@Disposition000 Yeah, any good writer would look at that and instantly run away. You have a guy who thinks that making a single story, with resolution, is bad. A guy who thinks cliffhanger, pointless game's, with unsatisfying stories are good. Coincidentally, the writing in this game sucked. They had no idea how to use a frame narrative, aside from one pointless moment where Verric becomes an unreliable narrator--as if they were trying to tell all the other writers, look we know something!
"The thing I find most intriguing is the concern that combat has been dumbed down because the earlier fights are less punishing and because they are faster. Somehow this translates immediately into stupid, which I strongly disagree with." I've not seen anyone say this is why they feel the combat is dumbed down. I have seen people say that because they didn't add anything that made it more tactical, and removed and simplified things that did make Origins tactical, it is dumbed down. Come on interviewer, call him out on this stuff.
@joe3d64 I agree, Bioshock's use of exposition was quite nice. However, I don't know why you'd say that we don't write stories like Shakespeare or Homer anymore. Shakespeare's plays were basically perfect, genius and their structure, elements and thoughts are foundations. And I hate to do this but why would you use those authors to prove a point of difference with 'narrative'? They follow the same structure as Shakespeare's plays. The difference is in the way meaning is made. Shakespeare is more like Checkhov, and Munroe. Palahniuk more like Camus. I'm not going to say why, you seem intelligent so I'm sure you know why. But again, the storytelling in this medium is the same. You have touched upon a nice topic, and htat is taht things need to change with the medium changing. I've mentioned this in a few posts on this board, you may want to read a few of them, I'd like to hear what you've got to say. @GoodGamez The question of art does need to be asked, but so does the question posed in the article; you've misread it.
@SanJoseBart The article doesn't say that you have to choose story or gameplay. As I mentioned story has many elements. Gameplay should incorporate these elements. The plot is focused on, usually with action, driving, fighting, etc. This doesn't effect the plot, but we have this action based gameplay. Good? Good, we need that. What about the other end of the spectrum? The gameplay of the part that makes meaning. We get to make a choice, and cut-scenes, and pre-rendered things like absorbing peoples memories in prototype. But these are not effective for this this type of story element, we need better gameplay, completely new gameplay to make up for this (and probably a new type of game would be made). The problem in doing this is the question of how do you force an idea into someones head, when they can do anything in the world you've just created? In the relatively new adaption of Romeo we are shown a sign "add fuel to the fire" being shot, we get an idea. How do we do this, get this knowledge emotion or movement, in a game when the player may never shoot this sign (and not do it by cut-scene because that is a movie move, not interactive game move)?This is why i think the player is going to make all the meaning (I've mentioned this). We have along way to go toward adapting to this, a very very long way to go. @jamyskis - yes, bioshock did a wonderful job of introducing narrative. I think people should look at that and notice that the narrative pulled you into the environment, and plot. If we can effectively use narrative like that and get all the gameplay right we'll have something very nice. And I have to respond to this. Shakespeare was a genius. A 1 in a 1000 years genius. And I've mentioned this before, we don't need to do something like Shakespeare, we just need to make use of the right elements of story.
Since I mentioned 'the parts of story' I'm going to briefly explain what a story is. A story is essentially a magic trick. First the writer shows you his hand, flourishes it, and with the other hand performs the meaningful action. The first part I mention is the plot, its what you're going to be focused on and is going to drive the story on. The second part is the purpose and it is how meaning is going to be made. This is writing 101 for a 12 year old, well maybe 20 year old nowadays. When we focus on the first part we get a plot, might be fun and all, you might get gi joe, or its equivalent ninja gaiden (which has great action, love the game). But, that's not a story. All of you on this board who want to be writers or enjoy stories need to really understand this concept.
Probably the biggest problem with the developers, and subsequently a problem for the writers, is that they don't seem to understand what the heck a story is. A story consists of many parts, One part is the plot, and this part is largely misunderstood to be what a story is. Developers focus on plot and assume that is the story and thus, we get games that aren't telling stories but, and I'm sorry for repeating, plot. This isn't odd, it's going to happen, story telling is an art form, and it's damq difficult to understand and master. This is the reason that I think games aren't really going to be great mediums; the story tellers aren't creating them. However, It can happen, look at the evolution of mediums, from voice to paper to video, to games. We're always going to have this conversation when a new medium is introduced, and the future will see full body interaction (even voice) then VR, then directly to the mind. Each time people who aren't experts, or of the right disposition, will say the medium can't be utilized because it's becoming increasingly more personal and hard to induce effects. Each new medium demands a change, that is, frankly, difficult to grasp. Until people realize that the effect is also going to change, when the medium is actually utilized (I've vaguely mentioned this in other posts on this board).
@MightyMax42 I absolutely, 100%, believe that this is something that can and should be applied to games. I don't think that just because a new medium exists that forms of analysis disappear, nor does interpretations. I find that this interactive medium can be used to make this particular form . . . interesting. Obviously that hasn't been done yet, well they have in a sense in games where the developers test your 'decisions'. The problem of application is the one discussed in the article, which is why I bring this question up. Are the story lines in games creating stories that effectively express purpose and meaning. If games were doing this we'd have no problem here agreeing on whether this application can be used on games. I don't mean to say there aren't effective stories out there, there are but they don't make use of the medium they are given to tell the story, because the best ones I find are ones that rely on cut-scenes.FFX's story being quite good. Although, I did like how Bioshock introduced narration.
Last note - I'd like to pose for everyone a question. How do you think meaning is made from a story, is it forged by the writer, and will always be the same, or is the meaning made soley by the reader/ player and their own experiences? (I feel that in writings, or pen to paper, meaning is always the writers will.) The question is this do you all think that gaming could very well solidify a form of entertainment where meaning is absolutely based on the player?
Not going to happen. Games are developed for people who do not understand effective storytelling and purpose. Honestly, people seem to think that deep story lines are lots of history and complex character relations/plot twists (I don't mean to offend anyone by that). Those are the people the developers target, and consequently the writers, even though they'll never admit to it. The closest thing to a 'story' is Myst, but too many elements are missing to tell a great story. To truly tell a story with effectiveness and purpose, to utilize elements that writers utilize, the structure of gaming would have to completely change. 95%. Get rid of cg cut-scenes. I probably could list 40% of what needs to be done, but that'd obviously take forever, but it can be done, not hard to do, hard for people to accept. The Natal demonstration did look inviting, from a writers standpoint, because it gives you a new way to make meaning, for the player to make meaning. I just hope that if it extended we wouldn't get another walk up to someone and say something style again (like I said 95%)
mellow09's comments