114 réponses à ce sujet

[Auztin]

Fortack wrote...

jreezy wrote...

Auztinito wrote...

RPG Games should be treated like a interactive movie.You control it.Action Adventure games should have great stories & narratives just like movies.I'm glad he left God of War team because i wouldn't want him on anything like God of War.Story comes first.

To sacrifice what makes a video game a video game to try and be more like books and movies is idiotic.

Indeed. Games are meant to be played, all the other stuff has nothing to do with gaming and therefore should not be the main focus of developers. The fact that Hollywood has reduced movies to showing off their latest special effects only is bad enough. I, for one, hope games will not "evolve" in a similar way.

What I mean by Story comes first is games like Uncharted,Heavy Rain,Halo,Red Dead Redemption,InFamous,Dragon Age,Mass Effect,Splinter Cell,Ghost Recon,Rainbow Six Vegas,Dead Space,& F.E.A.R.All have good storylines with decent gameplay or great gameplay.Story should be 55% & gameplay 45%
or both half & half.If games just did gameplay like the old games like Pac-Man that is like saying movies just need 3 hours of nonsense & we should be happy with like the movie 300.Movies need stories & video games do to.

Modifié par Auztinito, 21 avril 2012 - 06:07 .

[Sajji]

While quite obvious not all games need a story (Tetris is an example), for almost all games there is some form of an antagonist, and no matter who the antagonist is, there needs to be a motive for the antagonist to exist. From here it can be player inference or direct story, but the story still exists.

The orignal Super Mario Bros. had a story, albeit simplistic: rescue Princess Peach from Bowser, who is holding her captive. Goal: to travel the dangers of the world to rescue her. This simplicity is a story.

If God of War is to have 'bad guys' and bosses, there needs to be a story and objective behind it, or it becomes senseless and meaningless. The game would cease to have purpose.

There could be a counterargument using multiplayer, but even then there is a purpose...you are rising to become champion of the enemy.

[Homebound]

Sajji wrote...

While quite obvious not all games need a story (Tetris is an example), for almost all games there is some form of an antagonist, and no matter who the antagonist is, there needs to be a motive for the antagonist to exist. From here it can be player inference or direct story, but the story still exists.

The orignal Super Mario Bros. had a story, albeit simplistic: rescue Princess Peach from Bowser, who is holding her captive. Goal: to travel the dangers of the world to rescue her. This simplicity is a story.

If God of War is to have 'bad guys' and bosses, there needs to be a story and objective behind it, or it becomes senseless and meaningless. The game would cease to have purpose.

There could be a counterargument using multiplayer, but even then there is a purpose...you are rising to become champion of the enemy.

thats overthinking things a bit. a videogame needs to be a game first and THEN you start throwing in those checklist features..

[slimgrin]

So this douche doesn't want to tell stories? That's fine by me.

[Ultai]

Eh, I don't need a story for me to enjoy a game. I enjoy single player rpgs, but when the mood hits me I'll join up with some friends for some counter-strike, killing floor, and the like for some short term casual fun.

[Il Divo]

He doesn't want to tell stories, but he actually bothers to implement cut-scenes, dialogue, and a storyline. Very interesting.

[naughty99]

slimgrin wrote...

So this douche doesn't want to tell stories? That's fine by me.

I decided to watch the actual presentation and it turned out to be pretty interesting. Link

Calling his talk "We shouldn't tell stories with our video games" seemed more of a sensationalist grab at riling up some people, as he's not really hating on stories, just the reliance on cut scenes. 

Essentially he's arguing in favor of games where the player takes a more active role in the storytelling, rather than games with lots of cut scenes where the interaction becomes more passive.

[naughty99]

Auztinito wrote...

Fortack wrote...

jreezy wrote...

Auztinito wrote...

RPG Games should be treated like a interactive movie.You control it.Action Adventure games should have great stories & narratives just like movies.I'm glad he left God of War team because i wouldn't want him on anything like God of War.Story comes first.

To sacrifice what makes a video game a video game to try and be more like books and movies is idiotic.

Indeed. Games are meant to be played, all the other stuff has nothing to do with gaming and therefore should not be the main focus of developers. The fact that Hollywood has reduced movies to showing off their latest special effects only is bad enough. I, for one, hope games will not "evolve" in a similar way.

What I mean by Story comes first is games like Uncharted,Heavy Rain,Halo,Red Dead Redemption,InFamous,Dragon Age,Mass Effect,Splinter Cell,Ghost Recon,Rainbow Six Vegas,Dead Space,& F.E.A.R.All have good storylines with decent gameplay or great gameplay.Story should be 55% & gameplay 45%
or both half & half.If games just did gameplay like the old games like Pac-Man that is like saying movies just need 3 hours of nonsense & we should be happy with like the movie 300.Movies need stories & video games do to.

Why not tell the story through the gameplay? I don't see why they need to be mutually exclusive in any way.

In novels, the story is expressed through dialogue or events that occur, as well as occasionally the internal thoughts of characters.

In films, the story is shown, rather than told, and still expressed through dialogue interactions between characters and a sequence of events that occur.

In games, the story can be "shown" in narrative cut scenes, similar to films, but it is also experienced first hand in a more direct way by player actions and choices in the course of playing the game.

Certain kinds of stories in games lend themselves to more rigidly structured games with a smaller degree of player choice. Other kinds of stories work well for more loosely structured, non-linear games. And there is a broad, overlapping spectrum in between.

Modifié par naughty99, 22 avril 2012 - 06:01 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I think that he makes some very good points, though obviously that's drowned out in the whole "but i love stories! games are all about stories!" sentiment I've seen here.

There's a post on another forum I frequent (guess which one ) which may shed some light on why Jaffe feels the way he does about stories - particularly cinematic narratives - in games.

The games industry is diametrically opposed to good narrative, and that applies equally to indie/Kickstarter games as it does to publisher-backed games.

When developers make a game, they are basically saying to the design+writing team: 'here: create a masterpiece on this topic, that fits this feel and will turn out like X'. Then they kick it over to a pre-established design/writing team, who goes to work and then kicks back the best product they can come up with in a budgeted time-frame. That might be good for the writers who get to have safe jobs, but it's terrible for actually producing a decent outcome.

I've made this comparison before, but consider the methods of literary books, films, and daytime soap TV:

(1) Literary books: massive numbers of writers put forward manuscripts, the publisher (who is far more fluent in literature than games publishers are in game writing) gets to pick the 'best' ones and run with those. Some very talented writers receive longer contracts and greater security. ALL writers get complete creative freedom over what they are writing on.

(2) Films: same as above, except sometimes an established writer will be contracted to produce a manuscript. They get paid for the manuscript, but there is no guarantee that it will be the one used for the film - and the producer will usually commission several in any event ('quality/premium' television works around a similar 'commission multiple authors' method).

(3) Daytime soap-tv and 'Mills and Boon'/'Forgotten Realms'/etc type of pulp franchise books: have pre-set writing teams who write a product to pre-agreed specifications within a budgeted time-frame, and unless the product breaks those specifications the producer will almost always just run with whatever product is turned out.

Guess which method the games industry uses.

Obviously some companies are better at story design than others, and no doubt are more demanding in terms of re-writes, quality of hires, creative freedom and so on. But you still have a pre-set team being asked to perform on demand, in return for job security.

It's the 'perform on demand' part that's the problem. Some very talented writers can do that consistently if they have full control to run with whatever genre or idea they have going at that point in time - unfortunately, most of those writers do not work in the games industry. For most professional writers, if you ask them to perform under factory conditions (i.e. make a product to specs on demand) they'll produce a factory product. The best of them might occasionally produce a Planescape:Torment, but that just emphasises the point: whilst preparation and training certainly helps, these are occasional sparks, not a constant flow. Most other creative industries are built around turning that into something approximating a flow by doing the exact opposite of what the games industry does, i.e. jettisoning reliance upon a pre-set team of authors. One author might not be able to produce a PS:T (sticking with the video-game example for the sake of the topic) every attempt, but if you are commissioning from 10 established authors, or getting manuscripts from hundreds of authors, then you have a much better chance of producing those on a semi-regular basis.

Now the downside of that is a massive loss in job security for the writers, which in turn might decrease the quality of writers to choose from. The other alternative is to try and put the writers in a similar position to literary authors by placing them much higher up the design process, so that ideas go from the writing to the game design instead of the other way around. But that sounds decidedly risky as a game design method - I doubt that any company would want to subject their choice of franchise or their game design ideas to a process where they need a good story design set out before they start working.

I remember being a uni student playing PS:T, Deus Ex, System Shock 2 and The Longest Journey, thinking that interactive narrative (again, I don't mean that in the Bioware 'choice of dialogue leading to cutscene' sense - Deus Ex and SS2 do terrific jobs of story-telling through level design, with dialogue/cut-scenes being secondary at best) was the future of computer games. It wasn't until years later that I realised where that leads - to Bioware dating sims, not to mention games like Bioshock where neat narrative is ruined by tedious gameplay. Game design needs to be about making great gameplay, with narrative as the secondary 'great when a PS:T comes along, but isn't vital to the game' element. Because putting aside any issues of why people play computer games, gameplay is the only element where good developers can consistently produce great outcomes - the demands of game design simply relegate narrative to something that must be produced on demand and to specifications, and under those conditions you can never rely on its quality.

(Emphasis mine)

[MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES]

^THIS IS A VERY INTERESTING ANALYSIS - I GENERALLY TEND TO ATTRIBUTE THE GENERAL LACK OF GOOD WRITING IN GAMES TO WRITING BEING A PERIPHERAL AND RUSHED PART OF GAME DESIGN, BUT I THINK THE "MAKE A PRODUCT TO SPECS ON DEMAND IS A TERRIBLE WAY TO PRODUCE GOOD WRITING" POINT IS A GOOD ONE.

THE PART WHERE I'M NOT WITH THE POST IS THIS - IS THIS NECESSARILY GOING TO HOLD TRUE FOR INDIE AND/OR KICKSTARTER GAMES? INDIE GAMES ARE OFTEN NOT "TO SPECS ON DEMAND" - THE MORE COMMON SUCCESS STORY IS THAT SOME PEOPLE MADE THE GAME THEY WANTED TO MAKE AND THE GAME GOT NOTICED BY A LARGE NUMBER OF PLAYERS. SEVERAL KICKSTARTERS ALSO DON'T FOLLOW THE "TO SPECS ON DEMAND" MODEL - DOUBLE FINE'S SPECS ARE LITERALLY "AN ADVENTURE GAME, TO COME OUT AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE," AND INXILE'S SPECS ARE "A WASTELAND GAME, TO COME OUT AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE."

MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE KICKSTARTER STUFF IS "HEY, I HAVE AN IDEA FOR A THING - CAN I HAVE SOME MONEY TO MAKE IT?" AND NOT "HEY, I WANT YOU TO MAKE THIS THING IN THIS TIME FRAME, HERE'S SOME MONEY."

[naughty99]

it might be time to revoke your caps lock privileges, Milk ;-)

I think Crusty shares an interesting perspective; however, in any kind of commercial entertainment endeavor where the production and marketing budget totals in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, there is significant pressure to turn out a viable product that will recoup this investment, whether it is a feature film, a Broadway show, AAA game release, etc.

This pressure does not preclude good storytelling, any more than the relative freedom of a small budget indie project would guarantee good storytelling.

[Cyberarmy]

"I remember being a uni student playing PS:T, Deus Ex, System Shock 2 and The Longest Journey, thinking that interactive narrative (again, I don't mean that in the Bioware 'choice of dialogue leading to cutscene' sense - Deus Ex and SS2 do terrific jobs of story-telling through level design, with dialogue/cut-scenes being secondary at best) was the future of computer games."

Those were the days :/

[Hayllee]

For me, there's no point in a game if it doesn't have a story. Why am I fighting? Why do I care? Who am I? Repetitive killing turns my brain into a mess. I mean if you're more interested in pleasing the 15 year old boy that sits next to me in Physical Science, sure, by all means, leave out the story. Add some explosions. Maybe some boobs. But if the game industry is moving in the "art" direction- no. We need a story, even if it's just a small straw to grasp at.

This just sounds like an excuse to say "Hey, it's COOL to pump out crap games for $60".

[Il Divo]

jreezy wrote...

You didn't actually read through the OP did you? Better yet, the actual presentation is linked in this post...

I read it at least three times. Will anything in that link address the fact that he's telling us games shouldn't behave like movies, while he bothers to implement cinematics, the language of film?

Modifié par Il Divo, 22 avril 2012 - 07:46 .

[naughty99]

Hayllee wrote...

For me, there's no point in a game if it doesn't have a story. Why am I fighting? Why do I care? Who am I? Repetitive killing turns my brain into a mess. I mean if you're more interested in pleasing the 15 year old boy that sits next to me in Physical Science, sure, by all means, leave out the story. Add some explosions. Maybe some boobs. But if the game industry is moving in the "art" direction- no. We need a story, even if it's just a small straw to grasp at.

Jaffe used "We Shouldn't Tell Stories With Video Games" as the title of his presentation in a gimmicky way, probably to ruffle a few feathers.

But his presentation was not about story vs. no story.

He was arguing in favor of games where the player takes a more active role in the storytelling vs. games with lots of cut scenes where the player interaction is more passive. 

Modifié par naughty99, 22 avril 2012 - 07:52 .

[Il Divo]

Having finished watching the link, I'm still kinda unimpressed. He's definitely a smart guy, but alot of what he says seems contradictory and the examples he pulls out, both as good and bad are pretty nonsensical. He uses the example of Arkham City's intro as being too obsessed with telling a story, while citing the orginal Deus Ex as the perfect example of player authorship. It's not completely clear what he's looking for from games.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 22 avril 2012 - 08:41 .

[Madball357]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

But in an RPG, story is key.

If I wanted to play an RPG with no story, I'd play Diablo.

No. Key in an RPG are stats/skills, choice & consequence and combat mechanics.

Story is secondary.

You can have, wether you like it or not, an RPG with stats, skills, C&C and appropiate combat mechanics and no story at all. But a game, even with a great story, without stats, skills, C&C and appropiate combat mechanics can NEVER be labeled an RPG.

And I wouldn't call the Diablo series RPGs, more like a grinder/loot collector simulation.

[naughty99]

Madball357 wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

But in an RPG, story is key.

If I wanted to play an RPG with no story, I'd play Diablo.

No. Key in an RPG are stats/skills, choice & consequence and combat mechanics.

Story is secondary.

You can have, wether you like it or not, an RPG with stats, skills, C&C and appropiate combat mechanics and no story at all. But a game, even with a great story, without stats, skills, C&C and appropiate combat mechanics can NEVER be labeled an RPG.

You can have a game with stats and no story or very minimal story (perhaps a strategy game), but choices and consequences are inherently part of storytelling.

Playing a role in a game (whether it is a videogame RPG or a pen and paper game) is playing a role in an unfolding narrative.

The one essential feature is that you have some sort of a role to play and the way you play this role is by taking actions you feel your character would take, making choices along the way.

Modifié par naughty99, 23 avril 2012 - 03:25 .

[bussinrounds]

naughty99 wrote...

Madball357 wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

But in an RPG, story is key.

If I wanted to play an RPG with no story, I'd play Diablo.

No. Key in an RPG are stats/skills, choice & consequence and combat mechanics.

Story is secondary.

You can have, wether you like it or not, an RPG with stats, skills, C&C and appropiate combat mechanics and no story at all. But a game, even with a great story, without stats, skills, C&C and appropiate combat mechanics can NEVER be labeled an RPG.

You can have a game with stats and no story or very minimal story (perhaps a strategy game), but choices and consequences are inherently part of storytelling.

Playing a role in a game (whether it is a videogame RPG or a pen and paper game) is playing a role in an unfolding narrative.

The one essential feature is that you have some sort of a role to play and the way you play this role is by taking actions you feel your character would take, making choices along the way.

  Combat is also a large part of this “role-playing” that’s supposed to exist in RPGs too, which everyone seems to forget for some reason. You can fight like a fighter, steal/lockpick/sneak like a thief, cast with a mage, heal/buff with a priest, etc...

[Hayllee]

naughty99 wrote...

Hayllee wrote...

For me, there's no point in a game if it doesn't have a story. Why am I fighting? Why do I care? Who am I? Repetitive killing turns my brain into a mess. I mean if you're more interested in pleasing the 15 year old boy that sits next to me in Physical Science, sure, by all means, leave out the story. Add some explosions. Maybe some boobs. But if the game industry is moving in the "art" direction- no. We need a story, even if it's just a small straw to grasp at.

Jaffe used "We Shouldn't Tell Stories With Video Games" as the title of his presentation in a gimmicky way, probably to ruffle a few feathers.

But his presentation was not about story vs. no story.

He was arguing in favor of games where the player takes a more active role in the storytelling vs. games with lots of cut scenes where the player interaction is more passive. 

I read the original post through. I didn't seem that way to me, but I understand where you're coming from.

[Madball357]

naughty99 wrote...

You can have a game with stats and no story or very minimal story (perhaps a strategy game), but choices and consequences are inherently part of storytelling.

Agreed.

naughty99 wrote...


Playing a role in a game (whether it is a videogame RPG or a pen and paper game) is playing a role in an unfolding narrative.

Not necessarily. You don't need someone forcing narrative down your throat (the point of this topic) in an RPG if you have choices & consequences, you yourself make the narrative along the way, based on the different decisions your character makes. You do need narrative in an adventure game, though.

naughty99 wrote...



The one essential feature is that you have some sort of a role to play and the way you play this role is by taking actions you feel your character would take, making choices along the way.

Exactly my point, you don't need narrative if you have choices.

[naughty99]

Madball357 wrote...

naughty99 wrote...

You can have a game with stats and no story or very minimal story (perhaps a strategy game), but choices and consequences are inherently part of storytelling.

Agreed.

naughty99 wrote...


Playing a role in a game (whether it is a videogame RPG or a pen and paper game) is playing a role in an unfolding narrative.

Not necessarily. You don't need someone forcing narrative down your throat (the point of this topic) in an RPG if you have choices & consequences, you yourself make the narrative along the way, based on the different decisions your character makes.

Yes, this is what I mean, ideally you are playing a role and actively participating in an unfolding narrative. There are some games where you play a less active role.

Madball357 wrote...

naughty99 wrote...
The one essential feature is that you have some sort of a role to play and the way you play this role is by taking actions you feel your character would take, making choices along the way.

you don't need narrative if you have choices.

I don't quite understand. In my view, the choices you make are shaping the story of your playthrough. 

Modifié par naughty99, 23 avril 2012 - 12:56 .

[R660]

This is still going on? Fine... time to put my serious face on.

Gameplay: No matter how well you do this, it gets repetitive. It can be fun, different, new, cool, massive, tiny, colourful, retro, 3D, 2D, 4D, 1374218D, it can shoot, stab, grab, kill, collect, defend, attack, solve, confuse, kill, curse and otherwise but it will always get repetitive. Mass Effect's combat system? Basically the same one as on Gears of War. As much as I love playing Gears of War online, it gets damn repetitive.

Shoot, slash, stab, kill, grenade, duck, grab the leader, score points, snap neck.
Shoot, slash, stab, kill, grenade, duck, grab the leader, score points, snap neck.
Shoot, slash, stab, kill, grenade, duck, grab the leader, score points, snap neck.
Shoot, slash, stab, kill, grenade, duck, grab the leader, score points, snap neck.
Shoot, slash, stab, kill, grenade, duck, grab the leader, score points, snap neck.
Shoot, slash, stab, kill, grenade, duck, grab the leader, score points, snap neck.
Shoot, slash, stab, kill, grenade, duck, grab the leader, score points, snap neck.
Shoot, slash, stab, kill, grenade, duck, grab the leader, score points, snap neck.
Shoot, slash, stab, kill, grenade, duck, grab the leader, score points, snap neck.

Get my drift? I went back to play Gears of War 2 again when I found out about it's "Lost Chapter" DLC, why? Is it because I was looking for new gameplay? No. Was I looking for a mini game of some sort? No. I was interested in the story that it added. Look at some RPGs, Mass Effect without it's storyline is a repetitive shooter that kills the brain after a bit, it's multiplayer is so repetitive that I don't even really need to think about what I'm doing anymore. I know every vantage point, in every map, and how to exploit it to get the most kills.

My point is, that story is important. Without the story to link everything together, keep you engaged, keep you interested, keep you inside that world, you'll just end up remaking Tetris over and over and over again. I mean, I love Tetris, but could I really care if the wall gets built? Not really... I love Mass Effect, but could I really care if Garrus dies or my mission fails? Well... yes... it's there characters and the hype that builds on every mission that kept me playing, not the combat system.

As for the final comment I am going to respond too "Shepard takes too long talking"... damn man... your attention span is tiny...
[/game designer mode]

Edit:
"You can have choices, but no story"

How the hell is this even possible? Selecting which gun you want on the loadout screen? Big whoop...

Modifié par R660, 23 avril 2012 - 02:00 .