff and love the diversity the media allows. I can go from playing something like Tetris, Pacman, Street Fighter, or Gran Turismo, which have no story to speak of, to RPGs, adventure games, interactive novels, and stuff like Heavy Rain which are more about the story than the player's interactions.

Creating a very specific definition for what a "video game" must be and demanding that everyone conform just destroys creativity, in my opinion.

 

[deepbrown]

Interesting argument and he takes it to its logical conclusion, but he's taken it too far.

Every game he mentioned (MW multiplayer, Maden, Skyrim) which are all about 'games being games' are all experiences I hate. 'Oh you're not a real gamer then' - I don't buy that, because there are many different gamers.

This is my problem with where he took this argument - not all gamers are the same. We don't all like open world games, or repetitive motions.

I'm a lover of film, but also a lover of games - and the storytelling of games. This is when I enjoy games the most, when the story is enveloped in the game.

However, this is where his point rings true - by pandering to the language of film, games lose sight of their strengths in how to tell a story in their own medium. Cutscenes are a good example - they work, but they could work better.

Games enveloped in story are the games I love - sharp, emotional, bombastic, intelligent win out for me. These are the engrossing games that make you think. Unthinking repetitive experiences are not my bag, but there is still much to learn about how games can use their strengths to do storytelling better.

But this is how I differ to Jaffe - this doesnt mean all games should have story, or that games without story 'don't work'. This is just my opinion and what I like as a gamer. And just because I don't like MWII MP, doesn't mean I going to tell other gamers they're wrong.

However, yes - gameplay first and we need to take this further (Skyrim and MWII are the antithesis of this - it's old-fashioned gameplay). But I need a story, without a story I don't game. And developers need to explore how the strengths of the medium could develop further than they exist now (as it would be arrogant to think we know everything the medium can do now)

 

[Ivan A Nguyen]

I could have sworn I heard about this same thing from David when he talked at the Giant Bombcast during his E3 visit.

 

[Future PhaZe]

I think people get confused by the title "Videogames". Forget that. It's interactive entertainment, and there's no reason why a narrative based experience shouldn't exist.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Games enveloped in story are the games I love - sharp, emotional, bombastic, intelligent win out for me. These are the engrossing games that make you think. Unthinking repetitive experiences are not my bag, but there is still much to learn about how games can use their strengths to do storytelling better.

Give concrete examples, because I don't want to disparage your opinion solely based upon your avatar (because Uncharted is none of those things, aside from maybe repetitive).

 

[deepbrown]

Give concrete examples, because I don't want to disparage your opinion solely based upon your avatar (because Uncharted is none of those things, aside from maybe repetitive).

Oh, I agree with you Uncharted isn't there. There's room for repetition in game mechanics, it was more the 'unthinking' part that urks me.

SOTC, Limbo, Soul Reaver.

Mainly, I can see part of games where they have it at that perfect mix - portions of MGS games are the perfect mix of story/setting/gameplay eg

BTW, Neogaf is the only place where a picture influences a poster's argument. What if I just think this virtual character is hot?

 

[rdrr gnr]

That sounds like "take the easy path" to me, only it's not. It's not any easier, it isn't any better and in actuality, the left path is just as good as the right. I enjoy both forms of storytelling and feel that there is room for both, which obviously there is currently.

I never said where each path leads. My elucidation of your metaphor simply introduced that idea of the rationale. It's not that one path is inherently 'harder' (maybe, inherently harder to do well), it's that one path warrants, hell, demands reasoning that most games just fail to provide.

While being the character and being involved? You must have missed that part.

No, I didn't. You've never related to a protagonist in a significant and meaningful manner? You've never seen some villain get his just deserts and thought, "I would have done exactly the same."?

 

[Satchel]

This is the man that created God of War. He is always right by default as a result.

For life.

 

[deepbrown]

This is the man that created God of War. He is always right by default as a result.

For life.

His argument here suggests that with his current thinking he would never have made a game like God of War.

 

[Orayn]

I think people get confused by the title "Videogames". Forget that. It's interactive entertainment, and there's no reason why a narrative based experience shouldn't exist.

You can have your Michael Bay movies with QTEs, I just don't want developers getting that crap in my games.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Oh, I agree with you Uncharted isn't there. There's room for repetition in game mechanics, it was more the 'unthinking' part that urks me.

SOTC, Limbo, Soul Reaver.

Mainly, I can see part of games where they have it at that perfect mix - portions of MGS games are the perfect mix of story/setting/gameplay eg

BTW, Neogaf is the only place where a picture influences a poster's argument. What if I just think this virtual character is hot?

Those examples don't support your post above. In fact, SoTC and Limbo support Jaffe's position!

Well, since I'm not seeing you in person and I am not aware of your posting quality, the avatar is all I have to work with. Much like in real world communication scenarios, every human being has the tendency to seek information about whom they are speaking with -- even if that information is ultimately superficial.

 

[Dark Octave]

I think another huge problem with game stories and why they will never win an Oscar or whatever is because 90% of AAA games revolve around action and some kind of fighting. How do you make a meaningful story where the main character is using a rocket launcher the whole game? This makes an unrealistic and often silly situation for the story that can't be taken seriously too often. How do you make a good game on consoles with no action?

How do you make a realistic court room drama that isn't childish and funny? How do you make a political story in a game that is just about the politicians? How do you make a game about a father and son living on the streets that doesn't involve fighting somehow? Would anybody play these games?

 

[Net_Wrecker]

His argument here suggests that with his current thinking he would never have made a game like God of War.

Why do people keep saying this? He just would've made God of War with better story presentation, ie, less CG cutscenes, and told more in/with gameplay. People are really getting the wrong message if they thought he meant "I want everyone to make Pong."

 

[firehawk12]

I think another huge problem with game stories and why they will never win an Oscar or whatever is because 90% of AAA games revolve around action and some kind of fighting. How do you make a meaningful story where the main character is using a rocket launcher the whole game? This makes an unrealistic and often silly situation for the story that can't be taken seriously too often. How do you make a good game on consoles with no action?

How do you make a realistic court room drama that isn't childish and funny? How do you make a political story in a game that is just about the politicians? How do you make a game about a father and son living on the streets that doesn't involve fighting somehow? Would anybody play these games?

Notice how there's a Tin Tin video game but not a Hugo video game.

That said, it's because most developers don't try. It's easy to say games should just be like sports when you're not interested in doing anything different in the first place.

 

[deepbrown]

Those examples don't support your post above. In fact, SoTC and Limbo support Jaffe's position!

Well, since I'm not seeing you in person and I am not aware of your posting quality, the avatar is all I have to work with. Much like in real world communication scenarios, every human being has the tendency to seek information about whom they are speaking with -- even if that information is ultimately superficial.

Jaffe mentions SOTC specifically as a game that DOESN'T work.

He doesn't want games to seek to more - to be about storytelling at all. He wants them to purely about gameplay. About repetitive actions in Skyrim where the player can make up his own stories.

BTW, the games I mention perfectly support my argument - my argument which is a tapered down version of Jaffe's, that states story does work in games, but that the 'game' part needs to have more of a say:

This is when I enjoy games the most, when the story is enveloped in the game.

However, this is where his point rings true - by pandering to the language of film, games lose sight of their strengths in how to tell a story in their own medium. Cutscenes are a good example - they work, but they could work better.

I want games to be about storytelling through gameplay. Jaffe doesn't want story (at least in his presentation of his argument in this particular video)

 

[deepbrown]

Why do people keep saying this? He just would've made God of War with better story presentation, ie, less CG cutscenes, and told more in/with gameplay. People are really getting the wrong message if they thought he meant "I want everyone to make Pong."

Did you watch the video? He explained how he went into the video game industry with the wrong intentions, that he's finally realised that story and games don't mix. I think he's made it very clear. I really think he's talking more than just about removing cutscenes.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

While I dont agree with him entirely, he is interesting to listen to....kind of cool to see a counter point to modern game design

There is a real need, the echo chamber needs dissonant voices, and strong ones.

It's not surprising to hear a Japanese developer say that, but one probably has to understand a caveat about it: Japanese developers have a history with constructing elaborate story worlds in games that don't have a line of dialog. I think this is in part because of their love of character design.

Eastern game makers have long applied the same standards for character design originating with manga and anime, in terms of elaborate histories, motivations, and personal traits.

Mega Man, for example, is a game with a lot of story that shows but doesn't tell. Dr. Light and Wily have a history together, Rock (Megaman) and Roll have traits, personalities, purposes, and histories. Boss robots have specific personalities and reasons for existing, and you can construct a story about them based on the level that they're in charge of.

There's no text (mostly) in the games themselves, but the story plays out and creates a memorable universe.

I think part of the conflict over "should games have stories" arises from very different views on what the story part of a game is. This generation we have a common stereotype of "games trying to be movies", arguably from western developers keen to use their game to compete with hollywood. They have a seemingly singular goal, and that's to become filmmakers competing with the traditional definition of film. Just with some interactivity grafted on.

But there are many ways for "story" to be integrated into a game, including ways that may have been invisible to gamers in the past, and so some take it for granted that "games didn't use to need stories, and they don't need them now".




This is the secret art of showing without telling that was a given in games from earlier generations. People think that a lot of old classic game archetypes "have no story, and didn't need them" but that's not true. A modern game like Left 4 Dead is considered a prime example of how to "show without telling", to let the world and the action of playing the game tell the story. Well, that's the way it's always been with compelling games. Even if there's not a lick of dialog on screen or in speech, a story can be constructed that justifies the game's primary goal.

A good, basic case in point, might be the Orbitron, the Xbox indie title. It's a "random" shooter, but thought was put into it with regards to the craft of the player and its pilot having an insinuated history, and the space station you protect being a real place. The inspiration was in part taken from the Wipeout series, which also crafted a universe and actors with purpose thanks to its fictional companies and race sponsors.

Excellent viewpoints, it's funny how many didn't realize some of this till they became rarely seen this generation.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Jaffe mentions SOTC specifically as a game that DOESN'T work.

He doesn't want games to seek to more - to be about storytelling at all. He wants them to purely about gameplay. About repetitive actions in Skyrim where the player can make up his own stories.

I want games to be about storytelling through gameplay. Jaffe doesn't want story.

It's a bit foggy, but when Jaffe talked about SoTC (along with Flower, Ico, and fl0w) he was talking about how he doesn't necessarily want to make those games, but those games work for what (and that not every game needs to aspire to be like Ico and SoTC) they are in contrast to his Batman example, or, at least, that's how I took it.

Jaffe explicity stated that story itself isn't the issue, but rather how and what stories are executed in games. See his tweet a few pages back.

 

[deepbrown]

It's a bit foggy, but when Jaffe talked about SoTC (along with Flower, Ico, and fl0w) he was talking about how he doesn't necessarily want to make those games, but those games work for what they are in contrast to his Batman example, or, at least, that's how I took it.

Jaffe explicity stated that story itself isn't the issue, but rather how and what stories are executed in games. See his tweet a few pages back.

If that's true then he's greatly mis-represented his argument in that talk.

He again and again says 'story and games don't mix'. That the best games and what games should be proud of are the ones that are purely about gameplay.

He then lists a number of games produced by Sony eg. SOTC and ICO and then states that he didn't get any more emotion from them than a commercial, because 'story and games don't mix'.

Now, if he believes what you say he does then thumbs up. Again, perhaps he simply took the argument to its logical conclusion in this talk.

 

[rdrr gnr]

If that's true then he's greatly mis-represented his argument in that talk.

He again and again says 'story and games don't mix'. That the best games and what games should be proud of are the ones that are purely about gameplay.

He then lists a number of games produced by Sony eg. SOTC and ICO and then states that he didn't get any more emotion from them than a commercial, because 'story and games don't mix'.

Now, if he believes what you say he does then thumbs up. Again, perhaps he simply took the argument to its logical conclusion in this talk.

Maybe. I will admit there is a certain amount interpretation I am doing on my own. It would be nice if Jaffe butted-heads with some people here in this thread in order to clarify and defend his position (I know he's reading this).

 

[EGM1966]

He's wrong in principle simply because he's making the mistake of being restrictive about a medium that has expanded beyond his desired definition. There is clearly, judging by the sales of many games, a desire by many for some games to be heavily narrative driven.

Uncharted 2 works for example and, to be blunt, it works as well as the best non-narrative titles.

I admire the fact he states his view and he makes decent points around it - but ultimately he sounds like the person saying all films should just be entertainment or equally the person saying all films should be serious art. Videogames as a medium have become incredibly diverse in a relatively short term, and can now easily support narrative, cinematic driven elements as well as pure gameplay.

I'd hate all games to be narrative driven, but to say none should is simply to fall into the mistake of arguing only for the other side of the coin.

One point I do agree with him on is narrative maturity though. He's right on that. It's one thing to have a decent Indiana Jones like vibe with some fun characters, but film and written works remain the far superior medium if you really feel you have something important and of depth to deliver.

 

[Cyber Caesar]

I prefer Uncharted 2 to Crystal Skull. I will replay Uncharted 2 a half dozen more times, but I will not view Crystal Skull once more. I make this comparison because for me one medium is almost on par with the other. Make no mistake Jaffe's hero Speilberg is no light weight, but he wasn't on his A game.

I wonder how many others prefer Uncharted 2 over Crystal Skull?

 

[Tashi]

That was a great talk. I really enjoyed it, I could listen to Jaffe talk about anything all fuckin day. I do agree with this opinion. Gameplay is king, always and forever.

 

[Sapiens]

I'm a "solid game mechanics" guy and I agree with him.

I don't have a problem with story, but they should be painfully brief.

Games are not an artform similar to film at all.

No game has told a good story and no game every will. Not an adult story anyways.

Keep making games that are games and maybe they will come out sooner and under budget.

 

[dark10x]

So I didn't watch the video BUT I did read the Gamasutra piece on his talk and I have to say I agree with him 110%. Most recently I encountered this issue with the Darkness 2 demo. I just want to play the game, not sit through 10 minutes of semi-interactive cutscenes before getting full control of my character.

The Darkness II is massively improved by its story telling, however. The action itself is great but without the story it would lose a lot. The demo takes things completely out of order, however so you end up sitting through more than you would in the full game right out of the gate.

No game has told a good story and no game every will. Not an adult story anyways.

I simply can't agree with that.

Something like the Portal series, for instance, would be nothing without its memorable story telling. It would have been nothing more than an amusing puzzle game.

Bastion would have lost a good chunk of its appeal without its story telling elements.

The same can be said for plenty of other games. Many games fail but to suggest that NO game has EVER told a good story is just silly and sounds completely pretentious.

One of the things that games can deliver that isn't possible in other mediums is the experience of moving through story elements at ones own pace. There are bits in The Darkness 2, for instance, that send you into an asylum which appears as some sort of alternate reality thing. What makes this kind of element work is the fact that YOU get to explore this section and talk to people. You end up spending a good 10-20 minutes experiencing this in a way that isn't possible in film. It's different but it can be effective. That's what I enjoy about story telling in games.

 

[KongRudi]

Gameplay is most important..

I like it when I'm rewarded with a good cutscene, and the game have a good story.

But I have to admit that the games I love the most, and the ones giving me the most bang for my bucks, is the games where I make up the story myself.

I have 1000+ hours in X3, I can start my own space-empire, and go pirate, or do whatever I like, I can jump into the story plots at any time - but the main factor wich make me play the game forever, restarting many times, is that I want to go out and about and do random stuff, if I completed all the developer-plots, I can continue to play, and make my own story.

Same with GTA, I don't remember much of the story, but I recall much fun by running around doing random stuff, trying to jump a loop with a bus, etc... Sure, it's good to do the developer-objectives, and be rewarded for it, but the most fun I have is when I am deciding my own fate.

When thinking about the old games I liked, I find it more fun to replay a older classic game like UFO or Diablo, devs back then were better at using the medium's weakness into it's strength, the story-line weren't near as good as most modern game-story's, but the simple fact that entire maps were randomly generated in addition to the loot drops, so if you replayed the same level 10 times, and the level completely changed - perhaps it had different enemies, etc. did much more for the game, than it's store.

 

[GorillaJu]

Agreed with him completely in that the purpose of a game should be to play it, not to tell a story.

And I don't think having a good story (or a story at all) is detrimental to the essence or the purpose of the game.

It's one of the reason older games that left more to the imagination and to the player to create, we recognize as having "good stories." The "good story" is the story you created while you experienced the game. Final Fantasy 6 has a pretty lame story line from a book/movie perspective, but the story of my Final Fantasy 6 experience is what made it the best game of all time, in my eyes.

The same goes for Metal Gear Solid. It is flawed in the sense that it removes player control to tell the story, but most of the story in MGS games is how you go about the task of getting from A to B. There are unlimited different ways to navigate Shadow Moses or the Big Shell, and how you do that is what the story is really about. The dialog is meant to compliment and provide context for the experience, but unfortunately it often overwhelms it.

 

[Apenheul]

I don't disagree with Jaffe, but I have my own opinion on what a story adds to a game. What I agree with is that creating a game with the intention of telling a story is a dangerous proposition, especially when (just as Jaffe says) developers pitch their designs as if the story is what the game is about; 'image.. you're standed on an island..'. I cringed at last years Sony E3 conference every time I've heared a developer start explaining a game with 'imagine'. Stories are not meaningful rewards, they're also not tension-relievers, and they're not necessary as a frame of reference, but they are a very useful tool at the disposal of a game designer for giving the player a sense of progression (much like the numeral level-codes of Super Mario Bros.. level 1-1, 1-2 etc), with the added bonus of having the player anticipate future challenges.