Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
> implying they don't have different but equally valid methods of telling stories that the game industry just isn't capitalizing on
> implying either one is better than the other
> using images to convey your point instead of explaining it
> using greater than signs instead of actually saying anything
Movies tell a story. Games can have you define the story.
Reading the article, his attitude frankly sounds kinda like "my competition doesn't usually bother, so I'm not really going to bother either."
how
Stupid super bowl tears, clouding my vision.
>Movies tell a story. Games can have you define the story.
This isn't automatically a good thing.
As is, I agree with both what Inuh and Forzare said.
I think there's nothing really inherent in video games that prevents them from being better at story-telling than movies, it's just that it's more often than not not what the industry aims for.
Also, story mode in Brawl presented a shitty story.
No, it isn't. Then again, it isn't automatically a bad thing, much like any other element of media, really.
Beyond that, trying to claim that it's obvious that movies are better at storytelling than games is only somewhat true.
It's true in that games suck at telling stories, but that's not because movies are inherently better at it. It's because most game industries don't give a shit about the story in games. It's just not something they focus on, really.
It's more because most game developers haven't figured out how to reconcile the interactive aspect of a medium with storytelling which has led to so much 'choose your own adventure' silliness.
^I've mentioned this countless times, but IMO, the best game at circumventing that to date is Bastion.
Though Dwarf Fortress gets an honorable mention for occasionally producing really good stories without any human input.
Pretty much. That, a focus on gameplay over story, and a focus on profit rather than making a good game, has all led to game stories pretty much sucking.
It's not something inherent to games; they can have great stories, just like movies. But they don't.
To be honest, I'd rather games just focus on being fun games. If that means they have worse stories than films, whatever.
^I don't see why that even needs to be an either-or.
It costs money to make a game and money to make a story. If people just want one, you don't have to make the other.
One approach I think would be excellent is a game where your physical choices are what matter. Like a game where the dialogue is "linear" but different things might be said based on your actions, and then those could go on to influence other events. So rather than choosing a response from a list that suits you, the choice mechanic is a seamless element of normal gameplay.
^^It costs a lot of money to make a game and a little money to make a story. The lot of money's mandatory, and the little money might make the game that much more successful.
^^ In other words, a karma system but far more complex?
^^^^Metal Gear Solid had a few examples of that, I think. Maybe you weren't always given much choice, but it was kind of funny to see your crew react strangely when you wore strange camo in MGS3.
^^^Maybe, but I think people who work in the industry have a better grasp of what can be made profitable, and I'm inclined to think that what gets made isn't half bad as a general indication of that.
@INUH, Cygan: Because I can't see any way you could possibly implement a meaningful story into, say, Beatmania.
You are trying to become a famous musician.
How well you perform each song dictates how well your career goes. Doing badly on a song will hurt your career.
Etcetera.
Then again, that's not a meaningful story. It's a story, though, and better people than I work on these things.
^^I didn't say every game needs a story. I just think a larger fraction of them could use them.
Like, any.
Games like Tetris, they don't need a story. Most RPG's- they do.
I'd rather a game have no story than a tedious story. Skipping text gets annoying, and even when I can and want to do that I get this compulsion that tells me not to miss so much.
Well, yeah, bad stories are bad. Odd how common they are, though.
^^ Oh my, Schism.
I personally believe games aren't as good at telling stories because you have to make sure that the player causes the story, not just have the story unfold by itself, like in a movie.
Having the player have a noticeable and lasting impact on the story is much harder than writing a movie script, because you have to account for all of the player's actions. Since video games are an interactive medium, you should ideally implement stories in a way which makes it feel like the player is driving the story's direction. This is almost impossible, however, as stories must have a script to make sure the right things happen, and that limits the player's options a lot. People play video games for interactivity, and if story is emphasized, it becomes easier to notice how limited the interaction is.
In short, the more real you try to make the game, the easier it is to notice the unreal.
^Counterargument: go play Bastion.
So, in essence, your argument is that movies are better at it not because movies are actually better at it, but it's just so hard to make a good video game story.
^^ I said almost impossible. Some games do it better than others, obviously. Portal stands out in my eyes as doing a very good job of story in a video game without feeling forced.
^ Pretty much, yes.