Tendo City

http://slate.msn.com/id/2112744/?GT1=5987

I thought this might be worthwhile. But for those too damn lazy to click the link, hereeeeeeeeeee ya go!

Quote:Oughtta Stay Out of Pictures
Why video games shouldn't be like the movies.
By Clive Thompson
Posted Thursday, Jan. 27, 2005, at 3:13 PM PT

... but first, a message from our plotline

... but first, a message from our plotline
Critics have called Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas a blood-soaked crime simulator that valorizes the worst gangsta stereotypes. What they haven't noticed, though, is that everyone's favorite shoot-'em-up is also a family drama. Early on in the game, my character discovers his brother and sister fighting over her decision to date a South Side Hispanic man. I don't need this racism, she says, from "a no-good, narrow-minded, hypocrite gangbanger."

These minimovies, called "cut-scenes," are part of a longtime trend in gaming to create more nuanced characters and more story-based play. Whether a cut scene explains your next mission or just sets a mood, the basic idea is to make a game seem cinematic—more like Citizen Kane than Pac-Man. For many designers, crafting bravura cut scenes has become the best way to transform a mere game into a genre-smashing event. When Halo 2 shipped, for example, the game's creators bragged that they had created nearly a feature film's worth of scripted scenes.

These Hollywood flourishes are good for dazzling mainstream journalists and pundits. That's because there's still a weird anxiety about adults playing games. Most people still think that video games are sophomoric kid stuff; the ones that have a narrative and emulate the movies seem more serious and, well, mature. In fact, I think the truth is almost the opposite. The more video games become like movies, the worse they are as games.

Continue Article

Playing a game, any kind of game, is inherently open-ended and interactive. Whether you're playing chess, Go, or Super Mario Bros., you don't really know how things will wind up or what will happen along the way. Narrative, on the other hand, is neither open-ended nor interactive. When you're watching a story, you surrender masochistically to the storyteller. The fun is in not having control, in sitting still and going "Yeah? And then what happened? And then?"

That's why cut scenes are such a massive pain in the neck—they enforce passivity. There's nothing more annoying than going on a shooting spree, then having to break the rhythm of play by putting your game pad down for minutes at a time. Before my character embarks on a home invasion in GTA: San Andreas, a quick cut scene shows the layout of the house. As I'm sitting there, waiting to start mashing buttons again, I can't help but think that this is kind of lazy design. Isn't there a better way to do this inside the game itself? Why ask the player to stop playing?

There are rare instances where cut scenes are truly wonderful: Final Fantasy X and last year's Ninja Gaiden include several tiny masterpieces of kung-fu melodrama (you can see them online here). And for all my bitching, I'll admit that some cut-scenes in GTA: San Andreas have dialogue funnier than Tarantino. But the fact remains that storytelling halts game play, and thus removes the central thing that makes games gamelike.

Today's games are strongest not when they're slavishly emulating cinema, but when they borrow from disciplines like urban design and architecture. Few of my friends got particularly jazzed about the story in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. But everyone raves about the open-ended environment—the hundreds of buildings you can enter, the dozens of souped-up cars you can jack, the fact that you can ignore the missions and just perform sick BMX stunts for a few hours. As a story, GTA is no Boyz n the Hood. But as a theme park? It's better than Disneyland.

Halo and Halo 2 succeeded for the same reason. Both games had forgettable storylines—pure alien-invasion boilerplate—that were redeemed by the game's superrealistic physics. Long after I finished the game, I used Halo 2 as a playpen for physics experiments, tossing grenades beneath vehicles or bodies to see how high I could blow them in the air. (Some players took that to an amusing extreme.) That same mojo has fueled the enduring appeal of The Sims. No purple-prose narrative there—just an open-ended game so terrific that 25 million people wanted to explore it.

In my more cynical moments, I think this whole pursuit of narrative is the industry's sneaky way of forcing gamers to buy more products. When a game has a story that "ends" after 40 hours of play, you have to throw it away—and go spend another $50 on the next title. That's movie-industry logic, not game logic. Chess doesn't "end." Neither do hockey, bridge, football, Go, playing with dolls, or even Tetris. Worse, by selling "narratives," game publishers can cover up the fact that they rarely create truly new forms of play. In any given year, I'll play a dozen first-person shooters with different stories—Save the world from Martian devils! Penetrate an island full of genetic freaks!— that are all, at heart, exactly the same game.

Only a few designers are talented enough to create new, durable forms of game play. But every once in a while, someone proves that it's possible. One recent example is Katamari Damacy, a daffy little Japanese import in which you roll a sticky ball around and "pick up" objects that you encounter. Like a snowball, it gets bigger and bigger—while you start off picking up tiny objects on a desk, pretty soon you're rolling across cities and picking up street signs and people. The first time I started up Katamari Damacy, I played for hours, racing against the clock and making sure my ball didn't get too uneven when it rolled over cars. There are no nuanced characters, no reams of dialogue, no bloated plotline—just one simple premise and an insane amount of fun.

Clive Thompson writes about gaming and technology for Slate.
Image from Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas courtesy of Rock Star Games.

Gee, while we're at it, let's remove all story from movies, and just watch ninety minutes of fighting and explosions.

This article is written by a stupid person protesting the infusion of a slight bit of intelligence to an otherwise mindless game. Fuck the storyline, I just want to jack cars and steal bling bling!

God help us. Soon our controllers will have "win game" buttons on them.

Haha, at first I thought that Ryan posted this and was already thinking up my rebuttal about him liking games just for their story.

But yeah I mostly disagree with this article. I think that cinemas that really disrupt the flow of a game and seem disjointed from the rest of the experience are the wrong way to go (see: Xenosaga), but I also think that right now it's one of the better ways to tell a story in a game. I think it all comes down to two things: expectations and implementation. In the case of MGS2, for instance, people just wanted a solid stealth game with a generic-but-interesting Tom Clancy-like subplot that took a backseat to the gameplay. They got the great gameplay alright, but they also got a Japanese graphic adventure game as well. The story in the game--which is largely told through cut scenes and hours of codec dialogue--is one that could only be done in a game, even though it was done like a movie. The story could only work if MGS2 was a game, and had actual gameplay moments. However, they did go a bit too cinema-heavy so in that sense the implementation was far from perfect. MGS2 is half action-adventure game, half graphic-adventure. They just went a bit too far with the graphic-adventure part. MGS3 perfected that.

I could go on forever on this subject, but I sense a raging retard* readying to start a fight so I will not continue.





*ABF

I don't think that this article is right, of course... stories in games is a good thing. This person seems to be starting with the idea that games exist just for playing while, as has been said, there's more to it than that. Yes, games often don't match films in story depth. But they are a different medium... many more hours and a lot more time to present story in paired with the fact that you have to spread out your story, seperated by gameplay to some extent... yes, games have proven that they can have very cinematic presentations and stories. But even then it's not exactly the same, thanks to factors like length and the fact that you do play the game in between... MGS is probably one of the most extreme cases (and it works there), but I'd cite that as a good example of what some games can be while also saying that game developers should ideally find ways to have stories that strong and that well presented while ideally pairing it to more interactivity and choice in the progression of the game and the story.

Quote:Gee, while we're at it, let's remove all story from movies, and just watch ninety minutes of fighting and explosions.

This article is written by a stupid person protesting the infusion of a slight bit of intelligence to an otherwise mindless game. Fuck the storyline, I just want to jack cars and steal bling bling!

God help us. Soon our controllers will have "win game" buttons on them.

Yeah, that sounds about right. Oh horror, games are trying to be more than mindless action! Run away!

Quote:However, they did go a bit too cinema-heavy so in that sense the implementation was far from perfect. MGS2 is half action-adventure game, half graphic-adventure. They just went a bit too far with the graphic-adventure part. MGS3 perfected that.

... too much like a graphic adventure? But graphic adventures are great... :) (Though I don't know if I'd say that MGS2 is a lot like a graphic adventure... graphic adventures are one of the most story-heavy genres, usually, and I guess you mean that aspect, but they're also about puzzles and stuff (as their main gameplay) and MGS doesn't have that main aspect of graphic adventures in them...

I'm referring to Japanese graphic adventures, which are very different from the western sort. Like Policenauts. There's puzzle stuff in Policenauts, but there's also puzzle stuff in MGS2. Just a different kind of puzzle.

I do agree with the article for the most part. I haven't enjoyed games for years. There was nothing new. I remember spending countless hours in Mario Kart 64 trying to find new glitches and shortcuts and jump to islands and get to all these places you weren't supposed to be. It was great fun. Double Dash, on the other hand, is so over simplified that there are no exciting shortcuts. You all race on the exact same path, with occasionally veering a bit to the left instead of the right. It's boring as all get out. Now I know this has nothing to do with movies in game, and I don't care. It's the same idea. In an attempt to create the perfectly polished game that appeals to everyone they make boring same-old stuff that appeals to the LCD and has nothing new, exciting, or fun!

The only game I've enjoyed in a couple years is WoW. It's not even all that exciting, because the gameplay pretty much consists of "Go kill 10 of this creature" or "Go to this place and talk to this person". But at least I can choose if I want to do the quest that lets me kill 10 orcs in exchange for a new dagger and 20 silver or kill 15 murlocs for a new piece of armor and 10 silver. Somehow, that is so much more exciting to me. I guess I'm just desperate for ANY kind of choice in the matter of how I want my game to be.

Quote:God help us. Soon our controllers will have "win game" buttons on them.

I don't get it Ryan. Wasn't that his point? All the games are the exact same with a different story, so the only unique thing IS the story. In that case, why not just make a movie that tells the story with a "play game" button that beats the level so you can watch the next cutscreen?

Now I'm not completely against cutscreens. They have their place. It's nice to have some reason for why you are doing the mission or whatever. But we all know that its at the point where more time and money goes into these cutscreens than anything else, and games are sucking more and more for it. Look at Halo 2. I had quite a few friends who were big Halo fans and totally geeked out for Halo 2. And I have never found ANYONE who even considers the game decent. How many years did it take Bungie to do this? They should just release Halo 3 next year with a a different story (still involving alien attacks, of course), a new playable character (but on the other hand, how can you top the Master Chief), and a new vehicle that you can't control. They'll still sell 5 million.

I can control the vehicles! *brings up ONE minor point alone so as to avoid the rest of the issues LL brings up, having no real argument against those* Seriously though, Halo 2 is fun multiplayer, passable single player, and nothing else. I just want Perfect Dark Online. Oh and, yes, Master Chief is certainly the most... um... shallow character ever designed in a game. Yes, I'm even compairing him to Pac-Man, because Pac-Man doesn't HAVE a set personality at all, allowing you to imagine whatever you want for him. Master Chief COULD have been that if he KEPT HIS FRICKIN' MOUTH SHUT, but no, they go and give him a personality for us. Had it been any good at all, it wouldn't have been too bad a way to go (though EVERYONE is doing that these days), but it was the most shallow action movie type of character one can come up with, the cold disconnected hero who stops at nothing and feels no emotion, ever, making you wonder why he even bothers going about saving the world when it would just get in the way of his cool disconnected personality. Had he kept his mouth shut, I could have come up with my own storyline for the guy that would have been completely awesome. My version of him would have been afraid most of the time, just as an example. Also my version would fully realize that every other soldier of his class was killed and he really doesn't stand a chance, more of a bid for survival character than a "I'm a bad arse and you all are going dooooowwwwnnn". Any person here, even ASM, could have come up with a much more compelling character, and that's what they should have let us do. The REST of the story is interesting, and even the story of the alien guy is decent, but when the main character of the series is as dull as a smooth river stone, the rest of the story just falls apart.

---------------

Sorry, persona shifted there... I gotta say, I simultaneously agree and disagree with this article.

Here's where I agree. Some games are going too far with the cinema scenes, in places, but I don't think it's exactly rampant. Most of the time it's just badly done storytelling if you ask me. That is, story told in non-interactive ways as opposed to interactive ways, or, story told for too long an amount of time when some gameplay can be inserted in certain parts. Also, some games try too much to be JUST a good story but don't have the gameplay to back it up.

Here's where I disagree. When done correctly, a good story can make a game transcend a mere fun time into something FAR more, where you are more "there" than you could ever be otherwise. You are in another world, a living breathing world, and you ARE the character. It doesn't even have to be that. The story could have a message that can only be properly conveyed if you are actually playing through the story rather than watching it.

Here's a classic example, Metal Gear Solid 2. I pick 2 over 1 or 3 due to the very nature of the story. 1 was about free will vs genes. 2 was about free will vs environment (together they create a package for both sides of the argument). Anywho, MGS2's storyline was non-interactive cut scenes, but it HAD to be that way. Sure, the story could have easily been a movie, but the entire impact of the very point the story writer was trying to get across would have been totally lost unless you were actually PLAYING the game, that is, between cutscenes. The gameplay itself forced you to more or less go along one path, though you had freedom enough to decide how you went along the path, and that TOO HAD to be the case to get the point of the story across. When I say get the point across, I mean the very act of PLAYING the game, having completed it, is the PROOF of the point of the story. By simply getting to the ending credits, you prove the very thing the writer was trying to say. They did state the lesson, but without that proof, you playing through it, and without the cinema scenes being as non-interactive as they were, there is no way the story's main "point" could have possibly got across as it did. Again, it's a "nurture vs free will" story, about how much we have a choice over things, so that in mind those who haven't played it may get an idea of exactly what sort of point they are trying to get across using this method. What also was done right was the gameplay, being VERY fun and with enough freedom to allow you to at list pick how you get from point a to point b (an unchangable path). Now, I will add that the cinemas did get a little long at times. Pfft, a little, way too long actually. I got the point of the story, but I think they should have added some more gameplay, that is, split the cinema scenes up a bit with lots of gameplay between story points. For example, instead of watching Raiden or Snake do ANYTHING, we should have been the ones to do it for them.

For other games, the issue is that story should be told in playable ways. For example, Doom 3, while an otherwise not very good game, did a great job making storytelling a part of the experience. Sure, the story was aweful, but the method was brilliant (which pretty much describes every aspect of that game actually, aweful art style, great graphics engine, that sort of thing). The way the story was told was in the form of audio or video files you watched or listened to WHILE playing the game. Technically, you can listen or watch to them while the game is paused, but honestly I think that the player should have been forced to only be able to listen while the game is not paused, as that is just the best way to go about it. What you do is start the audio file, for example, then you continue playing the game. Such a simple thing, but really it did wonders. Nothing like wandering around a dark room with just a flashlight examining corners while some scared guy in the recording is describing doing the same thing only THAT guy finds a monster, but you don't find anything. Suddenly, you hear a sound during the recording, and you start freaking out but the file is still playing. So, you are getting ready for a battle while listening to this guy describe exactly how he is getting gutted. Doing that made the story interactive in a very real way. It was like listening to a campfire scary story and suddenly the person in cahoots with the storyteller, hiding behind the bushes, jumps out and scares everyone. I've never been in such a situation, but I've seen it on TV enough that I figure you all know what I'm talking about.

As for videos, that worked by just having a moniter or television in the environment playing a video while you were wandering around. Again, interactive simply because you are able to do things, and so is the game, like the enemies, while story is going on.

Anyway, cut scenes will always have their place, as they have ever since Final Fantasy 1 (the bridge scene is about the only one I can think of in the NES version, but it still counts), and they are welcome so long as they don't overstay it, the welcome I mean. They can add to a story a lot in various ways. For example, Zelda does cutscenes very well. MOST of the Zelda games make sure all the cinema scenes take place around Link (Capcom seems to miss the point that it's all from Player's perspective because they seem to insert a few "meanwhile, at the castle" scenes into their Zelda games for some reason). Essentially, while playing the game you see all sorts of crazy stuff and get control returned to you soon enough. It's really interested. Also, with the Nintendo made Zelda games anyway, it's all from Link's perspective on purpose, so while a LOT of story can go on when Link isn't around, the idea is that it's supposed to catch you off guard, or Link has to figure out what just happened on his own. Really, Zelda does a great job of telling it's stories.

(Speaking of Capcom games being a little different, look at Minish Cap. The story was pretty good, and I'm currently adding it into the massive storyline, which now stretches WAY into the past at this point and leaves room for yet another major story occuring before even Minish Cap. However, they did a "meanwhile" cutscene a couple times in the game. Flashbacks that people are actually explaining to you are fine, but when they went to the castle... Well I'll only say that that could have been a lot better if the player had no idea what was going on and had to noodle out what was going on with the King by themselves via strong hints until it was finally revealed right in front of Link.

Eh, anyway story is NOT needed for an awesome game. Tetris and Katamari Damacy prove that well enough (I could have enjoyed that game even without what little baseline story it had). However, neither is story something that adds nothing TO a game when done properly. Story can make a game an incredible experience if done right, even though story isn't actually needed for a good game at all. This is the odd seemingly contradictory end opinion I have about it. Correctly done story is AWESOME and adds a LOT to the gameplay experience itself, but it isn't needed in the least. :D

In one sense I agree with him a little bit, there are a lot of games out there that have cutscenes just so they can say "Gripping storyline!!!!1!!!11!1!" on the back, but there are plenty of games out there that do cutscenes in a really great way. MGS2, ICO, Resident Evil 4 [Press A+B button OR DIE!!!] and...Katamari Damacy. Those cutscense were awesome. My point being, though, that if you do it right, cutscense can compliment the game without getting in the way.

ICO tells its story with barely any cutscenes though. So that doesn't really count.

And LL, I think you've just been burnt out, and you're not playing the right games. If it weren't for stuff like ICO and Katamari Damashii I too might have gotten sick of games a while ago. If you're sick of the same boring crap all over again just look for different stuff!

You need to find a healthy medium between gameplay and cinematics to make a great game. Though there are cases where a completely mindless game like Tetris or Katamari Damacy that can be great, great fun. For game with actual stories though , cutscenes are important, no, vital. In moderation, that is. I was heavily turned off by Xenosaga when I had to sit through an hour of a cutscene with bad voice acting and even worse character models. That was the BEGINNING of the game! If I'm not mistaken, I'm going wager that the longest cutscene in MGSII was right after saving the president. That scene included lots of codec talking and movies. That is my one gripe with that otherwise great game. That very scene.

I'm a fan of Final Fantasy X (anyone who knows me knows this), and I think that FFX attains a perfect balance of gameplay and cinematics. You play through plenty of fighting and exploring, but when the time comes to advance the story, a well-placed, well-timed cinematic does what it needs to and and then sends you back on your way. Resident Evil 4 and MGS3 attain this great balance as well.

Some games have no need for cinematics, but any game worth it's $50 deserves a good story and great scenes for it to unfold through. To suggest that cutscenes in games are making them worse is absurd. I find myself in awe watching some of the scenes in FFX, RE4, or MGS3, and find myself eager to continue afterwards, to see what else the game has in store for me.

Quote:ICO tells its story with barely any cutscenes though. So that doesn't really count.

I does have some, and besides my point was that it used cutscenes in a way that didn't detract from the game. In this case, it was to have only a few.

Quote: I don't get it Ryan. Wasn't that his point? All the games are the exact same with a different story, so the only unique thing IS the story. In that case, why not just make a movie that tells the story with a "play game" button that beats the level so you can watch the next cutscreen?

No, I don't think he really has a point. He bemoans GTA for its cutscenes, yet lauds it for having nearly-endless gameplay options.

Hello. Dur.

I'm sorry, but there really are so many different ideas for gameplay that current machines allow for. It's a natural progression that games become more story-based. Games like MGS, Silent Hill, ED, GTA, etc, would be pointless adventures if there were no story behind the game.

Take MGS. Snake is dropped onto an island near Alaska to stop terrorists from firing nukes. If this moron had his way, the whole game would be divided into levels, with no story or character development along the way. Snake would just be a cool spy dude, Liquid would be just another final boss, and Meryl and Otacon nothing more than physical objectives. It would have sucked huge. The gameplay of MGS is wonderful, but everyone loves Snake because he's human, and for all his awesome skill and ability, he has his flaws too, and we, as flawed, nowhere-near awesome sneaks, can relate to him better.

If this guy had his way, we'd be still playing a prettier version of Pac-Man and Missile Command every year, and as major releases.

Weltall, reading that article again I think your first point there is more accurate -- the guy doesn't really have a point. Story is bad, unless it's told well in which case it's good... I guess he has the "point" that he doesn't care if a game has a good story if it has bad gameplay... maybe... who knows... anyway, the point is that it's not a really well written and clear article, that's for sure. Bettr than analyzing it would be to just do what we've mostly done here and talk about the issue it raises, story versus gameplay... analyzing that article would only serve to further expose its numerous flaws. :)

Ryan Wrote:Take MGS. Snake is dropped onto an island near Alaska to stop terrorists from firing nukes. If this moron had his way, the whole game would be divided into levels, with no story or character development along the way. Snake would just be a cool spy dude, Liquid would be just another final boss, and Meryl and Otacon nothing more than physical objectives. It would have sucked huge. The gameplay of MGS is wonderful, but everyone loves Snake because he's human, and for all his awesome skill and ability, he has his flaws too, and we, as flawed, nowhere-near awesome sneaks, can relate to him better.

An excellent point. Personifying the characters in a video game allow you to not only relate to them, but go so far as to CARE for them. There are still fanboys crying about Aeris in FF VII, one the most story-rich games in existence. I still consider the ending cinema of FFX to be very powerful, even heartwrenching. The ending of MGS3 also had a lot of emotion behind it, and many others come to mind.

Creating bland characters with no background will make it difficult to care about the characters, and thus, care about the game itself.

Unless it's the kind of game that doesn't need story. Though there are games that are great and the lack of story doesn't matter and there are games that are great despite not having better stories... it is true that as time has passed game stories have gotten better, but they still on the whole have a long way to go and are often pretty formulaic. Evil people are trying to do bad things and stop them! *has just told the story of 95% of games* ... okay, since games are generally about violence that makes sense, but still... the sad thing isn't that, it's how many games don't get much farther than that...

Sure, lots of games are quite good without great stories. But most such games would be better with better ones... not always, of course (Mario platformers really don't need fantastic stories), but often.

As for games with great stories, I just can't let any discussion of the subject go without mentioning Torment... because it was so awesome...

I'm not against cutscreens. OoT had cutscreens. Mario 64 had cutscreens. That's cool. But you didn't play the level so you could watch the next cutscreen, you watched the cutscreen so you could play the next level (or zone, or dungoen, or whatever).

I am also not against story. I just think a story should be told primarily through the gameplay itself, not CG. It's not easy but I think the result is worth the extra effort. It requires creativity, and who thinks we don't need more of that?

Ryan made the point in the "Scare people with your picture or with the endless movie arguments" thread that books require the author to be more creative and to paint a more descriptive picture because you can't actually see it. It forces you to use imagination and brain cycles. That's all I'm asking. Imagine the possibilities if devlopers just pushed a little harder for something new. Then games like ICO and Katamari Damashii wouldn't be the ultra rare exceptions to Super Madden Fighter Gamma 128 X++.

If only Chrono Trigger had been able to tell a story without hours of CG footage...

First, Chrono didn't have any CG until that re-issue. It's still one of the greatest games ever.

Second, there are times when a story needs introspection, or dialogue, and it's really not feasable in most cases to have this happen while other stuff is going on. Cutscenes are therefore necessary (and if you really look, almost all cutscenes are dialog, the others are either introspection or flashbacks). None really hold up well while in the heat of battle.

Sometimes it can get out of hand though... the final boss battle in MGS2 comes to mind. Fighting Solidus is really, really fun, cause you get to use the sword, and he's no pushover. But your Codec is going off like a teenager's cell phone, with the wierdo computer guy mocking you. It served no purpose and should not have been there.

Cutscenes in their traditional sense aren't necessary. There have been many, many story-heavy games with 'cutscenes' that are nothing more than glorified conversations between characters or even less... yes, in recent years it is normal to have them, but not always there... PC RPGs, for instance, often have good stories but cutscenes? Good, story-telling cutscenes, beyond an intro video and perhaps an ending, in PC RPGs are relatively rare. They still tell good stories. How? Conversations between characters, mostly. Same way adventure games do it. Console games don't usually have the same deep conversation systems as PC games do, though, so they can't use that method to nearly the same effectiveness... so when a console RPG or adventure has your character having an important conversation it'll be a cutscene or series of dialog boxes while PC games usually give you a list of possible conversation topics. If you click all the options the result is the same, but it uses some degree of interactivity and choice, which should be a goal of anything made in an interactive medium, so I'd call it definitely a good thing. Of course, it also increases the sense that you are the character, as opposed to you watching the character do things -- two very different approaches, and two paths that are both used in games. Both can definitely be effective, and both can get boring when the conversations get really long. But if the goal of a game is to be a GAME, and not an interactive film, then more interactivity in all respects of the game that you can manage cannot be a bad thing.

Both text-heavy PC games and text-heavy console games exist, of course, and in both cases the written aspect of the story and the storytelling can, I'd certainly say, matter at least as much or more than the visual aspect. In my opinion, that is a good technique that leads to better and deeper stories in games and the games with the best stories are not just the ones with the best written stories but also the deepest ones... yes, you can do a great story with brevity. But if you can also do a great story with length, shouldn't that count highly too? I say so. One major problem of course is getting the length of the conversation right... whether it's just clicking through dialog boxes or if it's choosing every option on a long list of conversation choices, even the most interesting story gets somewhat dull if it comes in massive quantities unless the game is truly special (and by this I mean Torment. A unique game that has no real equal in its field, a true masterwork, and a game told more by words than by images. Oh, it has images for sure, but the game does not reach greatness by them... it does through unique setting, and conversation, and more conversation, and a very interesting story, and by little text descriptions of things in the world... and sometimes also by the graphics. Oh, by 'somewhat dull sometimes' I mean TLJ. As great as it is... but more on that later.). Some games, just like some books and some films, do go overboard where length where less would work well... but such criticisms are possible in every medium, so that doesn't change my point.

Story is good. Story at the expense of gameplay? If the story is really worth it, I can accept that sometimes... gameplay at the expense of story? Works fine for many games, but I wouldn't want it all the time. A game with a too large non-interactive side, but with a great story? Okay... though some games these days are challenging the idea that has taken hold for some years now that to make a game with a great story you need lots of non-interactive or barely interactive (see: choosing each option in succession on a list and then listening to a long conversation ensue at each choice) cutscenes or conversations.

Here's a game I've mentioned here on this subject multiple times before. Not out yet, but a sequel to a great adventure game...

http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/512/512726p1.html

But why bring it up here? Because, whether or not the game succeeds in the goals that that interview lays out, the theory is quite good: that interactivity is good so non-interactive cutscenes should be minimized. So the game has more interactive cutscenes -- where a 'cutscene'-style scene is underway but you have control of the character in some way -- controlling them in an escape from the enemy (and not just controlling them, but making choices that affect the game at least in some small way -- running or killing people chasing your for instance) is one example I think they use. Conversation length? They talk about acknowledging that the issue is a problem and something they need to watch, but anyone who has played The Longest Journey should know that I expect them to not fully succeed at their goal of not overdoing it all the time. Which is mostly fine, but sometimes in TLJ it did get a bit overly lengthy... though almost always important at the same time. That game just has so much story to tell...

Other games have this philosophy too -- everything I've heard about Half-Life 2 says that it uses the technique of not having cutscenes. The whole game plays out from the first-person viewpoint of the main character and never leaves it... the story goes on around you but without traditional cutscenes (though there are obviously times when if you want to see the story you have to look at some event unfolding or listen to a conversation, I'm sure!). And given that by all accounts it's a fantastic game with a very good story, it obviously can work very well.

(DJ, you can probably see how the ideas I present here -- interactive conversation trees, interactive "cutscenes", and giving the player choice even if it is superficial to the overall progress of the game (though MGS does do this one to a degree, with being able to kill people or, if you try, not) could result with a story just as good and as deep as the story in MGS2 but with much less tedium and much more ... well, GAME, as opposed to film-in-game... MGS2 is a very fun game for sure, but the interactivity aspect has a ways to go... some game designers know that which is why other games try to have great stories while conciously NOT falling into the 'to have a great story (and hopefully a well-presented story as well) we must have a great degree of non-interactivity' pit...)

Oh, and I'd never noticed that about Zelda... that the games have everything from Link's perspective. You're right, though, they do that... and it defintely helps with cohesion and the sense that you are Link. If you want the person to truly BECOME the character you have to have the game follow just that character... as I said of course Half-Life 2 does this, to good effect. I'd never really thought about this, just taking cut-aways to be what they are, story exposition... but yeah, when I think about it it would reduce your connection to the character, wouldn't it? Now instead of being them you are someone outside who knows more than they do. Of course, that tactic can certainly work for some games and films and not all should be 'just following the character'. More epic works with many characters and lots of events happening in different places that need to be told (like novels with multiple characters that the book switches viewpoints between) probably shouldn't (though within each character there should be such cohesion, the fact that the consumer is seeing multiple viewpoints reduces the sense of 'I am the character' that a game which tries to truly be immersive should aim for), but for games of the kind we are discussing here... yes, it does seem like it would often work. Though a lot of it depends on what kind of story you are trying to tell. While sticking with one viewpoint like most Zelda games works great for that approach, there are lots of books, games, etc. that I've thought had great, engrossing stories that take the approach of multiple characters and switching or a higher viewpoint... so it really depends on the case. But for something like Zelda, yes, focus on one character's viewpoint only does seem like the best way to reinforce the idea that you are Link, even if many players wouldn't notice the difference between a Zelda game with such consistency and one where there are some cutaways.

The main reason I play starcraft and warcraft games is for the story, The campaigns, Unlike other crap RTS single players is just level to level with some side crap to tell you why your doing it ,Which is why I found age of mythology sucked, AOE had historically based campaigns were more interesting because they were actually educational and got me excited into playing the different races .

Starcraft and warcraft are hugely complexe stories and their in the fucking RTS games a genre not known for its story telling , The end of both SC and SC BW the story kept me asking for more, few movies today or even tv shows really interested me like that , warcraft started off with little singular character development but its story was still compelling none the less. I had more fun playing as Arthas both good and evil in the campaigns because I kind of had the feelings of infesting and taking over a world as the undead or being a heroic figure fighting them.In multiplayer its irelevant your not killing helpless NPC character or taking cities and regions on a map , Infact you can be aligned next to humans ,NE,Orcs you dont get that feeling you get in the campaigns of a plagued cancer taking over the world.

What iritates and pisses me off is players who dont care about the single player campiagns or even have sterotypical views of them in general without playing them and dont want anyone else to enjoy them, They say" the game would still sell if they didnt have it I cant understand why blizzard puts it in".
Its true they could do it that way some developers are already doing it not having single player story oriented campaigns.

But the thing is alot do still enjoy mainly for it, If the multiplayer is fucked to hell with abusers or the game is unplayable for whatever reason online , Its nice have a single player to fall back too . Single player is the best way to learn the concepts and how each race works, Has alot of unique missions and quests that Multiplayer doesnt have,Great continually evolving story, The biggest reason is that its the big pool of creativity for Blizzard when they make new games otherwise it would be a big mess making no sense kind of like warhammers 3000 having Orc with axes vs robots with machines guns.

I reason that world of warcraft was recently critized and demonized recently over server problems is that its entirely multiplayer, If it had single player like some packaged MMORPGs people would go play that while the servers are down and quit bitching.

MGS2 Cut scenes were over done and told you way more then you were interested in all at once, Most people I know who play it get into a button mashing frenzy whenever its cut scene time to quickly skip them ,You should have more then 2 minutes of dialogue and if you give more please offer the player an option to get back into the game and skip it.I think they should offer like a Cut down version and a uncut version before you start them game for those who are not as madly crazed with all the side stories and just want the basic plot and nothing more,Atleast with MGS2.

With RPGS they would suck without story, In Halo and GTA3 everyone talks about what they did blowing shit up. In both Kotor games if you go to the boards 80% of the post pretain to the story and characters and whats going on and will happen in the future, The rest is game tips.

I hope that SOMEONE at least reads that previous, quite long, post of mine...

Starcraft and Warcraft II/III... yes, great games with great stories for sure. Told through cutscenes, ingame conversations and events, and mission briefings that combine to form great stories in the scifi and fantasy genres. I do criticize WCIII for being derivitive of SC, but still, it does tell a good story for sure, even if I would rate SC/BW higher. Better than most game stories, certainly. And yes, in every case at the end I was left wanting more... I agree with you -- that is a good thing. The author of that original article said no, but I definitely disagree. As long as said sequel comes eventually, leaving some hooks to connect to a sequel is fine... of course something should be resolved, but not EVERYTHING or when the sequel comes they will have to make up some story that doesn't work as well as it could have...

Quote:What iritates and pisses me off is players who dont care about the single player campiagns or even have sterotypical views of them in general without playing them and dont want anyone else to enjoy them, They say" the game would still sell if they didnt have it I cant understand why blizzard puts it in".

I absolutely agree. To me the single-player campaign was the reason I played Warcraft II, and Starcraft, and BW... multiplay was fantastic in SC/BW but the single made it what it is. WCIII/TFT? I never felt quite that way, as I've detailed many times before. But I've been over all that before. WCIII's story was underwhelming because of how it was derivitive, how the game was too easy on "normal" difficulty so you progress through the story at a breakneck pace (quite unlike SC!), and how I came to WCIII having just finished Torment, the game I'd consider having the best game story of all time, months earlier... WCIII simply did not compare... I did not consider it Starcraft's equal or better, really, until I got into the multiplay. In that aspect WCIII is a clear winner over SC despite how SC has probably the second-best multiplayer mode of any game ever made. Losing to WCIII. :)

But anyway. It is a good story, especially paired with TFT. SC/BW is better, and more original (though it's certainly deriving aspects from everything in sci-fi, the precice combonation of ideas shown in SC is unique)...

But yeah, I would take SC and WC3 as good examples of game stories, even if it is almost fully non-interactive. But for a discussion on that issue that read my last post. :)

Even in the remake Chrono Trigger didn't have "hours" of CG footage. In fact, it has NO CG footage, those added movies were hand drawn.

It DID however have a LOT of cutscenes even before adding in the movies. However, I wouldn't change that for the world, because they were done very well and didn't subtract but rather added to gameplay. Honestly, games where the story is told VIA gameplay, (oh yeah, another great example of this is Myst, where the story of an area has already passed and your exploration of it is how you figure out exactly what happened) are great, but stories that need cutscenes to be told still have their place in the video game world.

ABF, the interactivity with the story CAN'T happen if MGS2 is to get it's point across. In any other game, you have a point. For example, MGS1 :D. However, MGS2 has a very specific point. I mean it, if you beat the game, I mean play the ENTIRE game, and if you only have gotten to the President, then you have no idea at all what turn the story will take (no you DON'T, seriously, you have NO idea, I can promise you that, no really, you don't! Listen, I mean it! It's as unpredictable as if Ronald McDonald showed up to take you to the Matrix, only a little different :D), um, you will get that. MGS2 actually gave a point to the total lack of being able to control the cutscenes. I really don't want to spoil it, so just trust me on this and beat the game, you'll see what they were going for. It's out for PC you know, so not having a PS2 isn't an excuse :D.

A Black Falcon Wrote:I hope that SOMEONE at least reads that previous, quite long, post of mine...

Starcraft and Warcraft II/III... yes, great games with great stories for sure. Told through cutscenes, ingame conversations and events, and mission briefings that combine to form great stories in the scifi and fantasy genres. I do criticize WCIII for being derivitive of SC, but still, it does tell a good story for sure, even if I would rate SC/BW higher. Better than most game stories, certainly. And yes, in every case at the end I was left wanting more... I agree with you -- that is a good thing. The author of that original article said no, but I definitely disagree. As long as said sequel comes eventually, leaving some hooks to connect to a sequel is fine... of course something should be resolved, but not EVERYTHING or when the sequel comes they will have to make up some story that doesn't work as well as it could have...



I absolutely agree. To me the single-player campaign was the reason I played Warcraft II, and Starcraft, and BW... multiplay was fantastic in SC/BW but the single made it what it is. WCIII/TFT? I never felt quite that way, as I've detailed many times before. But I've been over all that before. WCIII's story was underwhelming because of how it was derivitive, how the game was too easy on "normal" difficulty so you progress through the story at a breakneck pace (quite unlike SC!), and how I came to WCIII having just finished Torment, the game I'd consider having the best game story of all time, months earlier... WCIII simply did not compare... I did not consider it Starcraft's equal or better, really, until I got into the multiplay. In that aspect WCIII is a clear winner over SC despite how SC has probably the second-best multiplayer mode of any game ever made. Losing to WCIII. :)

But anyway. It is a good story, especially paired with TFT. SC/BW is better, and more original (though it's certainly deriving aspects from everything in sci-fi, the precice combonation of ideas shown in SC is unique)...

But yeah, I would take SC and WC3 as good examples of game stories, even if it is almost fully non-interactive. But for a discussion on that issue that read my last post. :)

SC is probaily most balanced and polished RTS ever released either 3 races has a equal chance to win and nobody has a unfair balance edge or overpowering rascial trait by picking a certain race , each race in SC special traits balances each other out, Zerg are more numerous and reproduce faster but are cheaper weaker units except the high tech upper level units ,Protoss dont produce as quick and have more exspensive units but they are very powerful units that make up for numerical disadvantages , Terrans are a middle weight race that have both cheap and exspensive units.

Warcraft III is better now in later version but pails in comparrison and had taken it alot longer to reach where it is now, but I admit I miss the mass Shaman rushes and Sorcessoress rush ,Early warcraft III was bassically consisted of having to use certain strats and not straying from anything else because they were so effective experimenting was too risky , The repetitive creeping was getting old and tired once you had played a good 30 games and then it was a annoyance that you had to do if you didnt do early rush games which most people did to avoid the long draging creeping.TFT changed and fixed alot of things,I havent played the game in a long time I just tried out the goblin tinker and kind of liked him but that was it, I know they have two new heroes now.

Warcraft 1-2 were mainly based around single player and multiplayer was a bonus after thought in the pre B/net era. Starcraft was the first online battlenet supported RTS game ,But the single player was still of great emphases. Oh and SC just got a new patch giving it alot of the warcraft III B.net features.

i like how much blizzard has changed the orcs between warcraft 2 and 3. and they were able to incorporate that into the story and have it make sense. it's really quite cool. and now you can see them evolving further in WoW where they're still not under demonic control, but they aren't getting along with any humans. thrall is still hoping for peace, but his influence on the people giving you quests seems to be waning. it's really cool.

the interesting thing is that WoW really has no story of its own, it's all implied. the only way for you to know why things are the way they are is by having played warcraft 2 and 3. and that works well for it.

DJ has a good point about MGS2, though it's not quite about not being able to control the cut scenes. That wasn't really the point. There were cut scenes because that was the best way to tell the story. But I understand what's she's saying, and she's absolutely right about having to finish the game before you can comment on its storyline or cinemas (attn: ABF).

And LL, I agree that the best way to tell a story in a game is during gameplay, but there are very few games that have been able to do that well, and they don't do it in a way that can be easily reproduced. ICO is really the best example out there. It uses very few cinemas and tells its emotionally complex story through the actual gameplay. It's difficult to describe so you'll just have to play it for yourself. But while game designers are still trying to figure out how to make a game tell a story, there are a few easy-to-copy methods that at least do the job, the best one being cut scenes. That is basically just putting a movie into a game which I do not believe is the best way to go about it, but it's still better than the other standard alternatives (putting emotionless pages of dialogue via text into a game--and no that was not an invitation to restart that argument, ABF). I have a few ideas of my own which I hope to implement into a future game, but it's certainly not going to be an easy task to accomplish, and will most likely take several tries before I get it somewhat right. :)

Quote:Other games have this philosophy too -- everything I've heard about Half-Life 2 says that it uses the technique of not having cutscenes. The whole game plays out from the first-person viewpoint of the main character and never leaves it... the story goes on around you but without traditional cutscenes (though there are obviously times when if you want to see the story you have to look at some event unfolding or listen to a conversation, I'm sure!). And given that by all accounts it's a fantastic game with a very good story, it obviously can work very well.

Yes, you always have full control of your characters movements, even when people are talking to do are doing something important to the story. There was one part near the end where you can only control your characters view for like 5-10 minutes, but that part was pretty cool, so its okay. Anyone that's beat the game knows what I'm talking about.

HL 1 & 2 tell their stories in a neat and innovative way, but the stories themselves are pretty crappy.

Quote:And LL, I agree that the best way to tell a story in a game is during gameplay, but there are very few games that have been able to do that well, and they don't do it in a way that can be easily reproduced. ICO is really the best example out there. It uses very few cinemas and tells its emotionally complex story through the actual gameplay. It's difficult to describe so you'll just have to play it for yourself. But while game designers are still trying to figure out how to make a game tell a story, there are a few easy-to-copy methods that at least do the job, the best one being cut scenes. That is basically just putting a movie into a game which I do not believe is the best way to go about it, but it's still better than the other standard alternatives (putting emotionless pages of dialogue via text into a game--and no that was not an invitation to restart that argument, ABF). I have a few ideas of my own which I hope to implement into a future game, but it's certainly not going to be an easy task to accomplish, and will most likely take several tries before I get it somewhat right.

If you haven't done it before, read that Dreamfall interview, OB1. It directly talks about this issue.

And dialogue, of course, when done well is about as far from emotionless as you can get. The idea that you don't like it is just so baffling, still... so many great game stories have been told, and told well, through conversations that I definitely find it impossible to disagree with. Of course it gets even better when there's voice acting as well (or possibly, depending on the case, stuff with cutscenes showing images of what is being described like they do in OoT), but that isn't a necessity or something.

Quote:HL 1 & 2 tell their stories in a neat and innovative way, but the stories themselves are pretty crappy.

Coming from you that means that the stories are pretty good. :) Yeah, not the most innovative stories ever, but not all stories need to be to be good...

Quote:i like how much blizzard has changed the orcs between warcraft 2 and 3. and they were able to incorporate that into the story and have it make sense. it's really quite cool. and now you can see them evolving further in WoW where they're still not under demonic control, but they aren't getting along with any humans. thrall is still hoping for peace, but his influence on the people giving you quests seems to be waning. it's really cool.

the interesting thing is that WoW really has no story of its own, it's all implied. the only way for you to know why things are the way they are is by having played warcraft 2 and 3. and that works well for it.

I didn't like how WoW took the story because it seemed like peace was possible between the orcs and at least some of the humans (the ones on Kalimdor) and that they only broke it because Blizzard wanted to set another game right after WCIII... stupid. Given historic tensions some minor fighting is probably inevitable, but it just doesn't seem realistic to have it dissolve so fast... I don't think it really works from a story standpoint and I wish that they hadn't taken that route. WCIII had a pretty good story and the direction WoW takes... I know they had to create new crisises (crises?) for a new game, but still... so soon, so many, and so broad? It's stupid!

Before each new event a Blizz game adds (the second war in WCII, Draenor in the WCII expo, the demons in WCIII, the naga in TFT, the Zerg and Terran Imperium in BW...) has made sense, but I just don't feel that way about WoW. Oh, it's a fantastic game, but...

Quote:Even in the remake Chrono Trigger didn't have "hours" of CG footage. In fact, it has NO CG footage, those added movies were hand drawn.

It DID however have a LOT of cutscenes even before adding in the movies. However, I wouldn't change that for the world, because they were done very well and didn't subtract but rather added to gameplay. Honestly, games where the story is told VIA gameplay, (oh yeah, another great example of this is Myst, where the story of an area has already passed and your exploration of it is how you figure out exactly what happened) are great, but stories that need cutscenes to be told still have their place in the video game world.

ABF, the interactivity with the story CAN'T happen if MGS2 is to get it's point across. In any other game, you have a point. For example, MGS1 . However, MGS2 has a very specific point. I mean it, if you beat the game, I mean play the ENTIRE game, and if you only have gotten to the President, then you have no idea at all what turn the story will take (no you DON'T, seriously, you have NO idea, I can promise you that, no really, you don't! Listen, I mean it! It's as unpredictable as if Ronald McDonald showed up to take you to the Matrix, only a little different ), um, you will get that. MGS2 actually gave a point to the total lack of being able to control the cutscenes. I really don't want to spoil it, so just trust me on this and beat the game, you'll see what they were going for. It's out for PC you know, so not having a PS2 isn't an excuse .

So you think that MGS2 could never work if it had a conversation system like a PC adventure game (list of choices)? Even if that was just in the comlink sections (when you call people) and not cutscenes? I don't understand how any story could be so unique that it could not be told by the method of having normal conversations between characters (as opposed to major story sequences, which probably would work better as they are in MGS-style games)... but if there is some special circumstances in how the story goes that you learn in MGS2 that make it different from all other games, then whatever. I was talking more in general anyway, about what games should be doing as opposed to doing like MGS does... (for the most part, having a few games like MGS is fine and I was enjoying MGS2 when I was playing it a few years back)

Obviously you cannot do all story with full interactivity if you want to tell a good story. You need a narrative structure and some degree of a linear path... it would just be far too hard to design a non-linear story (which is why non-linear games either have mostly linear stories within them (possibly branching ones) or don't really have stories). But... do you really think that what that Dreamfall interview describes could never work in MGS2? I guess it's because MGS is trying to be a movie much more than it is trying to be a game so asking for more game/interactive features doesn't make sense when the game is not trying for that... some of the things I described could be bad for such a game, perhaps (a possibility I mentioned)... but I certainly think that games could have interactive 'cutscenes' (as described for Dreamfall, HL2, etc) and sometimes have more interactive conversation systems (yeah, it sometimes makes for less natural-sounding conversations, but I prefer it overall because it has choice involved which should be what games try to do.)

I'd rather, of course, talk about games I've played more than MGS2 (halfway) or Half-Life 2 (not at all), but no one wants to talk about, or hasn't played, most of the games I mention (or refer to by implication)... it's annoying to have to talk only about games I don't know well enough to talk about specifically.

Quote:If you haven't done it before, read that Dreamfall interview, OB1. It directly talks about this issue.

And dialogue, of course, when done well is about as far from emotionless as you can get. The idea that you don't like it is just so baffling, still... so many great game stories have been told, and told well, through conversations that I definitely find it impossible to disagree with. Of course it gets even better when there's voice acting as well (or possibly, depending on the case, stuff with cutscenes showing images of what is being described like they do in OoT), but that isn't a necessity or something.

Are you fucking blind or something? I just said that I was not talking to you. I guess your trolling instincts kicked in and you couldn't help but reply to my post though, right?

I'm really thinking about blocking your posts. It's bad enough that you're the dumbest poster here with the worst social skills out of anyone on the internet (and that's saying a lot), but you are physically and mentally unable to follow directions to keep some level of peace.

Quote:but the stories themselves are pretty crappy.

They're not quite that bad, but the first was "Alien monsters get loose and you have to kill them, with a twist at the end", but the second was somewhat better. In HL2 you have a corrupt government working with the aliens and an underground resistance figthing them. Yeah, not the best stories ever, but they worked for what they game was trying to do.

Yeah, the stories were told in an interesting way and it made for an engaging experience.

Exactly, still I hope HL3 has a great story without messing with formula. I'm hoping for some startling revelations since the second one left me hanging.

I hope it turns out that Gordon Freeman is dead. And frozen. And a robot.

Yeah, that would be totally awesome.

You know it!

Ya know, I see what you mean ABF. Actually, thinking a little further, I think I idolized the whole conversation method in MGS2 a bit much, that is, the lack of control of anything except IF you talk. Conversation options are always nice, and honestly that COULD have been done in MGS2 now that I think about it. The end results of the conversation options would need to end in pretty much the same way, that is, the person you are talking to can't be controlled via conversation in any way. As for cinemas, I mentioned this before but I'm seeing more places where it would work in MGS2, being able to control the main character at least a lot more in those would be nice. That is, when Snake is escaping the sinking ship, I should be the one doing the escaping.

In a game with any other story, dialog options I do believe are always nice when done right. For example, Zelda, starting with LTTP, made a habbit out of fake choices. OOT had the worst offenses :D. You know, things like "Do you have that shining stone?". You are given the choice, while staring into that hopeful shining face :D, of saying yes or no. Now, if you answer no, she just basically repeats herself until you say yes. That's not a REAL choice. A real conversation option would have had special consequences based on what you select. Selecting "No" could have led to a different story thing taking place. Instead of Impa showing up and escorting you out, for example, Zelda could have kept talking to you about Ganondorf, not really revealing much new info, but during it you are led, oh I dunno, into the castle through some secret passage. Selecting "no" gets you a nice secret passage, while selecting "yes" gets you another secret passage out of the castle. A REAL choice with real consequences. Also, with things like that, some serious replay value.

PC RPGs have LOTS of converstation options. So do a number of PC adventures. Sometimes this is appreciated. Sometimes, it's a little annoying when nothing you say to them really effects anything else. For a good example, talking to some NPC you may get the chance to ask about a lot of topics. Now, beforehand the NPC tells you they can only tell you a little and after that they have to go or risk getting caught. Each option includes some key password you need, for example info about the guard's outpost, or info about the tavern down the street. Once you pick something, the guy is gone and you are stuck with that choice. Or, for something a lot deeper, a conversation wherein you have a LOT of choices of responses. For example, you can ask about a lot of things, but as you ask you start setting that NPC's opinion of you, like if you ask about a lot of people and upon them asking you if you want to know more you keep saying "I have something else I want to ask you", they start getting nervous. Or, if you keep selecting rude options, or like for example you ask some key question that makes them lie to you if you ask another question. For example, if you ask a question that reveals you are an outsider, when you ask later about the commander's room they lie to you and an ambush is set up in that false room, but if you ask about the room first, they tell the truth.

Those are good examples. A bad example is having a lot of choices but you can just say whatever you want in whatever order with whatever followup response with no effect at all. However, if that NPC is revealing THAT much information, at the very least it's good that you can choose to only have to go through the info heading you want instead of having to click through a whole lot of info you didn't want on top of it.

Quote:That is, when Snake is escaping the sinking ship, I should be the one doing the escaping.

That would defeat the purpose of the game. The developers made a very conscious decidion not to let you control Snake, and for a very good reason.

Quote:They're not quite that bad, but the first was "Alien monsters get loose and you have to kill them, with a twist at the end", but the second was somewhat better. In HL2 you have a corrupt government working with the aliens and an underground resistance figthing them. Yeah, not the best stories ever, but they worked for what they game was trying to do.

OB1 is a serial exaggerator, remember... that just means 'they aren't original' really, I'd say.

Quote:Those are good examples. A bad example is having a lot of choices but you can just say whatever you want in whatever order with whatever followup response with no effect at all. However, if that NPC is revealing THAT much information, at the very least it's good that you can choose to only have to go through the info heading you want instead of having to click through a whole lot of info you didn't want on top of it.

The main problem with having a list of choices is that it often can make the conversation sound less natural (as you say, letting you say things in any order -- it's the standard way of operation in games with conversation trees and I'd just say that you get used to it... and as you also say it lets you choose what you want to hear as opposed to being forced through a scripted sequence, so I'd call it an improvement in most cases.).

*player walks up to vendor and clicks on them*

'Hello' :You greet the fruit seller:

"Hello there! Want to buy some of my fruits?"

'Fruit' :You ask what kinds of fruit he has for sale:

"I have many kinds of fruit for sale, including oranges, apples, and peaches."

'Apples' :You ask about the apples:

"The apples are nice and fresh, and cost 10 coppers."

*back to main menu*

'about you' :You ask the fruit seller about himself:

"I am Fred the fruit seller. Pleased to meet you."

'fruit' :You ask what kinds of fruit he has for sale:

"I have many kinds of fruit for sale, including oranges, apples, and peaches."

(etc... done in the style of Quest for Glory (that is, the player character doesn't actually speak, you choose words from a list and then it says a summary of what you said and the person responds. In other games, like Wizards & Warriors, there is just a response to the verb and not even a summary of what your character said...). :))

Now, this isn't always like this. It is in adventure games, but sometimes RPGs are different... Baldur's Gate, for instance, didn't feel quite like that. It phrased your choices in the form of sentences, for instance. :) (though I think I understand why it was done that way. Think about it... if what the player character says is not directly stated, you have to make it up in your head. This means that the character is more YOU and less what the programmer wanted that character to sound like... so in games like W&W or QFG where the goal is to make the player character(s) representations of the player, this approach makes complete sense; in a game with well-defined characters like most adventure games it wouldn't work.) It also had many fewer options to choose from, when compared to an adventure game... that's obviously because an adventure has conversation as a major aspect of gameplay while in most RPGs the main gameplay is the combat, not the talking, so there's less to talk about and when you are talking it's more scripted... but at its core BG uses that same system, just with more linearity in discussions (as opposed to a list you go through one item at a time, they tell you things and perhaps you can make choices along the way -- with a short list of topics at some point, but nothing like when it's done the other way).

I guess that in that regards over the past years PC RPGs have tried to be more like console RPGs. Why do I say that? If I look at old PC RPGs, you generally see very weak stories that are exuses to, as the saying goes, 'kill the foozle', and the player characters aren't really developed. They are what you want them to be. So if they speak with NPCs it's often just in the form of receiving a reply or in the form of speaking with a list of verbs (or verbs you type in, sometimes!). As the genre has developed story has become much more important and so has characterizing the main character as more than just a unclear representation of the character... yes, you usually can create a character, but if you compare Baldur's Gate to Wizardry VI, for instance... in BG you create a character, but then choose from a list of possible sentences to reply to things with. This allows for a lot more narrative depth in the conversations and elements like moral decisions that impact the game, in some ways increasing the sense that you are really this person... but it tells you what you're saying, on the other hand, so you can't say what you want exactly (even if you know that all the other person will do is look for the keywords in your response)... what BG does is probably the better system, when compared to Wiz VI, but I really like QFG's system... especially the one in QFGII-IV. That is really well developed and complex... I'd use that a a model for a conversation system for any game which is trying to create the sense that you really are your character as opposed to you fitting your character into what the game designers can think of as potential replies.

Anyway, PC RPGs slowly have changed, for the most part, from 'story as an excuse for gameplay' to 'story as an integral part of gameplay'... not in every case, of course, but to a large extent it's true even in the more open-ended titles. Is that an improvement? Yeah, mostly, but there is something to be said for a simple oldschool title sometimes as well...

Quote:In a game with any other story, dialog options I do believe are always nice when done right. For example, Zelda, starting with LTTP, made a habbit out of fake choices. OOT had the worst offenses . You know, things like "Do you have that shining stone?". You are given the choice, while staring into that hopeful shining face , of saying yes or no. Now, if you answer no, she just basically repeats herself until you say yes. That's not a REAL choice. A real conversation option would have had special consequences based on what you select. Selecting "No" could have led to a different story thing taking place. Instead of Impa showing up and escorting you out, for example, Zelda could have kept talking to you about Ganondorf, not really revealing much new info, but during it you are led, oh I dunno, into the castle through some secret passage. Selecting "no" gets you a nice secret passage, while selecting "yes" gets you another secret passage out of the castle. A REAL choice with real consequences. Also, with things like that, some serious replay value.

That kind of conversation "choice" is pointless... saying no has no worth, so why ever bother? It's just a way to let you not progress in the game yet if you don't want, not true interactivity in conversation, obviously. Zelda games usually don't have enough conversation to warrant converation trees, though, as with most console RPGs... oh, there often is lots of conversation, but it's not done like PC RPG conversations are so I don't know how well that structure would work... for a Zelda you'd need more speech to make it worth it, probably.

Oh, how about a good example of a console RPG that DOES have choice: Tales of Symphonia! Sure, the choices are somewhat rare, but they have a real effect on the progress of the game and what happens... I wish more Japanese RPGs (or Zelda games, I'd think that that kind of choice system would work well in a Zelda game) would do things like that. :)

Quote:Now, beforehand the NPC tells you they can only tell you a little and after that they have to go or risk getting caught.

Hmm... if it's just a 'I have fifteen options but after you click on four I leave and you can't read the others unless you reload and choose different ones', like Bioware does sometimes, it's just annoying and unwanted. But if it's 'what you choose from this list will have an effect on how you progress through this game (or how other characters will interact with you in the future)', then it's great and goes a long way to improving the game if implemented fully and well...

Quote:Ya know, I see what you mean ABF. Actually, thinking a little further, I think I idolized the whole conversation method in MGS2 a bit much, that is, the lack of control of anything except IF you talk. Conversation options are always nice, and honestly that COULD have been done in MGS2 now that I think about it. The end results of the conversation options would need to end in pretty much the same way, that is, the person you are talking to can't be controlled via conversation in any way. As for cinemas, I mentioned this before but I'm seeing more places where it would work in MGS2, being able to control the main character at least a lot more in those would be nice. That is, when Snake is escaping the sinking ship, I should be the one doing the escaping.

It's not much, but anything is better interactivity-wise than simply staring at the screen for 20 minuites at a time... implementing more interactive cutscenes and conversations would almost certainly also reduce people's complaints about how non-interactive the game is, so it seems like it'd be good all around...

Yeah that examlpe of just a "you can only pick these responses" isn't nearly as good as the other thing I said, about a conversation changing in a much more complex way, more naturally.

Oh, regarding those false choices done in, for example, Ocarina of Time? Yes, those ARE pointless and really I felt more or less insulted when presented with those choices. Were they supposed to give the illusion of chioce or something?

Anyway, Wind Waker got rid of that completely. Every single moment where you think "oh boy, another false choice" is actually just answered automatically with a nod of Link's head.

King of Red Lions: Are you ready to save your sister?

Player: *gets ready to say "yes"*

Link: *automatically nods yes without insulting the player*

The only acception is when they ask if you want to hear some important quest information over again in case you missed it.

Ya know, a litte more choice in story development in Zelda would be interesting... Now, I'm not saying "let me be able to go evil" like EVERY RPG is doing these days, but you know, SOME ability to control the character. Link is becoming a little less of an avatar these days, just a little, and they could restore that if they let you behave as you wanted, to a degree, in the game. You'll always be the Hero of Courage, but you could give reluctant answers, or very eager ones, or just rash, frustrated, wreckless answers. Depending on the answers, various subquests, or a few main quest things, could be altered. Namely, NPC interaction. A very simple version of this would be a "just tell me what I need to know you old hag, I'm in a hurry here" response to a teacher getting you on the good side of the students but on the very bad side of the teacher, or "I'd be happy to help!" response getting you on the teacher's good side but the students all hate you now. Simple, but I think I get the point across.

Of course, Link's actual words are left out intentionally so you can imagine what he says, but it's hard to have much room to imagine that if he's expressing the feelings the game designer gave him through the whole event, on the face. Since the conversation option method would be limited due to sheer complexity and time constraints, they could simplify it to selecting... I dunno... smilies from a list depicting the response you want to give. For example, something like this for "I'm up to the task" Or this if you just want the info but like, more fitting since I just picked those from our own smily list. That would allow you to imagine what was said on your own well enough.

Quote:Yeah that examlpe of just a "you can only pick these responses" isn't nearly as good as the other thing I said, about a conversation changing in a much more complex way, more naturally.

"You can just choose these responses"... you mean a standard adventure game setup with a list of replies, right? As for the 'you don't actually speak', what do you think about my explanation for why I think they use them, though? It certainly seems to make sense to me... yes, it makes for unnatural conversations, but if I'm right then there is logic behind it... both for why you don't speak sentences, really, and for why the conversation stream isn't really natural (of course, a big part of the fault there is on the player -- if you just go down the list it'll usually work fine, I'd say...).

'conversation changing in a more complex and natural way'... what games would you use as examples for this? If you mean what I think you do it'd be pretty hard to program, I imagine... but I'm pretty sure that I know what you mean and yeah, when you are given real choices it's even better than just having a list. This is more common these days, with everything from Tales of Symphonia to KotOR having game-effecting choices and not just a list of things to choose from that you'll choose all of eventually anyway.

Quote:Anyway, Wind Waker got rid of that completely. Every single moment where you think "oh boy, another false choice" is actually just answered automatically with a nod of Link's head. The only acception is when they ask if you want to hear some important quest information over again in case you missed it.

I didn't notice that, but you're right...


As for Zelda adding choice, that'd be cool, definitely. When a game puts a good system like that in place it's great and really helps the game... and it'd absolutely be great in a Zelda game. Oh, you definitely should have to be a hero if you're playing Link in a Zelda game, but letting it be more of your own hero... of course that'd be great. :)

Oh, as for Link being an avatar, yeah. QFG is just doing the same thing except in a game where they can't pretend that you are mute and yet you speak... having 'you said X' without explaining HOW you said X is an effective solution really...

Yeah, I understand and agree with the notion of players being mute so you have to imagine what they said on your own. I believe I mentioned that before. Now, as to conversations becoming disjointed unless you go down the options in order... Yeah I've been there, and honestly it's usually not too bad but when it is, I wouldn't really want to blame the player. Allowing you to pick options is fine and all, but if they didn't program it so that it would allow for whatever plot holes or disjointedness one might make when picking options in the order they want, basically forcing you to go in order if you want it to be seamless, then the player really doesn't have a real choice... at least I'd say that... I would say it is the programmer's fault when such things arise.

Quote:OB1 is a serial exaggerator, remember... that just means 'they aren't original' really, I'd say.

The story isn't just original; it's crappy. Really, if it were in anything but a videogame people would make fun of it to no end. I think that just goes to show what a great method of storytelling it was that valve came up with.

Quote:Yeah, I understand and agree with the notion of players being mute so you have to imagine what they said on your own. I believe I mentioned that before. Now, as to conversations becoming disjointed unless you go down the options in order... Yeah I've been there, and honestly it's usually not too bad but when it is, I wouldn't really want to blame the player. Allowing you to pick options is fine and all, but if they didn't program it so that it would allow for whatever plot holes or disjointedness one might make when picking options in the order they want, basically forcing you to go in order if you want it to be seamless, then the player really doesn't have a real choice... at least I'd say that... I would say it is the programmer's fault when such things arise.

That problem seems more common in older games (or games designed to be like older games)... some newer ones too, but more in older ones. Well, and ones where not only does your character not speak in sentences but, like in a Zelda game, they don't even have some speech-replacement method like verbs on a list... :) I know, it's another way of doing the same thing, but it's always weird in a game when you have one-sided conversations... they talk and talk about things and you can't say anything in response, except to ask another question! Annoying... (of course, what they say often is written just fine from a writing standpoint, but from a believability standpoint...)

For example, I'd say that most major graphical adventure games have good conversations. Not just one person talking (since usually in adventure games you are not playing a 'You' but a specific character designed for game game, so writing their lines out is the way to go. There are exceptions to this, of course (see the Zork series or adventure/RPG QFG)), writing that works, and a conversation system that works and makes the conversation sound as believable as it could... it's mostly in older or more simplistically designed RPGs and adventure games where you really have problems with conversation believability, I think. But really, despite the numerous variations, I'd say that most good PC adventure games and RPGs, no matter the age, do a decent job of it. Though you do sometimes have to suspend some disbelief.

Quote:The story isn't just original; it's crappy. Really, if it were in anything but a videogame people would make fun of it to no end. I think that just goes to show what a great method of storytelling it was that valve came up with.

I don't know, if it was a movie it wouldn't be regarded as a great movie story for sure but lots of action movies don't have great stories so would it matter much if it was interesting and well presented enough?

I think part of it is the fact that he wants to be able to control everything in a video game, like you did back in the day with an epen-ended approach like you did in Pac-Man and Super Mario Bros., and not have the action be guided by the story. Some genres have benefitted greatly from having cutscenes (RPGs, for one), but others have well, been stymied. Short, brief cutscenes are best for certain genres (Ninja Gaiden for XBox, Ocarina of Time). When did a game that featured a theme similar to Halo actually needed cutscenes to advance the game? It didn't: we all knew the story was a mere shell to go out there and kick some ass.

*goes back to playing*

Quote: OB1 is a serial exaggerator, remember... that just means 'they aren't original' really, I'd say.

Let me put it this way: You don't play Half-Life for the story, HL2 is a bit better, but again story isn't the most important part.

Quote:Let me put it this way: You don't play Half-Life for the story, HL2 is a bit better, but again story isn't the most important part.

They're FPSes. Any coherent story at all is a great accomplishment... :D

Perfect Dark had a fairly interesting story, but in the end really that story wasn't nearly what they hyped it up to be. Basically it was an episode of the X-Files, a two parter at best. Maybe the next game will tell the story in the way they originally said it would be told in PD :D, which is to say, overhearing conversations in real time during gameplay instead of via cut scenes.

Tribes: Vengeance has a pretty good story, a definite rarity in the genre, because it's by a team with a long history of making games with good stories (Freedom Force, System Shock 2, etc)... but usually FPS stories are pretty standard. Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II is my favorite FPS ever, but it's got just a decent story, nothing special... Mysteries of the Sith isn't much better because of how disjointed it is (really four or five seperate stories that only slightly connect)... or how about Return to Castle Wolfenstein? Fun game, with a good enough story, but it wasn't much more than a mixing of a whole bunch of cliches...

There are always jokes about writers throwing darts at some spinning board full of cliches... However, I think I'm going to actually DO that in making some game some day. That'll be a fun "the making of".