Interview Should games even bother trying to tell a meaningful story?

cool story bro

depends on the context of the game, but most of the time gameplay that allows for stories to develop on their own is better

If you're sure you can pull it off and you can pull it off- go right ahead.
If not, then no, just don't. Don't even try, don't think about trying.

As long as key dramatic moments in the story are player-controlled via quick-time events, then I don't see the problem at all.

This.

Games would do much better if they concentrated on presenting meaningful worlds.

I don't think he's saying you should drop narrative completely.

Just "Don't try so hard".

" In other words, if you think you have something significant to say about philosophy or human nature, stick with the media that have proven they're suited to imparting that message effectively."

This is the thing Deus was talking about.

"Press X to save Aeris from dying"

I don't know really if his anger is warranted. Well, it is. But no the way he is explaining it.

Are games good story-telling media? Well. They CAN become one if people actually make them into rigorous art-form. But considering what people are making of other media like Movies and Books (basically pandering to the masses) I doubt this will happen.

Consider this:

There is a HUGE unexploited market for Games as social media out there from the numbers they regularly throw at us (e.g. facebook). This means that publishers would definitely want to go after them first. Now this will definitely shape the direction in which gaming will go. Any fundamental changes now can only occur when the flow has died down and there is NO more profit from cheap gaming values as there is a huge competition there. So whatever basic improvements in game mechanics must occur NEED NOT OCCUR AT ALL until there is demand for such changes. There simply isn't as clearly evidenced by games like Dragon age 2 or mass effect or call of duty.

Pffff. Those fuckers state that there is no meaningful middle way between games with action tied to an excuse plot and Biowhoring.
Fuck them hard, and spurt a hot valentine shower in their sea cucumber intestines.

Unexploited?
Dude, if Farmville ain't the purest exploitation-by-Skinner-box I've ever seen.



Yeah, I know what you meant, just had to drop this one.

Jaffe should shut it. The coolest thing he made was twisted metal, which was not that cool at all. Bs.

Maybe he jelly?

Some games should tell stories, but using videogame tools. Ultima IV for example merged gameplay and story providing an unique experience, without walls of text or cutscenes. Sorry, I love that game.

If you want to tell a story in a videogame, don't fucking do it, unless you need to do something that can't be done in other mediums.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...s-are-storyfags-and-liars.69365/#post-1963313

Lazy fucks.

I think the biggest problem is that few games really make use of the potential games have as a story-telling media. The unique aspect of games is that they can throw you (the player) in the middle of the action and give you a perspective you really couldn't have in a book or a movie, and I think that's as good a reason as any to try to tell a good story in a game. That can work really well as long as the game let's you be the active force driving the story onwards by playing the game instead of making you just a passive spectator. Games like System Shock 2 and especially Deus Ex are good examples of how you can combine gameplay with strong narrative so that they both support each other. You can't really separate the story from the gameplay in Deus Ex without losing something fundamental in the process. On the other hand in, say, BioWare games the "game" part seems like just an excuse to get to the next cinematic cutscene, meaning that you never really feel like you're in control or would have any more say about the story than you would in a movie. In the end those elements kind of end up working against each other and we get games that want to be movies but end up being terrible at both things.

Video games have been trying to convey stories since Adventure and Zork, so I can't see the legitimity of a beat'em'all and vehicle combat author in this discussion.
Shoo Jaffe, get back to your action games.

Has anybody linked the actual video?
http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2012...ies-go-together-like-chocolate-and-tuna-fish/

"World's best chef"

This from the guy who made God of QTE's.

Hilarious.

STHORHYTELGING OF THE FUTURHGE:

IMMERSIVE.

I think one typical failing here is misuse of cutscenes. First, since player is effectively the protagonist, it's harmful to the storytelling to reveal twists, traps, or unknown antagonists beforehand. Player will try to act on that information, which is unavailable for character, and if he's prevented from it, he will FFFFUUUU- instead of being immersed. Second, removing control from player for duration of the scene is effectively rape by narrative. Especially when the PC does something excessively derpy during the cutscene or generally something player wouldn't do on his own.

A good idea is to limit yourself to halflifean school of narrative and never depart from protagonist's perspective nor remove player from control if you don't have direct in-universe reason why he shouldn't be able to act, no matter how cool it is what you'd be able to show otherwise.

Well said.

The gameplay should add to the story, and vice versa. They shouldn't be considered as two completely different aspects of the game experience : this is exactly what makes them feel artificial and abstract. I think there's an organic principle that comes into play here - remove a part and the whole doesn't work anymore. This probably can be a general principle of esthetics as well. If what ties the parts together is purely mecanical, then it cheapens the experience.

The thing is, I'm not convinced DX does this, as much as I love the game. I'm not convinced any game can reach this kind of ideal, because they are very abstract products, and ultimately not art. They're made by many people, for once - they're made like a product is made, i.e. mecanically - so it makes it hard to have every part tie up very closely together. Inevitably you have the programmers and the designers and the artists and so on, and they all have their different priorities and things to make. I'm pretty sure that a classical line of thought in modern game design is that story and gameplay are totally different matters. There's the mecanics of the game, and then there's the flavour that you add on top - made by the "artistic" designers who are in the dark about the harsh realities of coding. This is caricatural, but there's definitively going to be distortion in the team that's going to show in the final product.

The story is going to feel like it's out of place, because the coders didn't write it. You're lucking if the music fits in well enough with the experience and doesn't feel generic and tackled on. And so on. With games becoming a business, this shit is inevitable. You won't get teams like Looking Glass or creative leaders that keep things together like Spector (who got out from playing that role in DX2 if I remember correctly), because everyone need to do what's mecanically expected of them, i.e. create the generic parts for a generic product that's meant to sell. Awww yeah this is the part where I get to make some social commentary