73 réponses à ce sujet

[Atmosfear3]

I'm going to have to disagree. In terms of media, to me there are two kinds: passive and interactive.

Passive media falls under things like tv shows, movies, any sort of media in which all I do is observe. Interactive media like games, virtual or otherwise involves me actually doing something.

If I am to play a game, I expect that I will be fully immersed and involved in the action. Story elements are important when it is available but without a solid gameplay foundation, no game can survive.

On the flipside, singleplayer games which focus soley on story needs to have a solid story-based foundation as well since the flow of events dictates how good the gameplay will be.

In the end, gameplay is more important than story though not so much that it appears to be a landslide.

[Rendar666]

slimgrin wrote...

Op makes a good point about the relationship between story and gameplay in an RPG. I guess it must be preference, because I would rather have deep gameplay than deep story. I have never seen a story in video games hold a candle to the best literature. Why? Because I believe story is the domain of literature and not video games, and quiet frankly, the likes of Charles Dickens and George Orwell beats the socks off the best of Bioware. That is a plain fact.

I would even argue that you don't need a story driven purpose for the actual gameplay. If the mechanics are deep and srategic, and if they are addictive, no amount of story telling makes it better.

Lastly, I should point out the obvious fact that many genres only recently incorporating story still thrive on their gameplay. Modern Warfare, Street Fighter, Tetris...all thrive on strategy and fast-twitch action. No one is playing them for their stories, which they ALL have, even some versions of Tetris.

While I see your point, I've got to say that a game with AMAZING gameplay and deep...stuff... a story, a good one, could only make it better.

For example: Mount and Blade is soooo fun that it isn't even funny. But the story isn't... okay, well there isn't even really a story. A story, a good one, could only make it better.

Edit: Why should the domain of story just remain with literature? If people try to make the best stories they can, that's at least an advancement. I think the stories of games will increase in their complexity and uniqueness. We'll just have to wait and see though, won't we?

Modifié par Rendar666, 01 mai 2010 - 07:50 .

[Rendar666]

Atmosfear3 wrote...

I'm going to have to disagree. In terms of media, to me there are two kinds: passive and interactive.
Passive media falls under things like tv shows, movies, any sort of media in which all I do is observe. Interactive media like games, virtual or otherwise involves me actually doing something.
If I am to play a game, I expect that I will be fully immersed and involved in the action. Story elements are important when it is available but without a solid gameplay foundation, no game can survive.
On the flipside, singleplayer games which focus soley on story needs to have a solid story-based foundation as well since the flow of events dictates how good the gameplay will be.
In the end, gameplay is more important than story though not so much that it appears to be a landslide.

But wouldn't the story keep you immersed? That's kind of what I'm trying to say. I know that most people that start open world games, GTA, Elder Scrolls, etc. etc. they go around and kill stuff. But after a while they get bored and then they start the story. The story is what keeps you involved. Do you disagree? I can't see how you could .

It is all up to preference, though. Everything is up to the player.

[Rendar666]

slimgrin wrote...

"Yes, but how long can you play Tetris, Lumines and Roguelikes without getting so bored you want to cry like a baby? The thrills of fun gameplay only last so long."

This is like asking a chessmaster why he keeps playing chess.

Why do think StreetFighter is still around? Its because of competitive strategy, using your brain. That never gets old.

Honestly, a discussion such as this could only thrive on the Bioware forums.

 

hmmm.... I wonder exactly what it is you mean by that last statement? I guess it was an insult, IDK. Just because someone doesn't like Tetries, or Chess or whatever, doesn't mean they don't like using their brain, .

I wonder if people still read books anymore.

... Well... I play chess. I read books all the time and I write. I own half the books in the world. lol. I like Lord of the Rings especially. Very good.

I understand why some people might play these games a lot (I just don't like Tetris). I guess I just put my own feelings on Tetris in there...


Edit: Actually, even the Chess Master isn't playing Chess 24/7. I don't think they would play 24/7. Not everyone that likes something plays or does it 24/7 while some people live it. Some football players LIVE football.

Modifié par Rendar666, 01 mai 2010 - 07:41 .

[TJSolo]

slimgrin wrote...
This is true. Some open world games incorporate story better than others. Oblivion does a pretty good job of intertwining plot threads with quests so they are not all just random events. But I think this is hard for devs to do.

I agree good story makes certain types of games, namely RPG's, better. But since we are talking about video games, story is a relatively recent dvelopement, one that supplements gameplay. And this dynamic is always changing in the RPG genre. Not so much in other genre's which still rely heavily on rich gameplay mechanics.

How is story a relatively new concept? Every since Mario bashed his first ?-box and Sonic grabbed his first ring the story side of video games have been expanding and used with varied effectiveness.
3-d graphics has added to the cinematic feel of stories more but stories have been playing a large role in games for a for long time.

[Joonasp]

Story and gameplay must be balanced in order to produce a good game. Essentialy balance is the best scenario here.



The thread author brought up the example of Morrowind. To me Morrowind was good looking but it quickly bored me. Cluncky interface and repetetive gameplay really killed to experience for me. Therefore every game has to have up to date gameplay and smooth interface to function enough good so the story can be experienced optimaly.



So here comes my point. Games aren't made from story. Games are based of their gameplay. Thourgh gameplay player experiences the story and so forth. Without gameplay players can't experience the story. So bad gameplay could have good story but for most of the time I wouldn't make any sense form it at all.

[Atmosfear3]

Rendar666 wrote...

Atmosfear3 wrote...

I'm going to have to disagree. In terms of media, to me there are two kinds: passive and interactive.
Passive media falls under things like tv shows, movies, any sort of media in which all I do is observe. Interactive media like games, virtual or otherwise involves me actually doing something.
If I am to play a game, I expect that I will be fully immersed and involved in the action. Story elements are important when it is available but without a solid gameplay foundation, no game can survive.
On the flipside, singleplayer games which focus soley on story needs to have a solid story-based foundation as well since the flow of events dictates how good the gameplay will be.
In the end, gameplay is more important than story though not so much that it appears to be a landslide.

But wouldn't the story keep you immersed? That's kind of what I'm trying to say. I know that most people that start open world games, GTA, Elder Scrolls, etc. etc. they go around and kill stuff. But after a while they get bored and then they start the story. The story is what keeps you involved. Do you disagree? I can't see how you could .

It is all up to preference, though. Everything is up to the player.

No amount of story will keep me playing if the gameplay is garbage.  Look at Assassin's Creed 1.  The story was mildly interesting but the gameplay bored me to tears.  I put it down after I visited the second city and sold it the next day.

[cruc1al]

[quote]slimgrin wrote...

[quote]TJSolo wrote...

[quote]slimgrin wrote...
This is true. Some open world games incorporate story better than others. Oblivion does a pretty good job of intertwining plot threads with quests so they are not all just random events. But I think this is hard for devs to do.

I agree good story makes certain types of games, namely RPG's, better. But since we are talking about video games, story is a relatively recent dvelopement, one that supplements gameplay. And this dynamic is always changing in the RPG genre. Not so much in other genre's which still rely heavily on rich gameplay mechanics.

[/quote]
How is story a relatively new concept? Every since Mario bashed his first ?-box and Sonic grabbed his first ring the story side of video games have been expanding and used with varied effectiveness.
3-d graphics has added to the cinematic feel of stories more but stories have been playing a large role in games for a for long time.

[/quote]

Again, people didn't play Mario Bro's to find out what the princess would say when you rescued her. [/quote]

Then why is there a story in Mario Bros? Just for the heck of it? Or to enhance gameplay?
[/quote]

[cruc1al]

Atmosfear3 wrote...

Rendar666 wrote...

Atmosfear3 wrote...

I'm going to have to disagree. In terms of media, to me there are two kinds: passive and interactive.
Passive media falls under things like tv shows, movies, any sort of media in which all I do is observe. Interactive media like games, virtual or otherwise involves me actually doing something.
If I am to play a game, I expect that I will be fully immersed and involved in the action. Story elements are important when it is available but without a solid gameplay foundation, no game can survive.
On the flipside, singleplayer games which focus soley on story needs to have a solid story-based foundation as well since the flow of events dictates how good the gameplay will be.
In the end, gameplay is more important than story though not so much that it appears to be a landslide.

But wouldn't the story keep you immersed? That's kind of what I'm trying to say. I know that most people that start open world games, GTA, Elder Scrolls, etc. etc. they go around and kill stuff. But after a while they get bored and then they start the story. The story is what keeps you involved. Do you disagree? I can't see how you could .

It is all up to preference, though. Everything is up to the player.

No amount of story will keep me playing if the gameplay is garbage.

Yep, the OP said you can't have one without the other.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Meh. OP, I think it's the contrary. If you get the history of gaming since the beginning, story is becoming more and more important on mostly action and games in general since the cinematic influence and lack of hardware limitation on games starting in the 32-bit era with mostly IMO Metal Gear Solid and Resident Evil series. In the past that you had great games but for most of it the story and setting wasn't so important. Story and great games aren't really related, just look at the Nintendo stuff, which IMO is a great example to it. They ALWAYS have great gameplay but they don't put much attention to story or setting, with the exception of Metroid and Zelda, that both IMO doesn't have that great story, or characters, etc.



But also IMO a great story added to a game makes it transcend the experience of only push buttons or move yourself like an idiot (nowadays) and have a great fun with it. The unique story or its big momments is what you gonna remember it for decades and talk with your friends. That's what made the initial Metal Gear Solid burn the experience in my memory forever. And that's why I can't get into most Nintendo games or praise it so much. They are fun, but that's all, there are other games with excellent gameplay that offer more than it.



But for a game, gameplay must ALWAYS come first. For games: good programers>>>good writers.

[TJSolo]

slimgrin wrote...
How does Mario's story hold up to MassEffect? And sonics to Dragon age? Again, people didn't play Mario Bro's to find out what the princess would say when you rescued her. If you took these stories seriously, I am surprised. I played Mario Bros for the platforming madness that it was. Not story.

I guess what I mean is story elements in recent games are more sophisticated examples of the craft. It has evolved. Story is becoming a more integral part of gaming, for better or worse. But early video games really didn't rely on story.

That would be why I said stories have been expanding since then, not to be derisive and say the Mario 1 story directly compares with ME1. The story of 8-bit games usually were confined to a few paragraphs in the game manual.  I am not sure how serious I took the story when I was a kid, all I can be sure of is I was aware of it. Not like it how seriously I took it at the time matters.
From then on games developed their stories and gameplay at the same time.

The 8-bit generation I referred to was more about proof of concept to show the world the validity of console gaming vs arcades. Each generation saw improvements in story, gameplay, and overall implementation. It was 3-D gaming that took the paragraphs of scrolling text and sprites to another level of story telling ability. That is what many people here are confusing with story. Cinematic presentation is not story, it is just another way to display it within games.

[TJSolo]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

But for a game, gameplay must ALWAYS come first. For games: good programers>>>good writers.

Without a writer or some basic story as a guide, what will programmers do?
A game is basically a story that programmers expound upon graphically.

[SuperMedbh]

TJSolo wrote...

How is story a relatively new concept? Every since Mario bashed his first ?-box and Sonic grabbed his first ring the story side of video games have been expanding and used with varied effectiveness.
3-d graphics has added to the cinematic feel of stories more but stories have been playing a large role in games for a for long time.

To be fair to those claiming story is new to games, I'll agree that it's becoming more common.  Let's be honest, most gameplay narratives were barely above "You got gun.  Kill stuff and take their loot" until recently.  But Silent Hill was made over ten years ago, and did fairly well even.

Someone said earlier that games haven't had their Dickens or Woolf yet.  To quote Pitne For, "True and...true."  But this isn't really fair to an art form that has been around for perhaps 30 years at most.  Dickens wrote alongside a host of pennydreadful writers who were, well, dreadful.  And I will say that over twenty years ago, videogames had Douglas Adams.  I've never been able to find "The Starship Titanic" in a form compatible with a modern computer, but I hear it was hilarious.  And he did a terrific verious of the Hitchhiker's Guide that is now online in flash form, hosted by the BBC:

Hitchhiker's Guide Twentieth Anniversary Edition
It's not the medium, it's us--  both the consumers and creators.  But Don't Panic

Modifié par SuperMedbh, 01 mai 2010 - 08:42 .

[TJSolo]

slimgrin wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

But for a game, gameplay must ALWAYS come first. For games: good programers>>>good writers.

Without a writer or some basic story as a guide, what will programmers do?
A game is basically a story that programmers expound upon graphically.

A clever riposte TJ, but that is quite a stretch.

No more of a stretch then the inital claim.

[SuperMedbh]

slimgrin wrote...

One thing that bothers me about story is how video game publishers these days use it as a hook to help sell games. It's in their best interest to include elements from every possible genre to expand the potential fan base.

But isn't it a good thing that they feel that they need to have a story?  Sure, it's cheesy, but what do you expect marketing to say?  "Pong, the Return of the Glowing Square Ball---  the worst story line since Sylvester Stallone wrote his own scripts!"  Sure, that'll sell....

Seriously, don't expect honesty from the kids in marketing.  There's hardly a game designer/modeler out there who doesn't roll their eyes when you speak of them, I'm sure the writers are no different.