Support NeoGAF

[Michanical]

And neither is still anything like a movie.

Fallout focuses on choice as well as environmental storytelling

Uncharted 3 focuses on cutscenes and scripted moments to deliver its story

Both still blend narrative and gameplay and interactivity to tell their stories. Would trudging through the desert in Uncharted have the same impact if it was simply a scene in film? Being in control gives that section impact, because the monotonous act of moving forward invokes the same feeling the character is going through. Finally reaching the ruins offers a sense of freedom for both Drake and the player, narratively because he was dying in need of water, and gameplay-wise because the return to action sharply constrasts the slow plodding moments that came before.

Then again, I don't have an issue with cutscenes the way some people do

I'm challenge your argument here, especially in regards to Uncharted. The act of controlling a character doesn’t give you some sort innate empathetic response. When Mario falls down a pit, I don’t suddenly feel bad for him just because I control him. If I feel frustrated, it’s at me or the mechanics and not at the lot life has handed my character. If I turn the game off, I do not worry about the fact that the princess is still in the clutches of Bowser. This is a big statement to assume that character control somehow equates to some sort of emotional impact, one I think isn’t universal or even common.

The main problem is, at the end of the day, the impact in these games come from the writing and dialogue, not gameplay. With few exceptions (I’ll address those soon), a game that uses heavy cutscenes and dialogue are building characterization and attachments through the same means that books and movies do but not as well. If I took the cutscenes and dialogue out of FFVII, why would anyone care if a character dies? Additionally, game mechanics will often hinder the narrative, not help. Being able to control a character often means failure states that lose any emotional impact because the narrative and the ability for your character to die are incongruous. When your checkpoint loads up, how does that help the narrative? Invisible walls, respawning enemies, lives, continues, etc. are almost always incongruous to the narrative presented by the games.

The thing that makes games interesting story telling devices isn’t the ability to control the character, though that can be part of it. If a dev is trying to make their game an affective story telling device, they need to play to video games strengths because, as it is right now, the quality of stories in movies and books are light years beyond anything put out by a video game and without any of the downsides that video games offer as a medium. Here’s an Extra Credit’s episode about Missile Command that does a great job of introducing the idea to people:
http://youtu.be/JQJA5YjvHDU

Edit: Bioshock is a game I'd argue does an exceptional job of telling a story that couldn't be told as well in other mediums. The Ayn Rand bits and world are awesome, but the game doesn't really anything special that couldn't be done better in a book or movie. The "Would You Kindly" moment is exceptional, though. This is also where the gameplay elements like doors that won't open and the navigation arrow become part of the narrative.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

I had to go look up Roberta Williams. Graphic adventure games do indeed have gameplay, so I am not sure how her games relate to my comment. I am not saying story is not important at all, only that gameplay is the unique feature that distinguishes video games from other mediums.

God I feel old.

The problem is that people are saying things like "the central focus of a game is its mechanics." That's simply not inherently true. Definitionally, yes, gameplay is what makes games...games. But the reality is that the gameplay/mechanics don't have to be the center of the game (in terms of what makes it special), they can even form the backdrop for a compelling story. Case in point, as I've said repeatedly, there are even games that cannot exist without story.

Even more importantly, when people are saying "story > gameplay," most of us aren't saying that you can have a great game and no gameplay. We're saying that we have a preference for narratives in games, such that we will take minimal, simple or even sub-par mechanics at the expense of a compelling story.

 

[Skilletor]

Hotline Miami is awesome.

 

[More_Badass]

I'm challenge your argument here, especially in regards to Uncharted. The act of controlling a character doesn’t give you some sort innate empathetic response. When Mario falls down a pit, I don’t suddenly feel bad for him just because I control him. If I feel frustrated, it’s at me or the mechanics and not at the lot life has handed my character. If I turn the game off, I do not worry about the fact that the princess is still in the clutches of Bowser. This is a big statement to assume that character control somehow equates to some sort of emotional impact, one I think isn’t universal or even common.

The main problem is, at the end of the day, the impact in these games come from the writing and dialogue, not gameplay. With few exceptions (I’ll address those soon), a game that uses heavy cutscenes and dialogue are building characterization and attachments through the same means that books and movies do but not as well. If I took the cutscenes and dialogue out of FFVII, why would anyone care if a character dies? Additionally, game mechanics will often hinder the narrative, not help. Being able to control a character often means failure states that lose any emotional impact because the narrative and the ability for your character to die are incongruous. When your checkpoint loads up, how does that help the narrative? Invisible walls, respawning enemies, lives, continues, etc. are almost always incongruous to the narrative presented by the games.

The thing that makes games interesting story telling devices isn’t the ability to control the character, though that can be part of it. If a dev is trying to make their game an affective story telling device, they need to play to video games strengths because, as it is right now, the quality of stories in movies and books are light years beyond anything put out by a video game and without any of the downsides that video games offer as a medium. Here’s an Extra Credit’s episode about Missile Command that does a great job of introducing the idea to people:
http://youtu.be/JQJA5YjvHDU

But that's totally subjective. I absolutely feel that controlling a character can develop a connection between gameplay and player that can result in empathetic response. It's how a game can suddenly shift the controls on you or limit your control to invoke a certain tone and reaction. See the opening of CoD 4 or the often mentioned moment with the nuke and you're crawling along the ground.

Or one of my favorite recent moments in The Last of Us, after Winter. You've done the ladder prompt countless times, it's engrained in your mind as a player. You know that when you press triangle, Joel will place the ladder, Ellie will come and climb it. That's how it always works. And then you do it, and Ellie doesn't come. The game completely subverts your expectations of what you think will happen, and you instantly get a sense of how what happened during Winter changed Ellie.

 

[More_Badass]

Hotline Miami is awesome.

Ha, nice to you're enjoying it. It's easily in my top 10 indies of all time. The sequel is going to be even better

 

[Screaming Meat]

I think control/agency alone can be used to create an empathic response, but it's not inherent. Otherwise, we'd have an empathic response to every game we played regardless.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

I think control/agency alone can be used to create an empathic response, but it's not inherent. Otherwise, we'd have an empathic response to every game we played regardless.

It would seem to me (and I could be very offbase here), that it's not inherent because an emotional and empathic connection with a game/story/character is a completely subjective and unique phenomenon.

 

[Michanical]

But that's totally subjective. I absolutely feel that controlling a character can develop a connection between gameplay and player that can result in empathetic response. It's how a game can suddenly shift the controls on you or limit your control to invoke a certain tone and reaction. See the opening of CoD 4 or the often mentioned moment with the nuke and you're crawling along the ground.

Or one of my favorite recent moments in The Last of Us, after Winter. You've done the ladder prompt countless times, it's engrained in your mind as a player. You know that when you press triangle, Joel will place the ladder, Ellie will come and climb it. That's how it always works. And then you do it, and Ellie doesn't come. The game completely subverts your expectations of what you think will happen, and you instantly get a sense of how what happened during Winter changed Ellie.

Okay, how is that more effective than a movie that has repetition and then subverts it? Why is controlling the character create this and not the hours and hours of dialogue and narrative leading up to it?

 

[FluxWaveZ]

Okay, how is that more effective than a movie that has repetition and then subverts it? Why is controlling the character create this and not the hours and hours of dialogue and narrative leading up to it?

Because the player is in control and is the one who has been initiating those sequences until that point. You're discounting player agency, which is a very odd thing coming from a proponent of "gameplay first." Do you think Metal Gear Solid 3's ending would have the same impact it did if it were resolved through a cutscene instead of requiring the player to push the button; not advancing until the player pushed the button, at that? It's the control given to the player that makes these moments significant, and it's fine if you don't feel that way, but clearly many others do not.

 

[Screaming Meat]

It would seem to me (and I could be very offbase here), that it's not inherent because an emotional and empathic connection with a game/story/character is a completely subjective and unique phenomenon.

I'd go with that. I think the control and interactivity video games offer as opposed to other mediums is a different route to the kind of connection you're talking about.

 

[More_Badass]

Okay, how is that more effective than a movie that has repetition and then subverts it? Why is controlling the character create this and not the hours and hours of dialogue and narrative leading up to it?

It's both. It's tied directly to the gameplay, as the game has taught the player how that mechanics works and then subverts that, but it wouldn't work without the game's story and the relationship and development between the characters informing that moment

But I think the CoD examples are better representations of how control of a character can be used to invoke certain responses.

 

[Michanical]

Because the player is in control and is the one who has been initiating those sequences until that point. You're discounting player agency, which is a very odd thing coming from a proponent of "gameplay first." Do you think Metal Gear Solid 3's ending would have the same impact it did if it were resolved through a cutscene instead of requiring the player to push the button; not advancing until the player pushed the button, at that? It's the control given to the player that makes these moments significant, and it's fine if you don't feel that way, but clearly many others do not.

If I sit there and not press the button, let’s say I leave the game running for days, did I just make the narrative more impactful or less? Same with the ladder example from TLoU; if I decide to not use a ladder, do my characters sit around and starve to death, or does the game sit in a weird limbo outside of space and time? How does this help the narrative?

Yes, I do believe that the result would be the same. Do QTE sequences suddenly make the story more engaging or impactful? Not to anyone willing to think critically about narrative.

All these responses feel like people start with “video games are better than movies and books” and work backwards. How can pressing a button offer the meaningful interaction you guys are claiming video games do? Bioshock, for example, does something special with interaction by wrapping the gamey elements into the narrative.

 

[Moon_frogger]

So what I've learned is that gameplay>story unless the story is such a laughably bad train wreck that it can amuse me enough to ignore the abysmal gameplay. I will concede that deadly premonition is amazing.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

I can't agree more. It's really insulting cause you're basically telling them, "You obviously don't like games if you want a good story." And it is belittling what they want out of a game (your preference sucks and if you want that you shouldn't game cause I don't think your preference is important). And in general it has a "You're not a true gamer" snob vibe out of it.

And I also agree with I like good story in games cause for me that makes them a helluva lot more immersive. The best way to give me a carrot in a game is not to give me the most awesome weapon, it's the "you'll get to find out what happens next" if you pass this test. And I admit, I need some sort of motivation to take each challenge (a reward of some sort) or it just feels empty. Most people do, that's why games have rewards for passing challenges (even if the reward is unlocking the next level).

And you really get to experience the story as you get to play the character. You can't do that in a book or movie.

I mean it should tell you something my absolute favorite games are RPGs of all various types and in general I don't tend to be as excited for games that are just games for games sake. I want to play out a story when I play a game. I'm not just in it for the challenges, but for the ability to take myself into another world and experience a story for myself. But even better if there are fun challenges too.

And I don't see why that should be snubbed as "not a true gamer" which honestly, most people who pull the, "Then you should read a book" are effectively saying.



Correction, that's what you and some other people want when they play a game. Don't mistake that what you play games for is the same reason some one else plays games. If everyone played games for the same reason, why do we need so many different types of games?

You're right. It's basically "oh, you like that band? I liked them before they sold out" snobbery.

 

[More_Badass]

If I sit there and not press the button, let’s say I leave the game running for days, did I just make the narrative more impactful or less? Same with the ladder example from TLoU; if I decide to not use a ladder, do my characters sit around and starve to death, or does the game sit in a weird limbo outside of space and time? How does this help the narrative?

Yes, I do believe that the result would be the same. Do QTE sequences suddenly make the story more engaging or impactful? Not to anyone willing to think critically about narrative.

All these responses feel like people start with “video games are better than movies and books” and work backwards. How can pressing a button offer the meaningful interaction you guys are claiming video games do? Bioshock, for example, does something special with interaction by wrapping the gamey elements into the narrative.

1) Now, you're adding silly limitations and unrealistic tangents. "If I left the game sitting there for days". No one does that. If I left a book sitting on the same page for days or a movie paused, the story's not going to progress either.

2) A QTE is different from the notion of controlling a character. People bring up the microwave tunnel crawl in MGS 4. If it was simply a cutscene, and you as a player weren't struggling with the increasingly-sluggish controls to get Snake through, I doubt it would have the same impact. Or the Lizard Trial in Heavy Rain which uses the controls to mirror your character's action on screen, forcing you to make that final push to amputate your finger.

3) I just see games as different from books and movies, and that's due to the fact that the player is in control and can interact with and manipulate the story and world.

 

[FluxWaveZ]

Yes, I do believe that the result would be the same. Do QTE sequences suddenly make the story more engaging or impactful?

See, that's what I'm saying: you do not see it how many others do, and that's alright. But from MGS3's ending, to The Wolf Among Us' QTEs, to Mass Effect's Renegade/Paragon interrupts, to just holding one direction in The Evil Within in order to escape from a monster, to throwing a piece of trash in a garbage can in Half-Life 2 (or not) and then having the narrative respond accordingly, to mashing a button in order to resist torture in MGS1... All of these are moments that DO make the story more engaging and impactful for MANY.

You do not have to feel that way; you don't have to want to feel that way. But understand that many others do feel that way, and that simple player agency CAN have a huge impact on how one perceives the story. It's just like the Mother 3 example someone posted a while back. Or all of the ones I posted above. Or thousands more that exist out there, from Heavy Rain, to Call of Duty, to Assassin's Creed, to Portal 2, to whatever.

Portal 2... so you're saying that the final, dramatic portal shot in that game would have felt just the same if it were resolved through a cutscene instead of it being forced on the player to shoot it? Heh, I'm pretty sure you're in the real small minority, on that one.

I'm not going to address this:

If I sit there and not press the button, let’s say I leave the game running for days, did I just make the narrative more impactful or less? Same with the ladder example from TLoU; if I decide to not use a ladder, do my characters sit around and starve to death, or does the game sit in a weird limbo outside of space and time? How does this help the narrative?

...though, because that's just a bunch of nonsense. But guess what? Sometimes inaction DOES have a memorable impact on the story, as people can tell you when it comes to Far Cry 4's beginning. Or a certain MGS3 boss. Or even Animal Crossing.

 

[slavesnyder]

It sounds like:
If it has no explosions, it is not a good film.
or:
This Maserati is complete shit to go camping with my whole family. What a bad car.

 

[-Cwalat-]

Also, has anyone considered the fact that some games blend the storytelling and gameplay so well that when you're in control of what happens in the screen, it feels like you are playing the story, and that is also in a sense an aspect of gameplay.

Journey did this very well.

Last of Us and Heavy Rain(maybe not the best gameplay but some scenes had amazing gameplay blended with story, for example sacrificing limb scene) aswell.

 

[spliced]

Videogame stories are just terrible period, but what makes it even worse is that it's so jarring going from gameplay to watching/reading repeat over and over. When I go to play a game I'm in game mode I'm there to interact not be passive. Just like if I'm in a movie watching mode I'm there to watch a movie, I don't want to stop the movie every 10 minutes and go play ping pong.

I get a warm sense of happiness knowing Miyamoto got rid of most of the story in Sticker Star. He's one of the good guys.

 

[Cream]

Videogame stories are just terrible period, but what makes it even worse is that it's so jarring going from gameplay to watching/reading repeat over and over. When I go to play a game I'm in game mode I'm there to interact not be passive. Just like if I'm in a movie watching mode I'm there to watch a movie, I don't want to stop the movie every 10 minutes and go play ping pong.

I get a warm sense of happiness knowing Miyamoto got rid of most of the story in Sticker Star. He's one of the good guys.

well it's a good thing you aren't the one making video games.

 

[FluxWaveZ]

I get a warm sense of happiness knowing Miyamoto got rid of most of the story in Sticker Star. He's one of the good guys.

So, to you, the praised story in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door meant nothing, and its terrific wit, humor and its feeling of adventure just served to bog it down?

I see. That's too bad.

 

[Michanical]

1) Now, you're adding silly limitations and unrealistic tangents. "If I left the game sitting there for days". No one does that. If I left a book sitting on the same page for days or a movie paused, the story's not going to progress either.

2) A QTE is different from the notion of controlling a character. People bring up the microwave tunnel crawl in MGS 4. If it was simply cutscene, and you as a player weren't struggling with the controls to get Snake through, I doubt it would have the same impact. Or the Lizard Trial in Heavy Rain which uses the controls to mirror your character's action on screen, forcing you to make that final push to amputate your finger.

3) I just see games as different from books and movies, and that's due to the fact that the player is in control and can interact with and manipulate the story and world.

1) Obviously no one does that, but the point is that the interactions the games are offering are limited and meaningless. The idea that pressing a button to grab a ladder is somehow more impactful than the game doing it for you is baseless. It sounds right on paper, but has absolutely no connection to the real world. The game brings you to the ladder and tell you to press a button to grab it; what’s meaningful about that?
2) QTE is the same thing as pressing a button to move a ladder. QTE is the same thing as pressing a button to shoot someone. Struggling through a tunnel could be replaced with a cutscene with minimal impact on the story or how the player feels about the story. That interaction is fun, but rarely does it actually contribute to the narrative in any meaningful way. Think about it realistically, if that scene didn’t exist, would the game really be that different? No, it wouldn’t. Similarly with Heavy Rain. Imagine a scene in a movie where someone is cutting off their fingers. The DVD is programmed in a way that it pauses the scene every five seconds, requiring you to press play to continue. Did I just create meaningful interaction in a movie?
3) Okay, here is where we agree! I agree that video games are different than books and movies. Minecraft is a great example of video games doing something that movies and books cannot. Do you know what isn’t a good example of this: Almost every other game mentioned in this thread; almost every game known for having a good story. The kinds of interactions you keep bringing up are so minor that they could be replaced with a cutscene and the story would remain uneffective.

 

[Maushimo]

For me, it really depends on the game itself. If it's a visual novel then sure, a really good story and trump the gameplay. I also like to think of Nier as a game that has a story that trumps the gameplay, it's kind of the sole reason I stuck with it. Point and clicks are another good example of story over gameplay.

Games that require anything other than clicking through blocks of text or pointing and clicking on objects are pretty gameplay over story for me. Mario games for example have very simple stories but are still incredibly awesome because of the tight controls and creative level design.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

Shakespeare isn't "fun" (generally speaking). Different games can offer different qualities that are equally valid.

Games which focus on story are 100% fine. But don't dilute the story with shooting gallery padding or what have you.

What? Shakespeare is totally enjoyable if you get what's being said!

 

[orthodoxy1095]

You're right. It's basically "oh, you like that band? I liked them before they sold out" snobbery.

As I pointed out earlier, the snobbery is worse. It's like the grumpy old novelists who must have complained about film being a poor medium for story. There's a stunning lack of imagination and wanting to push boundaries among some posters here.

Videogame stories are just terrible period, but what makes it even worse is that it's so jarring going from gameplay to watching/reading repeat over and over. When I go to play a game I'm in game mode I'm there to interact not be passive. Just like if I'm in a movie watching mode I'm there to watch a movie, I don't want to stop the movie every 10 minutes and go play ping pong.

I get a warm sense of happiness knowing Miyamoto got rid of most of the story in Sticker Star. He's one of the good guys.

The bolded is honestly disgusting. But as with the rest of your post, it's mere opinion. Video game stories are not universally bad, that's just how you feel.

 

[-Cwalat-]

Videogame stories are just terrible period, but what makes it even worse is that it's so jarring going from gameplay to watching/reading repeat over and over. When I go to play a game I'm in game mode I'm there to interact not be passive. Just like if I'm in a movie watching mode I'm there to watch a movie, I don't want to stop the movie every 10 minutes and go play ping pong.

I get a warm sense of happiness knowing Miyamoto got rid of most of the story in Sticker Star. He's one of the good guys.

There are two kinds of gamers, those who skip cutscenes and those who don't. Me personally, i want to punch someone really bad when they skip cutscenes.

 

[Pellegri Testament]

So what I've learned is that gameplay>story unless the story is such a laughably bad train wreck that it can amuse me enough to ignore the abysmal gameplay. I will concede that deadly premonition is amazing.

Who said that every game was like that? Because it sure as hell wasn't me. I was making an example as to why people enjoyed "that" particular game so much, not that every single game is like that.

With that said, there are games that focus far more on the story element than they do the gameplay, the gameplay being little more than a walking simulator with some sub par combat(aka quite a few jrpgs). People didn't enjoy Xenogears/Xenosaga/Legend of Heroes for their gameplay(which I outlined what it is above), they enjoyed them for the story. All of these games honestly had gameplay ranging from "shit" to "ehh", yet the stories are what made the games what they were. Without the story(aka everything that makes the story, not just plot), those games would not have existed, the gameplay did not even come close to the impact the stories did.

Not every game is the same people. The focus of some of them is different than the focus of others. There is no end all be all when it comes to whether or not story is better than gameplay or the other way around.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

There are two kinds of gamers, those who skip cutscenes and those who don't. Me personally, i want to punch someone really bad when they skip cutscenes.

Oh no. Not the cutscenes again. Please don't restart that debate when we just had it a few months ago. I don't care if people skip them (their choice), the problem is if people claim cutscenes have no redeeming quality and that story has no place in a game.

 

[Frillen]

If I want good stories I watch movies or TV series. When it comes to video games gameplay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>story

 

[orthodoxy1095]

If I want good stories I watch movies or TV series. When it comes to video games gameplay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>story

Do you think games are incapable of telling good stories? Or is this just a statement of personal preference?

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Whoops. Double post.

 

[Version 3.0]

Narratives in one of the most immersive entertainment mediums—the only one where one has control over their own experience and how events and scenarios unfold—is a creative dead end. Wow. Just wow.

You don't have control. Anything meaningful that you're allowed to affect within the narrative has to be programmed in advance. And any significant deviation within the narrative creates more work for the developer. A true, free-form open narrative that has any real substance to it is unrealistic.

Your contribution to the "narrative" is "player went west, entered car, drove 700 feet, crashed into tree", etc. Games that give you non-linear control don't have a narrative to go with that.

Games with a strong narrative, at best, may let you play scenes out of order.

I don't know that I'd call it a "creative dead end", but game stories can not be both interactive and under player control and compelling. Either they read like a GPS update, or they remove control from the player and tell a static story, or one with very few or very minor deviations.

 

[More_Badass]

1) Obviously no one does that, but the point is that the interactions the games are offering are limited and meaningless. The idea that pressing a button to grab a ladder is somehow more impactful than the game doing it for you is baseless. It sounds right on paper, but has absolutely no connection to the real world. The game brings you to the ladder and tell you to press a button to grab it; what’s meaningful about that?
2) QTE is the same thing as pressing a button to move a ladder. QTE is the same thing as pressing a button to shoot someone. Struggling through a tunnel could be replaced with a cutscene with minimal impact on the story or how the player feels about the story. That interaction is fun, but rarely does it actually contribute to the narrative in any meaningful way. Think about it realistically, if that scene didn’t exist, would the game really be that different? No, it wouldn’t. Similarly with Heavy Rain. Imagine a scene in a movie where someone is cutting off their fingers. The DVD is programmed in a way that it pauses the scene every five seconds, requiring you to press play to continue. Did I just create meaningful interaction in a movie?
3) Okay, here is where we agree! I agree that video games are different than books and movies. Minecraft is a great example of video games doing something that movies and books cannot. Do you know what isn’t a good example of this: Almost every other game mentioned in this thread; almost every game known for having a good story. The kinds of interactions you keep bringing up are so minor that they could be replaced with a cutscene and the story would remain uneffective.

It's meaningful becaus it's a moment built on the foundation of the game's story and the relationship that's been developing between Joel and Ellie for the entire game. It uses that simply prompt to showcase how Ellie has changed due to what happened due to Winter, by using what the player knows and expects and twisting that

And no, that moment in Heavy Rain wouldn't have been the same if it was just cutscene that you triggered. You had spent the last ten minutes preparing. Deciding how you were going to go about the act, sterilizing the tools, getting medicinal supplies to deal with the wound afterwards. The whole section builds to that moment of finally making the cut and even then it's not just pressing a button, but mirroriny the actions your character is performing

I have to ask: have you played The Last of Us, Heavy Rain, or Metal Gear Solid 4?

 

[ShinMaruku]

As I have said before games are not mature enough before I can trust designers to put ina good story. Games can have serviceable stories though.

 

[FluxWaveZ]

You don't have control. Anything meaningful that you're allowed to affect within the narrative has to be programmed in advance. And any significant deviation within the narrative creates more work for the developer. A true, free-form open narrative that has any real substance to it is unrealistic.

Obviously. We're not waxing philosophical here and discussing whether humans actually have free will or not. We're talking about interaction between a player and the game, and that interaction is determined by the developers.

Your contribution to the "narrative" is "player went west, entered car, drove 700 feet, crashed into tree", etc. Games that give you non-linear control don't have a narrative to go with that.

Games with a strong narrative, at best, may let you play scenes out of order.

I don't know that I'd call it a "creative dead end", but game stories can not be both interactive and under player control and compelling. Either they read like a GPS update, or they remove control from the player and tell a static story, or one with very few or very minor deviations.

Alpha Protocol is the only game I need to cite to say that this is wrong.

 

[-Cwalat-]

Oh no. Not the cutscenes again. Please don't restart that debate when we just had it a few months ago. I don't care if people skip them (their choice), the problem is if people claim cutscenes have no redeeming quality and that story has no place in a game.

Well, it's true. I feel like flykicking someone and punching them all at once when i'm following someones playthrough of a storydriven game (usually happens when you're not alone when gaming) and they skip the cutscene mid through.

 

[Pellegri Testament]

I don't know that I'd call it a "creative dead end", but game stories can not be both interactive and under player control and compelling. Either they read like a GPS update, or they remove control from the player and tell a static story, or one with very few or very minor deviations.

So by that definition, books and movies are "at a creative dead end" too right? Because all of them tell a static story too, a story that literally has no deviation unlike certain games where you may actually have a choice as to what you want to do at a certain point.

If anything, games are evolving past books and movies as far as how stories are told, even if the stories may or may not be good.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Well, it's true. I feel like flykicking someone and punching them all at once when i'm following someones playthrough of a storydriven game (usually happens when you're not alone when gaming) and they skip the cutscene mid through.

Oh. Well now that's true. People that skip cutscenes with other players involved irritate me as well. But in terms of private habits, whatever. I don't care about that.

So by that definition, books and movies are "at a creative dead end" too right? Because all of them tell a static story too, a story that literally has no deviation unlike certain games where you may actually have a choice as to what you want to do at a certain point.

If anything, games are evolving past books and movies as far as how stories are told, even if the stories may or may not be good.

The thing that's unique about video games is that they can take the best aspects of music, film, literature and combine them into an extremely compelling experience. That's what makes the story-telling opportunities so special.

 

[Version 3.0]

There is no end all be all when it comes to whether or not story is better than gameplay or the other way around.

Sure, nothing is absolute. However, I will say that, in my experience of a couple thousand games, less than 1 percent have a story that's more important to the experience than the gameplay (I actually couldn't think of any at all from that 2,000). That's in my opinion, of course. Obviously there are people here who would disagree with me on specific games.

I haven't played Deadly Premonition, but I can buy your description of it. If the template for story > gameplay is that the game is terrible, but the story is so bad it's good, then I think we're looking at a very rare breed. That description did bring to mind Asura's Wrath, another game I haven't played, but it was described rather similarly to me by a friend. He said that it's barely a game (because it's a series of QTEs), but that it was so over-the-top dumb and hilarious that he kept playing anyway. I've only seen the demo, but I accept that description as well.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

Like I said, I understand if somebody needs to have good, compelling gameplay to enjoy a game. What bothers me are those who disregard story regardless of its quality - especially in lieu of criticizing a game with a focus on good narrative and/or cutscenes as if good gameplay and good storytelling are mutually exclusive.

Granted, I also think a game with a great story can overcome mediocre or shallow gameplay, but I understand and accept that plenty of games cannot do that and I'm cool with that.

But it IS nonsense that stories in games don't matter as a generality. That mindset, if adhered to by game creators, would prohibitively stunt - hell regress - the medium.

Thankfully, that mindset is not the prevailing attitude from the majority of gamers or devs.

There's a reason Nintendo is now niche.

 

[-Cwalat-]

Oh. Well now that's true. People that skip cutscenes with other players involved irritate me as well. But in terms of private habits, whatever. I don't care about that.

Don't care too much about that either.

 

[FluxWaveZ]

Sure, nothing is absolute. However, I will say that, in my experience of a couple thousand games, less than 1 percent have a story that's more important to the experience than the gameplay (I actually couldn't think of any at all from that 2,000). That's in my opinion, of course. Obviously there are people here who would disagree with me on specific games.

Sturgeon's Law. Regardless of the medium, people will always say this. About anything.

If you avoid narrative based games, then I don't see the point in saying that less than 1 percent of the ones you've played have a narrative that was more important to the experience than the gameplay.

 

[Version 3.0]

So by that definition, books and movies are "at a creative dead end" too right? Because all of them tell a static story too, a story that literally has no deviation unlike certain games where you may actually have a choice as to what you want to do at a certain point.

If anything, games are evolving past books and movies as far as how stories are told, even if the stories may or may not be good.

I was commenting on the idea that games' interactivity trumps other mediums' ability to tell a story. If anything, interactivity gets in the way of that. At best, you get a Choose Your Own Adventure book, and those are the absolute bottom of the barrel literature.

And you may note that I specifically did NOT sign off on the description of "creative dead end", by the way.

 

[Version 3.0]

Sturgeon's Law. Regardless of the medium, people will always say this. About anything.

Why are you posting this? I didn't say that 90% of anything is crap. I was referring to my personal game collection. I don't consider it crap. It contains the best games ever made. However, it does not contain any of the best stories.

If you avoid narrative based games, then I don't see the point in saying that less than 1 percent of the ones you've played have a narrative that was more important to the experience than the gameplay.

Nice try, but show me where I said I avoid anything. I don't actively avoid games with narratives. Maybe the genres I prefer do align with that to some degree, there are very few genre holes in my library.

I play Naughty Dog's games, for example, which are supposed to be such great narrative-based games (according to some). Or Horror games like Resident Evil, the recent Alien: Isolation or Dead Space, or some RPGs like Fallout, recent cinematic FPS's like Bioshock, Wolfenstein and Far Cry, or many other examples. The only standout genre I can think of that I play very seldom is JRPGs, but even then, I've played a few Final Fantasy games, Valkyria Chronicles, and a few others.

All of those, I'm certain, would be held up by some as great examples of games with good stories, or more on topic, games where the story trumps the gameplay. I would absolutely disagree with that.

 

[Raonak]

Gameplay and story can be equal for me, i enjoyed heavy rain and the first few hours of persona 4, where all youre doing is enjoying the story.

At the same time, story is not a requirement. Ive enjoyed xountless games with no story.

I think it depends:
first time through; story > gameplay.
Repeating playthrough; gameplay >>> story

My favourite games are the ones that strike a balance of both.

 

[More_Badass]

I was commenting on the idea that games' interactivity trumps other mediums' ability to tell a story. If anything, interactivity gets in the way of that. At best, you get a Choose Your Own Adventure book, and those are the absolute bottom of the barrel literature.

And you may note that I specifically did NOT sign off on the description of "creative dead end", by the way.

I don't think games trump other mediums in terms of overall quality of story, but I absolutely think that the interactive nature of the medium allows games to tell stories in ways that books and movies never can.

 

[FluxWaveZ]

Why are you posting this? I didn't say that 90% of anything is crap. I was referring to my personal game collection. I don't consider it crap. It contains the best games ever made. However, it does not contain any of the best stories.

That's why I'm talking about the stories, since that's what you were talking about. Essentially: 99% of the games you've played (or 100%) didn't have stories that were more important to the experience than the gameplay. That is what you said, and what I cited that law for.

 

[Michanical]

See, that's what I'm saying: you do not see it how many others do, and that's alright. But from MGS3's ending, to The Wolf Among Us' QTEs, to Mass Effect's Renegade/Paragon interrupts, to just holding one direction in The Evil Within in order to escape from a monster, to throwing a piece of trash in a garbage can in Half-Life 2 (or not) and then having the narrative respond accordingly, to mashing a button in order to resist torture in MGS1... All of these are moments that DO make the story more engaging and impactful for MANY.

You do not have to feel that way; you don't have to want to feel that way. But understand that many others do feel that way, and that simple player agency CAN have a huge impact on how one perceives the story. It's just like the Mother 3 example someone posted a while back. Or all of the ones I posted above. Or thousands more that exist out there, from Heavy Rain, to Call of Duty, to Assassin's Creed, to Portal 2, to whatever.

Portal 2... so you're saying that the final, dramatic portal shot in that game would have felt just the same if it were resolved through a cutscene instead of it being forced on the player to shoot it? Heh, I'm pretty sure you're in the real small minority, on that one.

I'm not going to address this:

...though, because that's just a bunch of nonsense. But guess what? Sometimes inaction DOES have a memorable impact on the story, as people can tell you when it comes to Far Cry 4's beginning. Or a certain MGS3 boss. Or even Animal Crossing.

Yes, to all of your examples. Yes, firing the gun in MGS3. Yes, to shooting the final Portal 2. Yes, to TWAU QTEs. Yes, to HL2’s garbage. Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes. All of these games do not create any meaningful interaction or choice; every event is accounted for. Tell me, when I decide not to follow the game’s prompts, what is the consequence? Do I die and respawn back at the checkpoint? Does the game just hang there? Does the game rewrite minor parts of the story around it? How are any of these meaningful, emotionally impactful actions? At the end of the day, these moments equate to pressing “play” on a movie. ME and TWAU/Walking Dead are the same, except they play out like a choose your own adventure novel. Would you call the interaction in those books meaningful?

The only game you’ve listed that does anything interesting narratively is Animal Crossing. Animal Crossing offers meaningful interaction in physically shaping your world. The story that is written is almost entirely written by the player as they play. The problem is that the story is very thin beyond what the player is willing to put into it, which means the their mileage may vary.

 

[FluxWaveZ]

Yes, to all of your examples. Yes, firing the gun in MGS3. Yes, to shooting the final Portal 2. Yes, to TWAU QTEs. Yes, to HL2’s garbage. Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes. All of these games do not create any meaningful interaction or choice; every event is accounted for. Tell me, when I decide not to follow the game’s prompts, what is the consequence? Do I die and respawn back at the checkpoint? Does the game just hang there? Does the game rewrite minor parts of the story around it? How are any of these meaningful, emotionally impactful actions? At the end of the day, these moments equate to pressing “play” on a movie. ME and TWAU/Walking Dead are the same, except they play out like a choose your own adventure novel. Would you call the interaction in those books meaningful?

And what I'm saying is that many other people do gain something from those very small actions, whether it's an emotional impact, a feeling of exhiliration, of pleasure, of fear, or whatever. Forcing the player to push a door to a room where they hear chains dragging against the floor in a horror game is scarier than taking away control from the player to have the character open that door through a cutscene. This is basic game design.

You're being intentionally obtuse at this point, or refuse to gain perspective that many others don't share the mindset you do. All I can say is that people do feel that these subtle, small actions are emotionally impactful even if you don't, and leave it at that. There is proof everywhere of such, whether it's through developer interviews or through the players who responded positively to them. You can keep repeating "It's just like pressing play/pause during a movie" all you want, but the fact is others don't see it that way. And they'll continue to not feel that way. So games will continue to implement those small actions.

 

[xevis]

As I've said before, games don't need stories as an inherent intrinsic part of their nature. Games must have gameplay. However, certain kinds of games do not exist without stories.

This doesn't ring true to me. Can you cite some examples?

As I see it, a game (as per the Sid Meier definition) is just a series of interesting choices (towards some goal, I guess) while a story is just a setting with characters and events connected by an arc. The story can give context and meaning to those choices (beyond just reach-the-goal) but it does not define them.

For the MILLIONTH time.

A movie can NOT tell a story the same way a video game can.

I think this is an interesting comment. Not because I disagree but because so many of the examples we've had of games with "good" stories choose to tell those stories exactly as a movie would; i.e. through non-interactive cut-scenes (TLOU). Which isn't to say that I think you cannot tell interesting stories in this way -- certainly you can -- but that those stories are not well served by being presented in an interactive medium.