~ Linearity in Gaming via. NeoGaf
- + -
Original Post +5
+ - Linearity (story) generally viewed as a con.
+ - I am talking mostly about Linear Storytelling (through gameplay). I guess Gameplay itself can't really be 'linear', we can only call it 'repetitive'. It's the story that makes it linear.
+ - In that case, what games are you talking about? You didn't give any examples your first post and I don't see linear storytelling get much shit from people.
+ - To back you up here, for example, Mass Effect 2 got a lot of criticism for it's non-linear storytelling by being able to pick the order of your recruitment and loyalty missions.
- + -
I'm pretty sure the criticism for ME2 has to do with it non adding much to the overall canon.
Not that it didn't add to the canon, but that some people thought it felt like a stopgap and did not advance the story.
Pretty much. I loved ME2, but 99 percent of the game was simply recruiting characters who may or may not be in ME3. I think there was only one major plot point addressed in ME2. ME1, however, had the whole Saren-Protheans-Reapers plot line.
To be fair, I actually like the Bioware style of gameplay. It gives you the illusion of non-linearity but still manages to give a tightly scripted narrative. By comparison, I don't really like the Oblivion style of drop you in the middle of a world with no direction type game.
- + -
I'm pretty sure the criticism for ME2 has to do with it non adding much to the overall canon.
+ - Linearity is good for some genre/bad for others.
~ Depends on the type of game.
The only problem with linear is when it's in my RPGs. Final Fantasy X is a prime example.
Non-linear level design is fine in 2D games, but for 3D, linear almost always = better. For one thing, large open 3D enviornments take way too long to explore and become boring and tedious by necessity. Linear level design also allows you to avoid the camera issues that arise in 3D games and to create a more focused, tightly-designed product.
+ - opinions/comments
+ - pro linear (story)
~ Linearity in storytelling is fine. +2
~ I dont know uncharted is really linear and neogaf and critics love it.
Its just an arbitrary way for the developer-reviewer complex to ensure that certain games are given high ratings and sell more.
Nonlinearity (not branching narratives) creates a sense of player agency - one of the unique things of our medium. I guarantee your Half-Life 2 and my Half-Life 2 experiences were nearly identical by design - our Deus Ex ones weren't. I wouldn't say there's anything wrong with linearity, though.
Most "linear" games that are successful tend to either make you feel it isn't linear or are just good games on their own merit. Just because you make a less linear game does not mean the game is somehow guaranteed + points or + sales. Good games sell and get praise they deserve by being good games.
+ - The gaming community favors 'open ended', 'sandbox', 'multiple endings', and 'emergent gameplay' while devaluing games that are linear.
Hasnt helped games that much. Lots of games with decent writing and story, especially western have some degree of branching or multiple endings or what have you. Linearity isnt so much important as having strong themes, characters and main path to build around. That goes for any game story since you are unlikely to see a completely non linear adventure...ever. Also one reason most sandbox games have crummy storytelling because they are tremendously linear where it actually matters, which is the story.
+ - that's exactly the reason. games are interactive, if a game is essentially pushing you down a pre-determined path it's not really taking advantage of the medium. isn't the ultimate "goal" of stories in games letting the player change or shape the story by their actions, it's what would separate games from other various forms of story telling
The ultimate goal in games is whatever the fuck the creator wants it to be. There are no rules.
+ - No the ultimate goal of games is to produce a fun games. Games aren't about telling a story at all.
There are a bunch of games that are squarely centered on their story. Experiencing a story can be considered fun and its stupid to assume that they cant be used for such a thing. Also fun is very subjective and indeed maybe isnt the goal of some games (like the Icepick Studio games)
Not really. If the designer wants to tell a controlled story, the only things that really matters is if its good (in storytelling, in style, in gameplay, in player engagement). Giving the player control over aspects of the story has pros and cons and you gotta pick what right for getting your tale across.
+ - Platformers suck. Why the fuck do I always have to go right?
- Play more Pitfall.
opinions/comments
- + -
pro linear (gameplay)
~ linear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sandbox in my taste, of course
~ Im with the OP on this one. I just don't really like open world games.
~ Im very open minded. I don't mind games being linear as long as the game itself is fun.
~ Linearity in level design alone isn't necessarily bad, it all depends on the gameplay. +1
I don't mind the occasional 'open' game, but it seems that most of my favorites are more linear. Games where they funnel you down a specific area usually result in more fildelity in both the graphics and gameplay systems. Ninja Gaiden and Bayonetta are two of my favorites, and the fact that they're very tightly orchestrated is part of what makes them so tight. I just tried the latest Spiderman game, and I appreciate the fact that it doesn't have that whole 'hey, here's a whole city to swing around in'. They went the linear route, and I think the game is better for it. To me the sweet spot is a relatively linear game with the chance to explore here and there to find hidden upgrades and shit like that. The more flexibility in the combat (assuming there is combat) the better. I'm kinda getting tired of playing open world games where the moment-to-moment gameplay is weaker than other games. The gimmick of 'a living, breathing world' only goes so far for me. I really enjoyed Red Dead Redemption, but I wouldn't say for a minute that I had more fun playing it than I did Mass Effect 2 or Bayonetta. I loved all three, but the focus of the latter two is what I really responded to.
If anything, open world games should be a "con." In general, linear games are more focused and have tighter pacing and structure.
+ - Linearity is not bad, the main problem is so many linear games that are like 3-4 hours long. Pay 60 bucks for a game and it's so linear and short that you feel ripped off usually. I don't mind a game being linear, but at least have some length to it.
Did you feel ripped off by Limbo or Portal? A great game, linear or otherwise, should not be judged by it's length but instead by it's content.
Linear is only bad when it is done wrong ... just like any style of game. +1
GTA4 is a fake sandbox since the missions are linear and have gotten more linear with the newer GTAs in GTA3, there were missions where you could carry out your execution multiple ways, in GTA4, they restricted your missions to almost absolute linearity with poor game play mechanics might as well play a straight up linear game with solid game controls and mechanics instead
Nothing wrong with linearity as long as it is executed well. I think the influx of overly scripted five hour games has given it a bad name.
+ - I don't typically mind it. In fact, the only game that it's ever been a problem for me was Final Fantasy XIII...yuck, what an awful game. I hope SE learned a lesson.
- + -
Making a good game is hard, though.
- They had five years to tune that shit. No excuse.
+ - Linearity is fine. The problem is less about linearity than an overly-scripted "roller-coaster" type game. If the narrative was driving the game once you experience it there is little reason to play it again. However, if the gameplay was driving then of course it can still be a great game. Super Mario Galaxy 2 is as linear as they come but you can definitely see the difference. Also open-world games can be shitty especially when there is little direction. I'd say that very few do this type of game well.
Not true at all. Planescape's narrative drives that game is its all the more replayable for it. It depends on the game and how the story is structured. People revisit pieces in other medium all the time despite being completely linear. The story has to be good and the structure of the game has to be good, which includes gameplay since that how you experience a game.
If you mean linear like FFXIII then no, not really. If you mean linear like FFVII, Grandia, etc., then yes. I prefer this kind of linearity over an open-world game. I don't think I can play open-worlded games anymore (don't have the patience, it feels tiring, etc.).
I love the Uncharted games, but I think they may be a little bit too linear. You have very little options when playing specific sequences of the game. I enjoy some open-ended games (like inFamous) but honestly prefer linear games. It just seems to breed better gameplay and stories imo.
I like both styles of game, but I do feel more non-linear games could stand to make it easier to find where you are going. Nothing is a greater buzz kill then being totally lost and not knowing what you are even supposed to do.
Linear is not necessarily bad, it's just when it's used inappropriately (hallway dungeons anyone?) that it gets annoying.
- + -
pro non-linear (gameplay)
+ - It started when we got Halo and GTA3 and realized the alternative is far better.
~ Basically, everyone is arguing different definitions of linear.
+ - You're comparing what it did back then to how things turned out now, rather than what Halo was doing in comparison to what other FPS games had established prior and up to that point in time. Plus the initial comment of Halo was referring to it as being one of the major points where the shift towards more linear level design occurred.
+ - I'm not sure what you mean, but console shooters at the time were incredibly linear in their scripting. Medal of Honor, GoldenEye, Perfect Dark, Time Splitters etc.
And that's why most of us stuck to the PC ones when we wanted a good FPS title. ;P
Halo blowing up got a lot of developers to focus on delivering shooters on consoles, so even in cases where the PC version wasn't a quick port and the console versions were ported from PC it still ended up with designs more catered for the consoles. You also started seeing less and less PC-only shooters. Hence the going downhill part.
But you're right, for some people there may not have been an appreciable drop-off. ;P
~ People want to play video games, they dont want the video game to play them.
A simple question, Why?
+ - Yeah, Uncharted 2 has it's non-linearity with its combat. You could stealth a whole room, take them out guns a blazing, hide behind one cover the whole time, or try punching dudes out. Well on normal and below anyway.
- This is exactly why I enjoy the combat of Uncharted but hate the platforming.
I suppose the natural, socratic response would be to ask: does tapping a button to climb the ladder enhance your experience?
I don't think it's silly, though I hadn't thought that way about linearity before. The train climbing is a great intro to the game. It's engaging the first time you do it because you aren't entirely sure what's going to happen. This helps you to overlook that you literally have to follow one single path up the train. The next time you play it, it's already wearing thin because it's just something that absorbs your time without offering reward or engagement. I'm not saying they should have done it differently, or that I have a better idea, but it's something interesting to think about regarding set-piece design and the trade-off between a scene's initial impact and its replayability.
That you're asking that question should say that climbing a train in Uncharted 2 wasn't an interesting thing to do. Pace-breaking segments where you just hold a button down for a while and let Drake do it are a big reason as to why I didn't like the game.
+ - It seems more silly because it's the tutorial. I don't know that a game like Uncharted would benefit from a non-linear tutorial.
- An optional one. First time do that, and never have the player have to go thru it again.
Considering you have to do the same damn thing twice and the coolness factor wore off.
The climbing part at the start of U2 is lame, the game is great when it's putting you in an environment with enemies and letting you traverse the location and take on enemies in a way that interests you, it gives you enough freedom to enjoy the game and not so much that it asks you to have to find the fun yourself.
bang, we done. Here's the entirety of Battle Bakraid's railroad stage: [image]
There are so many meaningful decisions to make here.Agreed on this, for all its greatness, there a few times in UC2 when I wished the devs had just made a cutscene I could skip on replays, instead of hitting one button over and over for 10 minutes.
- + -
~ Bayonetta was pretty linear.
- ~ Speaking of complaining about linearity without context:
- You know what also kills replay value? A big empty world that has nothing to do in 90% of it.
Because some games can be too linear and those are the ones that suck.
- + -
Grand Theft Auto is responsible for making the masses think that linear = old, boring, and bad.
+ - wut aboot call of shooty
- + -
CoD is the very definition of linear.
- + -
That's the point, it's the biggest thing going.
- + -
;*)
- Wasn't sure if Gravijah was being serious
- I thought everyone bought Call of Duty for the multiplayer though.
- + -
;*)
- + -
That's the point, it's the biggest thing going.
+ - Joke is that all the GTA are extremely linear in story and mission structure. Open world and sandbox rarely mean nonlinear is a story sense. Exploration is much easier to do then a story that can withstand different choices being made but still be interesting and coherent.
+ - GTA pretty much defined the sandbox genre so I agree that it brought the thinking that linear now suck.
Right but only in world design.
Yeah but that's not what he was saying. GTA games are very linear ( extremely so in most cases ) in their missions. If you want non linearity in your sandbox gaming, buy Saints Row 2.
- + -
CoD is the very definition of linear.
+ - perceived openness/ hidden linearity
~ No, it's probably the most common example of linear = awesome. +1
I came here to say this. It's all about perception, because ultimately every single game has to be linear because it has to end at some point. Games like The Sims manage to make this practically imperceptible by the player, but is the same structure, you have goals and you achieve them, game ends.
This is true. I don't automatically dislike linearity in a game level, but as someone said, when it is like MW where it is just arbitrarily blocked off by some knee high fence, or some other conceit that is totally immersion breaking, it just aggravates the hell out me. In general, the greater the feel of freedom, even if it is artificially induced, the more I like a game. I will take a lack of visual polish for more freedom. That doesn't necessarily mean open world, GTAIV is an open world game with almost no freedom. It means having a variety of ways to interact with the world, and complete objectives.
+ - Or the penultimate option, which is making a game that is fun to play and complete and replay and watch and.......
- Generally if you get the first, the others follow by default.
- + -
If that's the penultimate option, what is the actual best option?
- + -
GTA
- The missions were really linear in that game man.
- + -
GTA
People want to feel they are having an impact on the game world, the gravity gun is kind of the ultimate expression of that. It blows so hard when you're playing something like a crumbling city, you die, have to retry and the city crumbles in the exact same way, there is something about seeing that illusion broken that is crippling to my enjoyment of the game.
It's usually a knock at how restricted or constricted a game is. Sometimes it breaks the illusion of immersion when the game has a major focus of invoking specific emotions. Take for example Cod4. There are quite of a few moments where you are baffled as to why you can't jump over a fence, and instead follow a linear trail when you know running through the field is a shorter path, not necessarily safer, but shorter none the less.
Linear games get shit because most of the time a monkey could lift the veil.
+ - low quality video game stories/storytelling.
A lot of the downsides with game storytelling is probably due to the fact that gaming isn't really a storytelling medium. A game is something that is played, and sure you can turn that experience into interactive fiction (such as Mass Effect), but if you wanted to focus solely on story you should probably read a book.
I'm not trying to badmouth game stories, because I think very interesting things can be done with them. But those interesting things have to do with periphery options made possible by an interactive medium. They are often related to some gaming-specific quirk and require the narrative to be self-aware (see Bioshock).
Words are at the heart of a story. Books are built with words. When you add more, say adding visuals, you can build a movie. Add even more to that- audience interaction, goals, digital input- you've got a game. Those layers necessitate a certain molding of the original words, the original story, to fit the presentation of a new medium.
It's been said many times before: games are built upon rule sets. They are made with specific goals that need to be met, something to keep track of or score, to judge the value of a player's actions. Without that, they are nothing. Stories in games serve as, at their most basic, an impetus for progression. "The president has been kidnapped by ninjas! Are you a bad enough dude to rescue the president?" They are always very clear conflicts, good vs. evil, haves vs. have nots. They give the player an obstacle to overcome and they present tools for dealing with that obstacle. You can argue that conflict is the basis for all good stories. But other mediums allow for a measure of internal struggle. Gaming does not. Everything in a game must be externalized. As an interactive medium, it requires a clear system of inputs and impulsion for those inputs. A player must feel compelled to perform some repetitive action (aligning blocks, racing karts, shooting aliens, etc) in order to establish the reward system intrinsic to gaming (that is, there must be some way to "win").
That's how things are going to be unless there is an eventual paradigm shift. Currently, you don't need a story to tell a game. And when you tell a story in a game, it needs to be a very specific type of story.+ - Games are about a lot of things, telling a story can be one of them.
One of the biggest drawbacks of modern FPS titles is that they have horrible storytelling and characterization. The most recent examples are Halo and Call of Duty.
Both of these games could be elevated to much greater heights with better storytelling. Storytelling is a lot like graphics and sound; sure, it doesn't affect the gameplay per se, but it immerses you into the world that you're apart of, and it has a pretty gigantic impact of your impression on the game. Where would Halo be, for instance, without that great, iconic soundtrack? When I think of Halo, that's one of the first things that pops into my mind.
And say what you want about Metal Gear Solid, but where would it be without its phenomenal storytelling, script and characters? Sure, at times the series went off the deep end, but for MGS1 and 3 I feel much more engaged into the single player experience than when I'm playing something like Modern Warfare 2.+ - MGS has a 'phenomenal script'? It's terrible man. As for story's inclusion in video games, if it's not intrusive, I like it. If Bungie did a Halo style game with a BioShock style story and telling method, I think it would be a considerably better game. But it needs to be transparent to the player, forcing me to watch cutscenes is bullshit.
+ - MGS1 and 3 have great scripts for videogames. It's not perfectly edited for most of the series, and it can be inconsistent, but it actually brings up interesting, relevant topics and tends to treat its audience as adults. With most modern day shooters, it's all dudebro military jargon nonsense. "alpha six, we need you to get to that evac point!" ad nauseum.
Sure but with MGS there's...wait. I'm not having this conversation.
+ - Love can bloom on the battlefield "you're a ninja"? Don't make me laugh. MGS 1 is one of my favorite games of all times, and MGS3 is a close second, but great scripts/story?
A few cheesey lines isn't going to do your argument much good. MGS is pretty much cherished for its story, characters, and script. That's why it has such a large fanbase. For as much as MGS has lines like that, there's much more discussion about the cold war, nuclear proliferation, the future of private military companies, etc., which is a lot more thoughtful and serious than what you'd get with other titles. Yes, MGS has its eccentricities, but the original was way ahead of its time, and the games still fully engross me into their stories unlike what I can say for your typical shooter with its boring non stop barrage of military banter.
lol
I love linear games like Uncharted 2 or recently Mafia II. That's not to say I don't like non-linear games. My problem is the more non-linear a game the more it gives developers an excuse not to make a compelling story. Why can't you have a non-linear game yet have a great, perhaps linear narrative with variable deviations depending on your actions.
+ - You answered your own question, it's because linearity is something that's akin to a less dynamic medium. Like all forms of 'art' videogames have their own positive aspects and for a videogame to truly make the most of the medium it needs to avoid relying on the same methods of other form of media.
It's a lot like the reason photo realistic painting was largely abandoned by artists after the invention of the camera, painting was no longer the best medium to portray real life, and so new forms of painting boomed and became popular. If a movie does a much better job at telling a linear story, then videogames should rely on non linear methods, or the thing a movie will never be able to do, to really shine.+ - Game are less linear then movies but are hardly non linear. Most games are best off somewhere in between. Plus non linearity costs resources.
- I swear, you are the only other person on GAF with this(superior) opinion.
Metro 2033 has one of the most impressive stories I've experienced in a game recently, and it's completely linear. I hope the devs making Dead Space 2 played it. They could learn a lot from it.
+ - Those who don't enjoy stories in video games should play Chrono Trigger DS.
+ - They should also play Silent Hill 2.
- As long as they don't mind wandering through hallways jiggling doorknobs.
Ew. That is the absolute opposite of what I want to do, thank you very much!
Video game narratives are just there. I can't imagine caring enough for it to hugely effect how I view a game. Just icing. People calling Other M trash primarily because of its depiction of Samus, for example, confuse me.
OK so I think I worded my previous post poorly. I'm specifically talking about story telling and how it relates to linearity. It's commonly acknowledged that story telling in games is inferior to other mediums - the writing not as good as books, acting good as film, ect.
What developers have been trying to figure out is how to effectively tell a story in a game in a way that takes advantage of the interactivity. What I was saying is that if a game forces you down a pre-determined path, doesn't that conflict with that idea to a certain extent? I'm not saying linear games are bad or sandbox games are superior, but I think the frustration that some people have with linearity is that it's restricting, people want more interactivity with the game rather than "going along for the ride".
- + -
MISC. comments
~ Why does linearity in games get so much criticism? You're welcome, and have a good day.
~ Ludologists are more vocal than narratologists.
+ - See it's strange really because I don't even consider Fallout 3 and Oblivion open-world. I'm somewhere else maybe but I'm still sneaking through hallways and whacking or shooting bandits. The only freedoms I have include whether or not I want to do such and such and when I want to do it.
+ - Did you blow up Megaton?
- + -
I needed a nice place to keep my stuff so yes.
+ - Did you kill the Overseer?
- Who didn't? That guy was a douche
- I would have if I had gotten a house out of it.
Had you disarmed the bomb, you could have gotten a house in Megaton. I blew up Megaton too. Though I'd wager that our motivations and the events that led up to the settlement's destruction were different.
What would you expect to do in those worlds? That still makes them open world, just with a lack of variety in what you do. Plus you can approach the situations differently, just maybe not in as myriad ways as one would want.
- + -
I needed a nice place to keep my stuff so yes.
I don't really think the problem should be linear vs. non-linear. It is much more relevant to the game experience how the game handles its inner structure; the point is how much a game gets repetitive on multiple playthroughs. Take L4D as an example: its basic structure is far from being a sandbox, it's a linear shooter, in the sense that you only have one main route. It avoids being repetitive having random enemy spawns over successive playthroughs; it utilizes a good AI, so you won't predict every movement of the enemies; there are other elements that make the game more dynamic and unpredictable, like dynamic environments, etc. And I don't see linear games getting over criticized; Call of Duty, that is the exact opposite of games like L4D, is one of the most critically acclaimed game, and it's the biggest blockbuster of the entire industry.
I blame the gaming media via installation of retarded ideas like "immersion".
Linearity isn't necessarily an issue for me, but something similar to linearity is, although I don't exactly know what to call it. The games I enjoy most are usually those that hook me with an aspect other than the progression. Such as demon fusion in a SMT, or forming all monster-parties in DQ. Even Mario does that to some extent, by encouraging me to be a badass daredevil rather than just running to the goal. So I guess I like linear games with a lot of options, to the point where the options become more compelling than the game's progression.
I'm surprised nobody is talking about Other M... I guess nobody played it >:(
As long as you don't make the story boring exposition dumps I'm ok.
+ - My video game is going to tell a story. And when I say that, I mean it. It just might not be done for another ~10 years is all. announcement of announcement.
- + -
Ill be waiting to nitpick it.
- HK, I'll personally mail you a copy whenever it's done. :)
- + -
Video games and the capacity to tell stories.
+ - Frankly if your goal in making a video game is to tell a story then you're clearly doing it wrong from the beginning. -1
+ - Please tell me the rules of making a video game.
- + -
Literally every game should be Mario Bros.
- + -
The arcade game? Cool.
- Yes.
- + -
The arcade game? Cool.
- + -
gameplay first.
+ - What about text based games?
- + -
books are not videogames.
- + -
One cannot interact with a book. One can interact with text based games.
+ - turning a page is an interaction, and so is selecting which page to flip to is also a dynamic interaction, much like input to advance a story is interaction. =/
- + -
examine door open door etc
obviously the story is no longer the main factor, you're goal is now to solve rudimentary problems. Ie, how do i get out of X room, or pass X dungeon. Sure the story is the main reason you play the game, but ultimately it has gameplay, and even then, the actions you choose make the story non linear in a way that no other medium can do. If you choose to examine door, then pee on the door, then open the door it's instantly more unique then a book where a person merely examines the door, then opens it, and tells that to you explicitly. In fact a text based game is instantly non linear purely because I choose every action, and that's something only a videogame can do.
- + -
examine door open door etc
- + -
One cannot interact with a book. One can interact with text based games.
At some point yes, but if the music/story/graphics are horrible, gameplay can't save the game just by itself.
When the story is the gameplay, the story can come first. That works out nicely.
Fine, but why do gameplay and story have to be mutually exclusive. Why can't I expect good gameplay and a good story.
I've been through the "experience" side of things enough that I don't really care all that much anymore. I'm over it. I can't think of any great game that I've played in the past few years that put narrative over mechanics. Just rentals that go in one ear and out the other, offer brief enjoyment, and have no staying power.
- + -
books are not videogames.
Well it's an entertainment. If it's done right and the story is really good, I don't see the problem. You can have fun watching a movie so in the end, the result is the same.
All you really need is something compelling...doesn't matter if it's gameplay, story, or boobs.
Unless it's an Interactive Fiction game. Exception that proves the rule.
+ - And why is that? I mean I hardly doubt bringing actual good stories or theme exploration will stop the Marios of the world. Hell most current storytelling in game just apes movies and is done by crummy writers. Just because only a few lone individuals actually care and possess the talent to do it doesnt mean it cant be done. Its is probably the hardest medium to tell a story in though, because there isnt a lot of groundwork and there is a stigma against it. Plus its the only interactive storytelling form (unless one includes CYOAs). I wouldnt just pick all the games I wanted to play on the basis of story though (especially not at the current time).
+ - You create a story to enhance the experience of playing a video game. You do not create a video game primarily to tell a story, the medium is simply not built for it. -2
+ - Says... who? You? So because you do not enjoy it, that makes it so? What about that one indie game where you were that old woman?
I'm not going going to qualify all my posts with different variations of "in my opinion". I shouldn't have to do that. Also which game is that, I've played so many of those artsy games I lose track easily.
+ - This is true. When this does happen, we end up with epically terrible games like MGS4. -1
+ - How is the medium not made to tell a story ? what the fuck ? of course it can tell a story, it has its own set of tools to tell a story, you have a million ways to tell a story and stuff that you can only do on videogames. The argument of "made to tell a story, story in mind first" is applicable to every media. I mean you want to tell a story in a movie, a book, or a videogame, but thats not all, of course, you have to get there, a movie has to be atractive in other ways, is the sum of its parts that make it work, same is applied to videogames. Just because someone thinks Metal Gear Solid 4 story was a piece of shit doesnt mean the medium is not made to tell a story, geez.
+ - Of course it can tell a story, but if gameplay is secondary to the story, then the game suffers greatly (usually). Kojima is most guilty of this. It is obvious he wants to direct movies and not games. The medium is made to deliver gameplay to the player. If you goal is to tell a story and not deliver fun gameplay, then you have already failed.
+ - This is wrong. Gameplay is not always an end. Sometimes it is the means (not that I am excusing poor or underdeveloped gameplay).
+ - If developers want to stop skyrocketing development costs, they need to stop making interactive movies and start making games. So much money wasted on production values for cutscenes and expensive voice actors.
- What do blockbuster movies have to do with engaging stories again?
+ - The point is to not separate story from gameplay. Its the way of storytelling that makes a videogame story good, not the story itself. Its been said a million times, by me and other Gaffers, but people should stop comparing videogames to books or movies. A game benefits from the interactivity, environment storytelling, and many other aspects that make it a unique experience, and what makes it a home for stories that couldnt be told anyway else.
Its a big medium, why cant there be room for games that dont fit your criteria ?
Flower, Sun and Rain is a great example of this, could you really separate the story from the gameplay there ? gameplay was annoying, it was meant to be this way, there´s a whole section where you just run from one point to another to tell a guy what another guy wanted to say to him, and viceversa, multiple times. Its not fun, but in reinforces the whole feel the game is trying to set, it adds to the whole thing, and makes you see the game as a whole.- + -
Because I don't want the industry to implode (for reasons what I said in my previous post).
+ - Well i guess we just dont agree then, i actually want to see the medium expand and do interesting stuff, and that developers realize the stuff they can do in terms of telling a story, transmit it to mass audience, and for games to become respected in this regard. Following what you are saying games are basically gonna be considered "lol kiddie toyz" forever. Its opinions, really, its all good.
- + -
Respected in what way? As an art form? That seems pretty unnecessary honestly.
- + -
No, as a medium to tell a story, and to transmit an experience other than "im having fun".
- + -
So basically what I said, as an art form.
- eh.. no
- + -
So basically what I said, as an art form.
- + -
No, as a medium to tell a story, and to transmit an experience other than "im having fun".
- + -
There's something wrong with this?
- + -
Of course there´s something wrong with that. Do you think games are just toys for kids ?
+ - Well, not specifically "for kids", no, but they certainly are toys.
- allright
Yeah, there is absolutely nothing wrong with games being looked at as "just games." That's exactly what they are! And they're wonderful.
- + -
Of course there´s something wrong with that. Do you think games are just toys for kids ?
Most of the games with interesting writing or story components are low budget stuff right now. It isnt storytelling thats doing it so much as a drive for bigger, better production values which are really all that necessary to make most games good (that arent traditional MMOs). Thought I'm certainly not opposed to excellent graphics and a good voice cast where appropriate.
- + -
Respected in what way? As an art form? That seems pretty unnecessary honestly.
+ - There are many reasons to make a game. Building a game solely for the sake of gameplay is only one of them.
Another is building a story where the audience has agency (either by letting them affect the outcome, or by having them build relationships through gameplay as a way to magnify the experience provided by the story).+ - The point is that the only way that works is if the interactive portion is engaging to begin with. And in that case it's the story enhancing the gameplay by provided an impetus for the player's action, not the other way around.
- + -
Sad part is, too many developers agree with jman on this.
+ - I'm kinda seeing it the other way around.
- Yeah well you like shmups :o
+ - How do you figure? It seems like nearly every game released these days tries to have big, expensive cutscenes.
+ - Big, expensive cutscenes =/= videogame storytelling
+ - It doesn't equal good video game storytelling, but when more than half a game's budget goes into telling the game's story, it says to me that they're putting more of an emphasis on the story than the gameplay.
- But they´re doing it wrong, read John´s post.
+ - Mimicking Hollywood isn't exactly what I have in mind when I'm talking about good game stories. But in most games, I get the impression (and it's just that, an impression; I could be totally wrong here) that most games right now are game mechanics with outsourced CGI cutscenes tossed in here and there. Not stories that create a feedback loop with the game.
Can't argue with that. I guess the difference here is I'm talking about generally sticking stories in games, while you're talking about finding new and better ways of sticking stories in games.
I must be doing a terrible job expressing my opinions because this is exactly the type of game story usage I support. But even in that instance the story doesn't have to necessarily stand on its own. If it enhances the experience of playing the game then it has done its job.
- + -
Sad part is, too many developers agree with jman on this.
Having a story is good but if people are expecting a nobel prize winner kind of a story, then they're looking at the wrong area. Even having a non-existent story, a senseless story, or a very simple story doesn't make the game necessarily bad (see Katamari Damacy and Castle Crashers).
+ - This mindset is partially why videogames stories are so terrible. Most of the time a game's story is thought of as mostly separate from the game as a whole.
+ - I am all for integrating an engaging narrative in a way that enhances the game as a whole, as when it's done right the game is all the better for it. Both Half-Life games did this very well as an example, as did Uncharted 2, cheesy a story as it was. But telling a story shouldn't be the game's goal, or did the word "goal" change its meaning when I last checked?
+ - What if the writer was also the lead designer, came up with the story first, and finally built the game around it?
+ - If the end result ends up fun, then there's no harm. It seems like such an approach would be difficult to pull off properly though, since building a game's foundation from thematic elements is far more difficult then building from abstract interactive elements. And even if the game does end up being good, I'm not going to laud the approach it took to get there.
Sure, just don't pretend that approach is an inherently negative one. A method is only good if it's performed well.
- + -
Literally every game should be Mario Bros.
- + -
Replayability
This, it's all about replay. If you never pick up a sandbox game to just mess around in it, it didn't do a good job. GTA4 for example, actually GTA4 is a good game for this thread. Sure it gave you illusions of choice with only a few actually changing the story in a small way, and when you got to those pick a choice spots it was so obvious.
Bayonetta is awesome for replay. It's like Street Fighter, you play to kick butt, or collect new weapons. There are a lot of challenges in Bayonetta that don't come from the storyline (Alfheims, lost level tower, etc.).
If you just play a game one time with no reason to play it again (after you know all of the story) it seems like it shouldn't be worth much when other games give you so many reasons to play them again and again.
I noticed that there are a lot of sandbox games this gen, and I'm loving it. Just got AC2, and Red Faction to go along with Oblivion, Fallout 3, Burnout Paradise, Saints Row 2, and more. I can't wait for next gen's sandbox, they're getting more creative.Linearity = low replay value, unless the gameplay compensates for the limitations imposed by level structure. Take Bayonetta for example. It's about as linear as can be, but there's a huge array of weapons you can equip in dozens of configurations, and your base move set is modified by the way you choose to arm yourself. Add to that a set of versatile and mutually complementary combat mechanics like dodge offset (the ability to dodge mid-combo then pick it up where you left off) and you have one extremely replayable game. Few games have gameplay good enough to make you want to experience the same linear levels over and over, so it's a safer bet for designers to work some variety into the levels themselves.
- + -
Story/Experience vs. Gameplay
+ - I tried the Mass Effect 2 demo and turned it off before I even got to gameplay because the intro cutscene was too long. I played Red Dead Redemption for about two hours before I got tired of how frequently cutscenes popped up. So yeah, that's about where I stand on the whole "story vs. gameplay" debate.
- I'd pay good money to see you wait in line at the DMV.
Mother 3 had gameplay that enhanced the story. That is all.
- About
This is an experiment adjusting the presentation/format of forum threads/conversations.
Do you find it more helpful? Less? Can you follow conversations better?
If you have any comments send me an email (ADarkDreamer@gmail.com) or leave a message on my blog. critical-gaming.squarespace.com.