Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

I found this article from 2006 that's surprisingly unpainful to read for something in a mainstream publication.  It's also gigantic.  Seven pages long.  I haven't even finished it but I figured I'd just post a link anyway so maybe by the time I'm done others will have commented.

It's about AI and conversation in video games, or perhaps I should say the lack thereof.  http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200611/rauch-videogames

[cerapa]

Hmm.....no conversations, drama or storyline in games?
What?

This article talks about pure action games lacking stories. Of course they lack stories! They are freaking made only for action!

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

I don't think you got it.  Take any particular game you think has a good story.  Do you spend more time experiencing the story or experiencing the death of countless mooks?  Any Bioware game is a perfect example of this.  They're all lauded for their stories, but the story is not really part of the gameplay.  It's just the thing that ties all the dead mooks together.  On the other hand all those dead mooks are the only thing that keep the game from being an action movie.  And when he talks about conversations he doesn't mean canned responses to selections in a dialogue tree.  He means actual conversations between the player character and NPCs.

The article also makes some not ironic at the time comments about Spore which I found almost painful to read.

[cerapa]

I looked more into it. You are right.

But you could just talk to someone in real life, or hang around here. And the game they say is like that, simply has a hidden dialogue tree. It was all pre recorded and simply looks at a few words and gets the mood from that, not the actual sentence. You cant get a new response.

But, this is about story. The death of countless mooks is simply the game part. A game could have 2 hours of story and 20 hours of killing mooks, but the story is still there. This article simply takes a way of communicating the story and says that it is the actual story. You could also take the story of half-life and turn it into a book. You dont need to tell about the jumping puzzles, you can just tell about the g-man, the 7 hour war and about the combine. It is a real story, simply exists in a first person shooter.

[Tilla]

If you want your games with more dialogue than gameplay, try Metal Gear Solid

[Sensei]

I think the story here is about the separation of story and dead mooks.

[Duke 2.0]

If you want your games with more dialogue than gameplay, try Metal Gear Solid Any damn Xenosaga game

Because they are bastards and are horrible.

 And while story can make a game better, one must not stray too far from the point of a game: Fun. It's fine and dandy if people find reading visual stories fun, but calling down other games for lacking such a story? Story is completely and totally unnecessary for games. The only requirement for a game is an activity that is fun. Many people forget that and sacrifice fun for story.

[Strife26]

But, for a least a few gamers, the game is largely secondary to the story.

Why am I going crazy trying to find my copies of FF7 and 9? Not because of the game play, let me say.

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

I looked more into it. You are right.

But you could just talk to someone in real life, or hang around here. And the game they say is like that, simply has a hidden dialogue tree. It was all pre recorded and simply looks at a few words and gets the mood from that, not the actual sentence. You cant get a new response.

But, this is about story. The death of countless mooks is simply the game part. A game could have 2 hours of story and 20 hours of killing mooks, but the story is still there. This article simply takes a way of communicating the story and says that it is the actual story. You could also take the story of half-life and turn it into a book. You dont need to tell about the jumping puzzles, you can just tell about the g-man, the 7 hour war and about the combine. It is a real story, simply exists in a first person shooter.

You're still missing the point.  This isn't about making a game just like every other game but with a slight difference.  This is about making a totally different kind of game.  One that's realistic and delivers the narrative in a way that only games can, but still have yet to do.  Your separation of story from gameplay completely misses the point again.  That's the problem.  In any other form of entertainment media having a scene that serves no purpose to the story and is just there to pad out the length of the film, book, whatever with mindless violence against characters who inexplicably feel like charging mindlessly out into battle with an opponent they obviously stand no chance against would be considered bad writing.  In games such a thing is considered normal.  That's perfectly understandable in some games where that's the whole point of the game and they don't even bother trying to make any sort of characterization at all, but in games like Bioware's that claim to be about story it just feels lazy.  Like they say in the article, in pretty much all games today it's easy to kill someone, but nearly impossible to talk to them.  The only "insurmountable" difference between video games and every other form of entertainment media is interactivity.  And it's actually an advantage in favor of games.  So what is holding them back?  Lazyness?  Greed?  What?

If you want your games with more dialogue than gameplay, try Metal Gear Solid Any damn Xenosaga game

Because they are bastards and are horrible.

 And while story can make a game better, one must not stray too far from the point of a game: Fun. It's fine and dandy if people find reading visual stories fun, but calling down other games for lacking such a story? Story is completely and totally unnecessary for games. The only requirement for a game is an activity that is fun. Many people forget that and sacrifice fun for story.

Ok, so what you're implying here, and really the only thing you could be implying for your statement to be an argument against mine is that Stories are not fun.  Unfortunately, that is utterly absurd.  Well, you may well feel that way, and if that's the case that's fine, but most of the people who have ever lived on earth would disagree with you.

[Duke 2.0]

 My point is that stories are secondary to fun. If a story provides fun then sure, include it. If somebody feels they need to sacrifice fun for a story, they are no longer making a game.

[JoshuaFH]

I get what Ioric is trying to say, but I don't get what you're trying to say Duke. Not to be patronizing, but what do you mean "sacrificing fun for story" or vice versa? Give me some good examples that I can wrap my head around.

[DJ]

Every single JRPG. If you added up all the cutscenes in one of those, you'd realize you've spent more time watching the game than playing it.

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

My point is that stories are secondary to fun. If a story provides fun then sure, include it. If somebody feels they need to sacrifice fun for a story, they are no longer making a game.

What are they making then?  Don't get hung up on the word "game".  Videogames is just a word we've used to label the medium because it was convenient.  Just as movies are called movies because the most interesting thing about them when they were first named was the fact that they were a moving picture.  Video games are called video games because they started out as nothing more than games played on a video format.  What's in a name? 

What a videogame really is is an interactive form of electronic entertainment media.  A videogame has the potential to be the ultimate form of entertainment media because it can potentially have the audio-visual aspect of movies while at the same time having the length and depth of a good book.

Now I really would like to know; in your mind, just what is a videogame that's not "Fun"?

[Okenido]

Every single JRPG. If you added up all the cutscenes in one of those, you'd realize you've spent more time watching the game than playing it.

Wrong.

Even in Xenosaga I spent more of my time trying to get to a decent level to fight the ****ing bosses because I keep forgetting to invest in the mecha.

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

Every single JRPG. If you added up all the cutscenes in one of those, you'd realize you've spent more time watching the game than playing it.

Wrong.

Even in Xenosaga I spent more of my time trying to get to a decent level to fight the ****ing bosses because I keep forgetting to invest in the mecha.

Heh, I don't remember if I did for Xenosaga, I have the exact same problem with Persona 3.  I still haven't finished it because I'm spending so much time grinding to make sure the next whatever it is doesn't slaughter me.  Of course it doesn't help that that game has such a slow pace.  I feel better now that I saw the latest Hey Ash Whacha Playin though.  Apparently no one finishes Atlus games.