Tendo City

Well I do see where ABF is coming from. It is sort of the same overall concept, just a different expression of it, different enough that they could list it as a feature on the box probably, heh, I made a pun :D.

Hahaha :D

That was really REALLY lame :D Good job! :D

Quote:No, what you described has very little to do with what DJ said. She said that it would be cool if you could control your expressions, as in facial expressions, on the spot during a cinema.

Words and images are just different ways of expressing the same thing, OB1. Yes, it's somewhat different, but it's closely related.

Quote:Well I do see where ABF is coming from. It is sort of the same overall concept, just a different expression of it, different enough that they could list it as a feature on the box probably, heh, I made a pun .

In Dreamfall, Tornquist has talked a lot about how the player should almost always have control over the character -- so not long cinema scenes but ones where you have choices. The main example used is this part where you try to hide from some police (in an apartment)... you get the choice to try to hide several different ways, and the scene plays out differently based on what you choose. It also has storyline implications -- not on what happens in the end, but on what you learn (one choice gets you a bit more story). Now, this isn't exactly what you said. It's more like what you'd find in PC RPGs like Torment, where your choices in conversations decide how much story you learn and some details of how it plays out without affecting the ultimate ending...

I'm not sure how your idea would work. How do you choose facial expressions in the middle of a cutscene? Does it stop for a dialogue box in the middle? A bit awkward, if it happened all the time... controls (like something pops up and you press a direction)? That'd give me bad memories of FMV games... :) And would it affect the story?

Really, it kind of sounds like dialogue-replacement... expressions instead of words. I'd rather see both words and expressions (you choose a reply and you get appropriate facial expressions to go with it)... well, except for possibly a Zelda game, where Link never speaks and expressions are all you have to go by. :)

Quote:Words and images are just different ways of expressing the same thing, OB1. Yes, it's somewhat different, but it's closely related.

You are dumb.

My example made more sense, since changing your facial expression in a cinema wouldn't change the story. That's how the fake options stuff in previous Zelda games work, basically.

Except that Link becomes a schizo and that expression is completely nullified when you choose the RIGHT option, where he does the exact same thing he would have done if you chose it from the start. The delay really doesn't do much except make Link look insane when he does a complete reversal for no reason.

ABF, I was thinking that nothing would appear on screen, you would just press like.. the direction pad and different expressions would show up on Link's face. They could have a general "mood" assigned to various buttons or something, I dunno. Really, I was just thinking out loud there. In the end, I really want to see cinema scenes done in game where it's possible at all. Sometimes it's not, but I think a lot of the time it is. For example, in Zelda, a visual cue that the button you just pressed did something while playing makes for more fun than a cinema scene.

Hmm, how to make it more clear? Well, I was thinking of how I would make an FPS game an hour ago, and I was thinking about how story information is normally revealed. It's generally done via cut scenes, but now it's also done with conversations done in real time, like during combat. In Metroid, they let you actively scan stuff to glean information. However, I was thinking that to go even further, you would actually reveal information to your eyes by your actions, and would have to actually be keeping an eye on the environment for changes. For example, I was thinking of running through a base set up in some ancient ruins. Let's say I wanted some information about the culture revealed in those ruins. Rather than use a cinema, dialog that happens in real time, or even a scan where the game pauses to present me with a block of text, I was actually thinking of this:

Imagine you are deep inside the ruins, having just emptied a room behind you, cleverly avoiding setting off alarms so you have some time before a squad is sent to investigate. You walk into a hallway, and suddenly you are attacked by two enemies. Nothing major, but something you have to deal with to get through the doorway on the other side. As you are fighting, maybe you are able to notice some worn images on the walls, like when you are hiding behind one for instance. No biggy, nothing all that detailed, you keep fighting. Anyway, as you fight a bunch of dust keeps getting knocked loose from the walls. When you have killed them all, if you had payed attention, you would notice the images seem clearer. The solution? Make a huge racket there to clear up all the dust. After all, you dropped your dusting rag a few rooms back :D. So, you do so and suddenly a massive detailed mural is revealed. Looking at it, you notice the tribes praying to the gods to end some drought, then it shows a massive resavoir of water, then it shows a temple built in the middle of it. Then it shows the temple spread out and outright covering it. Finally, it shows high priests rationing out the water to people. You start thinking about what puzzles may be ahead that could use this info, and you were glad you payed attention to the environment to uncover this. Anyway, problem is all those grenade explosions alerted someone in the next room of your presence, and while you were reading all that, they were running for backup. About the time most people will be done checking it out, they suddenly burst in and it's time to fight again. Anyway, more murals will be all over later in the level continuing the story, like, I dunno, telling how the priests unlocked the water, or why they rationed it, like that was the ONLY water they had, or like some rebellion resulting in a war which resulted in the water being destroyed (they blew up the ocean!) and that's how the whole place got where it was, and you have to pay attention as harder and harder to see clues revealing where this stuff is show up later on in the place. The last one will actually be like a trap if you stick around to check it out, but a nonlethal one, I dunno...

Anyway, that's my idea of how to reveal important info, interactively and through control of the camera and your stuff, rather than cycling through text or watching a cut scene. I'm not against them per say, but honestly I do have a preference for the more interactive method of moving a story along, so I tend to think about ways to get that done a lot...

Oh yes, back to the Link thing, if something absolutely must be done a certain way, then a cinema is the answer. However, if your character can't make any real choice and the "wrong" choice only leads to an infinite loop forcing you to make the "right" choice, with no changes whatsoever, then honestly I'd rather they just didn't even give you the illusion of a choice. Nintendo apparently agreed when designing Wind Waker, hence why where you would have expected from past experience to actually have to say "yes" yourself to the question "do you wish to save your sister", Link just nods his head on his own, since well, that's what the end of it would be anyway, and it's more seamless that way.

DJ, a good idea, but probably too subtle. I mean, games make things obvious for a reason... when they're subtle, most people don't notice. That's pretty subtle. If you're okay with that -- with most of the players not seeing that section of the story -- then go ahead... but given that even in something like Metroid Prime a lot of people ignored the story, where it was relatively easy to find (just scan stuff!)...

I'm sure I'd like it a lot, but I don't know how many others would.

Quote:My example made more sense, since changing your facial expression in a cinema wouldn't change the story. That's how the fake options stuff in previous Zelda games work, basically.

As I said, the Zelda options aren't even fake options, as you don't have the option of refusing... oh, you can say 'No', but if you want to continue to play the game you must say 'Yes'. That is not an option. It is pretending to involve the player to hopefully increase their intrest or something. And it's an incredibly stupid thing I was very happy to see go away in WW. Either have it mean something or do away with it, and they did away with it. :)

Tales of Symphonia would be an example of a game where the choices you make during conversations DOES have an impact on the outcome on the game. A much better example.

Your example is an example of expressions, but it's an example of expressions/choices/whatever in one of their least useful uses...

There are lots of console RPG's where your choices in conversations have repurcussions later on (or immediately) in the game...

In response to ABF stating that most console RPG's don't. Couldn't be bothered reading the rest of this tripe.

Don't pay attention to his post as it has very little to do with what we were actually talking about. DJ was saying that it would be cool if you could control expressions during cinemas, and then ABF said that that would be nothing new, because there are already games where you can choose things that affect the story... even though that's not what DJ said.

:screwy:

It's okay, I get what he was saying, that it wasn't something TOTALLY new. I was just offereing a different way of doing it.

Oh yes, and you are right ABF, that is subtle and people that aren't paying attention and are just blasting their way through the game won't notice it. What I'm hoping to do is expand on the story for those that care about the story, usually the ones who will pay attention. If you just want to get to the next room to blow things up, then just do that. If you want to look around everywhere, you can do that too. Just a warning, I plan on having puzzle hints hidden in ways similar to that :D. I dunno, it was really just something I came up with on the spot. Game design takes a lot of da time.

Quote:There are lots of console RPG's where your choices in conversations have repurcussions later on (or immediately) in the game...

In response to ABF stating that most console RPG's don't. Couldn't be bothered reading the rest of this tripe.

I mentioned one (Tales of Symphonia)... but generally, console RPGs have a strong narrative structure which usually leads to less choice. Now, lots of PC RPGs are just as linear... can't deny that. But going along with other elements where PC RPGs have more choice (like usually being able to create a character instead of taking some specific one -- which reduces narrative potential, but increases user choice), more PC RPGs have real choice (and multiple endings) than console ones.

The point is, the stronger and more focused your story is, the fewer your nonlinear options will be. It is true that recently some console RPGs have been implementing some nonlinear aspects, but when you compare them to nonlinear aspects in PC RPGs, the difference is quite noticable.

Quote:It's okay, I get what he was saying, that it wasn't something TOTALLY new. I was just offereing a different way of doing it.

The point is that when you are given dialogue choices in a modern 3D game, you'd expect facial expressions too... the only real difference in your suggestion is that you're talking about facial expressions not in dialogue. In some ways it's a simpler way of doing things, and more subtle... I don't know if it's better, really. As I said, I'd rather just choose from things to say (or do) and expect appropriate facial expressions while saying them... (And OB1, facial expressions are a way to show an opinion or give a response to something. That's exactly the same thing that text does, except without text. See things like Zelda games, where Link responds to conversations with expressions. It's just another way of doing the same thing.)

Quote:Oh yes, and you are right ABF, that is subtle and people that aren't paying attention and are just blasting their way through the game won't notice it. What I'm hoping to do is expand on the story for those that care about the story, usually the ones who will pay attention. If you just want to get to the next room to blow things up, then just do that. If you want to look around everywhere, you can do that too. Just a warning, I plan on having puzzle hints hidden in ways similar to that . I dunno, it was really just something I came up with on the spot. Game design takes a lot of da time.

As I said, I like that approach... not holding the user's hand too much. It can make games frusterating, of course, but that's what FAQs are for... :) And it's more fun when your hand isn't being held all the time. Puzzles too? That's a more important thing to find, of course... some people wouldn't like that. :) Oh well, forget them... I think they're wrong anyway. Choice in story, and having to make choices which lets you play the game as you wish (at the risk of learning less of the story), is something I like.

It really is a new idea though, and it has never been done before. It actually reminded me of the way Kojima described games in that gamespot article. He said that games are like movies except that instead of watching an actor perform, you get to play the actor. The only thing is that as of now, you don't really "act" in games, ever. I would love to see a game where you have a full range of emotions and mannerisms at your command and really do get to play a role. And by that I don't mean choosing a reply from a list of commands and seeing a text box pop over the head of an emotionless figure. That would add a whole new dimension to gameplay.

Thanks for the idea, DJ!

As I said, I mentioned Dreamfall because they're trying to make the cinemas more interactive.

As for Kojima, his problem is linearity... you CAN do a great story and have choice! He seems to think that you can only do it with really long non-interactive cutscenes and conversations... that's not true.

Quote:The only thing is that as of now, you don't really "act" in games, ever. I would love to see a game where you have a full range of emotions and mannerisms at your command and really do get to play a role. And by that I don't mean choosing a reply from a list of commands and seeing a text box pop over the head of an emotionless figure. That would add a whole new dimension to gameplay.

Same question I had for DJ: how in the world would you do this?

Hey we posted at the same time. Read my post.

I replied to it... well, the part of it that was there when I replied... and you should read my post again (four posts up, now)... I finished editing it.

Quote:(And OB1, facial expressions are a way to show an opinion or give a response to something. That's exactly the same thing that text does, except without text. See things like Zelda games, where Link responds to conversations with expressions. It's just another way of doing the same thing.)

No, actually controlling visible emotions and expressions is extremely different from choosing a response from a bunch of choices and seeing the text play out over a still figure. Imagine a movie where you don't see Tom Hanks act, but rather you see a cardboard cut-out of him with text popping up above his head. Big difference.

Quote:As for Kojima, his problem is linearity... you CAN do a great story and have choice! He seems to think that you can only do it with really long non-interactive cutscenes and conversations... that's not true.

He never said that. That's just the way he does it, and since his games have the best-done stories out of just about any game you can think of, he's certainly not wrong about this. He's still figuring out ways to tell stories in games. He never gave an absolute method.

Quote:He never said that. That's just the way he does it, and since his games have the best-done stories out of just about any game you can think of, he's certainly not wrong about this. He's still figuring out ways to tell stories in games. He never gave an absolute method.

But given that that's how he does it, it kind of suggests that that's how he thinks it's done best...

Oh, I added a reply to the second part of that post in the post you're replying to there: How would you implement a 'control your character fully like an actor'? I don't see how you could do that with some way other than dialogue boxes (or some form of menu)... I don't think just mapping commands to buttons would be enough.

Quote:No, actually controlling visible emotions and expressions is extremely different from choosing a response from a bunch of choices and seeing the text play out over a still figure. Imagine a movie where you don't see Tom Hanks act, but rather you see a cardboard cut-out of him with text popping up above his head. Big difference.

Uh, you REALLY haven't been paying attention, have you... who said anything about still figures? Not me... I've repeatedly said '3d games let us show emotions', 'when you choose the dialogue choice your character should use appropriate facial expressions during the conversation', etc...

Quote:But given that that's how he does it, it kind of suggests that that's how he thinks it's done best...

And as of right now, that is the best way to go if you want a really strong story. Please name a non-linear game with a better-done story than any of the MGS games.

Quote:Oh, I added a reply to the second part of that post in the post you're replying to there: How would you implement a 'control your character fully like an actor'? I don't see how you could do that with some way other than dialogue boxes (or some form of menu)... I don't think just mapping commands to buttons would be enough.

Leave that to the game designers to worry about. ;)

Who knows, maybe if the Revolution really does offer a revolutionary new type of controller...

Quote:Uh, you REALLY haven't been paying attention, have you... who said anything about still figures? Not me... I've repeatedly said '3d games let us show emotions', 'when you choose the dialogue choice your character should use appropriate facial expressions during the conversation', etc...

I'm referring to the games you listed that according to you "already did it".

Quote:And as of right now, that is the best way to go if you want a really strong story. Please name a non-linear game with a better-done story than any of the MGS games.

I haven't really played enough MGS to be able to compare... but you do not need to make the game fully nonlinear to be able to tell a good story... I said that the more linear the game, the stronger the storytelling potential. But you can have small nonlinear aspects without harming the game at all -- like Tales of Symphonia's dialogue boxes that affect what the other people think of you, or the branching story in KotOR, or Torment's story which requires some effort to learn (as opposed to them just telling you no matter what, you need to make the right choices and have good enough stats.)...

Quote:Leave that to the game designers to worry about.

Who knows, maybe if the Revolution really does offer a revolutionary new type of controller...

And the controller is... the Nintendo Power Suit!

Quote:I'm referring to the games you listed that according to you "already did it".

Like which?

Quote:I haven't really played enough MGS to be able to compare... but you do not need to make the game fully nonlinear to be able to tell a good story... I said that the more linear the game, the stronger the storytelling potential. But you can have small nonlinear aspects without harming the game at all -- like Tales of Symphonia's dialogue boxes that affect what the other people think of you, or the branching story in KotOR, or Torment's story which requires some effort to learn (as opposed to them just telling you no matter what, you need to make the right choices and have good enough stats.)...

And all of those games have shit stories compared to MGS. :)

I'm not saying that I disagree, that games need to be linear to tell good stories, but right now this seems to be the best way if you want a story told as well as a good movie. Game designers are still figuring out new ways to tell stories in this extremely complex medium.

Quote:And the controller is... the Nintendo Power Suit!

That would be awesome!

Personally I'm hoping for some sort of gyro thing, though I doubt that'll happen. Touch screen would be crap. There might be something to that "rub" rumor though...

Quote:Like which?

You said:

Plenty of RPGs and adventure games have choices in conversation that affect the progress of the game... somewhat different, yes, but along the same lines. That's what I meant"

Quote:And all of those games have shit stories compared to MGS. :)

Don't even pretend to insult the story in Torment... best game story ever. As for the others, maybe. I'd need to play more MGS.

Quote:I'm not saying that I disagree, that games need to be linear to tell good stories, but right now this seems to be the best way if you want a story told as well as a good movie. Game designers are still figuring out new ways to tell stories in this extremely complex medium.

But the point is games are not movies and should not be movies. Really long nonlinear stuff isn't the best way to do a game like a game, it's the best way to do a movie on a computer... games should be interactive! It's what the medium is about! Even if it's somewhat false interactivity like being able to choose options on a list during a conversation (instead of just listening to the guy say everything in one looong cutscene), it's interaction... MGS is fun, but it'd be better if you weren't sitting around doing nothing during all of the conversations and cutscenes.

Sure, it's more cinematic to just tell it and not pause for user interaction, but it degrades the GAME part of the game, and that's a bad thing. Games are not movies, and shouldn't just try to copy them.

Quote:That would be awesome!

Personally I'm hoping for some sort of gyro thing, though I doubt that'll happen. Touch screen would be crap. There might be something to that "rub" rumor though...

I really have no idea what it'll be... and as a result aren't really expecting much.

Quote:You said:

Plenty of RPGs and adventure games have choices in conversation that affect the progress of the game... somewhat different, yes, but along the same lines. That's what I meant"

But then I continued to talk about some newer ones that do have facial animation and say that the ideal would be to have it so that when you choose the dialogue choice the character makes appropriate facial expressions during the conversation.

Quote:Don't even pretend to insult the story in Torment... best game story ever. As for the others, maybe. I'd need to play more MGS.

No, not even close. MGS 2 and 3 especially have the best-told stories in a game, ever. None of your little PC rpgs can ever hope to compare.

Quote:But the point is games are not movies and should not be movies. Really long nonlinear stuff isn't the best way to do a game like a game, it's the best way to do a movie on a computer... games should be interactive! It's what the medium is about! Even if it's somewhat false interactivity like being able to choose options on a list during a conversation (instead of just listening to the guy say everything in one looong cutscene), it's interaction... MGS is fun, but it'd be better if you weren't sitting around doing nothing during all of the conversations and cutscenes.

Sure, it's more cinematic to just tell it and not pause for user interaction, but it degrades the GAME part of the game, and that's a bad thing. Games are not movies, and shouldn't just try to copy them.

Well I'm glad you're so much smarter than Hideo Kojima.

I never said that his method was perfect, just that his games have the best-done stories ever in the medium. Nothing else compares. Like I said, the medium is still being figured out.

Quote:But then I continued to talk about some newer ones that do have facial animation and say that the ideal would be to have it so that when you choose the dialogue choice the character makes appropriate facial expressions during the conversation.

Like what, KOTOR? Haha, yeah right.

Quote:Like what, KOTOR? Haha, yeah right.

It tries, but does not succeed. As I said a few days ago...

Quote:... I meant to talk more about other things, but I don't know how much good going over the annoyances in KotOR would do... let's just say that KotOR tries the more technological (3d, etc) route in its gameplay and storytelling but doesn't do as well as it could because of it's mediocre engine (yes, when it's done well 3d these days can do better than 2d. But good, well-done 2d is preferable in a lot of ways to mediocre 3d... (I'm not saying KotOR should be 2d (with the kinds of compensation techniques they (esp. Tornquist) talk about in that question), it seems like a game better done in 3d... really, it should have a great 3d engine and really good graphics. It doesn't have quite either one of those possibilities... but what it does it does well enough that I forget that sometimes, and that's a mark of a great game. Really, my biggest irritation is probably the combat... I want to control all of them effectively (you can't, really), and I want the game to REMEMBER repeating commands -- I shouldn't have to re-tell the character to use the power attack every time I want them to use it! It should be like BGII or IWDII and have an option to repeat that action until you choose a different one!). The flaws of the graphics engine are secondary because they are just good enough, and the writing is good enough, for me to mostly ignore it.

Quote:No, not even close. MGS 2 and 3 especially have the best-told stories in a game, ever. None of your little PC rpgs can ever hope to compare.

I'd say something, but it's impossible to be civil when someone says something as completely and utterly ignorant as that, so I'll just let it go... as long as you apologize for insulting a game YOU HAVE NEVER PLAYED.

And especially not a game as widely recognized as incredible as Torment. This is no 'no one's heard of it' game here, it's one widely recognized as right at the top of its class (games with great stories). The only one I've heard compared to it, for sheer volume (and quality) of storyline, is Xenogears.

Quote:It tries, but does not succeed. As I said a few days ago...

So what games are you talking about, then?

Quote:I'd say something, but it's impossible to be civil when someone says something as completely and utterly ignorant as that, so I'll just let it go... as long as you apologize for insulting a game YOU HAVE NEVER PLAYED.

I've played more Torment than you've played MGS2 or 3. And unless the storytelling in Torment drastically changes after the first few hours then it's just laughable to compare it to MGS's masterful storytelling.

I've played more than two or three hours of MGS2. I got halfway through the game, after all... not sure about the hour count, but definitely more than that.

And the first couple hours of Torment definitely show off its brilliant storytelling, as well as the choices the game lets you make. All the little touches are there... the things you can click on for text descriptions, the nice graphics, the choices (you can kill things, or you can not. It's your choice.), the long and complex conversations, and the basis of the story... 'Who are you?' 'Why are you where you were?'... it's really an unmatched game. Based on the first half of MGS2, I'd say it's laughable to compare it the other way. :)


Oh yeah, and I added a paragraph to my last post, go read it.

Quote:So what games are you talking about, then?

I was mostly talking theoretically... those were two seperate points (that many current games have story choices in dialogue and then that the way it should work is having facial emotions to go with that). Some upcoming games might do it, I don't know.

Quote:I've played more than two or three hours of MGS2. I got halfway through the game, after all... not sure about the hour count, but definitely more than that.

And the first couple hours of Torment definitely show off its brilliant storytelling, as well as the choices the game lets you make. All the little touches are there... the things you can click on for text descriptions, the nice graphics, the choices (you can kill things, or you can not. It's your choice.), the long and complex conversations, and the basis of the story... 'Who are you?' 'Why are you where you were?'... it's really an unmatched game. Based on the first half of MGS2, I'd say it's laughable to compare it the other way.


Oh yeah, and I added a paragraph to my last post, go read it.

We've been through this before. I think that game stories need to have emotion and visual expression, while you think that lines of lifeless text more than suffice. You are wrong of course, but I will not debate this again.

Quote:I was mostly talking theoretically... those were two seperate points (that many current games have story choices in dialogue and then that the way it should work is having facial emotions to go with that). Some upcoming games might do it, I don't know.

"Theoretically"? You said that it was done before.

I haven't played much of Planetscape: Torment yet, though I do have it on my computer and have started a game on it, but I do know from my experience with MGS2 that it has an excellent story. Yeah, it's not interactive, but neither is 2001: A Space Odyssey and it still has a amazing story, among other things, but anyway. Just as a game doesn't not to be completely non-linear to tell a good story, it doesn't have to be completely linear to be a great experience.

MGS2 combines of multitude of people all of whom have their own stories, which you will learn throughout the course of the game, you have all of this coming at while you're fighting against terrorists in a world that become increasingly bizarre the longer you play, until the end which is possibly the craziest thing in a game ever. That's great storytelling right there, no question.

As for Torment, like I said I can't really comment on it since I haven't played it much, but I will say that I believe that it isn't possible for Torment to have the emotion that MGS2 has in its story, something which I think helped in some degree to make it more "real" or whatever, it's just not possible with text only. Maybe that's just me, though, I am more of a visual person I think.

Anyway, if I have time I'll put some more time into Torment and see what it has to offer.

Quote:"Theoretically"? You said that it was done before.

You said I said that, but I didn't say that quite that way. You misunderstood me, as I've explained.

Quote:We've been through this before. I think that game stories need to have emotion and visual expression, while you think that lines of lifeless text more than suffice. You are wrong of course, but I will not debate this again.

You won't find many game designers who agree with what you say, OB1. Four of the five people in this article (Kojima is the exception, I think) wouldn't agree with what you have to say on this issue. Graphics HELP (to make the story good). They do not DECIDE (if the story is good). Text-based games can be fantastic and have brilliantly told stories. Games with lots of text, like Torment, can do the same. This is not up for debate, as numerous games have proven this.

What you CAN say is "I do not like text-based story presentation", "I find such story presentations boring and it doesn't involve me in the story", etc. Those could well possibly be true for you. You cannot say "the stories are bad". That is a lie for a game like Torment. Just because you disagree with the presentation style does not mean the story is bad or that it is badly presented -- it just means you'd rather they used a different kind of presentation.

Quote:I haven't played much of Planetscape: Torment yet, though I do have it on my computer and have started a game on it, but I do know from my experience with MGS2 that it has an excellent story. Yeah, it's not interactive, but neither is 2001: A Space Odyssey and it still has a amazing story, among other things, but anyway. Just as a game doesn't not to be completely non-linear to tell a good story, it doesn't have to be completely linear to be a great experience.

MGS2 combines of multitude of people all of whom have their own stories, which you will learn throughout the course of the game, you have all of this coming at while you're fighting against terrorists in a world that become increasingly bizarre the longer you play, until the end which is possibly the craziest thing in a game ever. That's great storytelling right there, no question.

As for Torment, like I said I can't really comment on it since I haven't played it much, but I will say that I believe that it isn't possible for Torment to have the emotion that MGS2 has in its story, something which I think helped in some degree to make it more "real" or whatever, it's just not possible with text only. Maybe that's just me, though, I am more of a visual person I think.

Anyway, if I have time I'll put some more time into Torment and see what it has to offer.

I like to read. I like books. Movies? Movies are fine too, but for a good story I'd say books do better, most of the time... as I said to OB1, visual vs. text isn't something with an objective 'best', it seems. It's something that depends on the person. Would you rather read a book or watch a film? If you like reading, Torment is just about the ideal game story...

(And OB1, as for your 'it doesn't have the added explanations you'd get in books (the parts between conversation paragraphs)', that's not true. Torment, like an adventure game, has many parts in the world where you can click to get a text description of the thing. This really helps add detail and complexity to the game, and I always love it when games have stuff like this (like Eternal Darkness!)... not to mention how long and complex the conversations are and how much detail they pack into them. :)

Books vs. films... we did this before. Let's not again. Both are good, some people like one more than the other... MGS is a film, Torment more like a book (though, obviously, not quite like a book, given that unlike a book the whole story is not just told to you...)... here's one thing you can't deny: Torment has more interactivity than MGS. Its story is not just presented to you, you have to make some effort. And you've got choices of how to act as you progress, and can shape your character as you play. But which has the better story? I'm sure it partially comes down to if you prefer visual or written story presentations... I'd probably tend towards the latter (though I do like film as well). Torment got me enveloped into the world. It has fantastic characters. It raises interesting questions, and has interesting situations. As good as MGS2 was, I just did not feel about it like I did about Torment... it's got a good story, and I wanted to see more of it, but it didn't impress and intrigue me nearly as much as Torment. Also, I probably prefer the fantasy setting of Torment to the real-world-ish setting of MGS... and the philosophical question Torment raises is perhaps more interesting than the one MGS raises (though of course that's a matter of opinion). I don't know.

Of course, I could make a more informed opinion if I owned MGS2 and could finish it... anyone have a copy of the PC version I could have? :)

There's an absolute shedload in MGS2's storyline that is not just 'presented' to you, that you need to go searching for.

Hell, the game came with a separate menu option which was a 1XX (can't remember the exact number) page novel, detailing, and enhancing the storyline from the original game from another characters perspective. Then, through twists in the storyline, you found out even more ways, some quite subtle, that the story intertwined with MGS2. It really enhanced the stories of both games.

Oh, and you couldn't possibly know what the biggest of MGS2's philosophical questions are. Or at the very least, understand it. Almost all of his most profound and thoughtprovoking questions are raised in the final few cutscenes.

And certainly, Hideo's way of telling stories was far from perfect. Watching a 45 minute cut-scene in a game (surrounded by a lot of 5+, 10+ 20+ cutscenes), while I found it utterly rivetting, is not everyones idea of a perfect balance of gameplay and storytelling. Regardless, the story was simply amazing.

I haven't played Torment, but it's a game I always wish I had played. I've heard nothing but great things about it. :)

Quote:You won't find many game designers who agree with what you say, OB1. Four of the five people in this article (Kojima is the exception, I think) wouldn't agree with what you have to say on this issue. Graphics HELP (to make the story good). They do not DECIDE (if the story is good). Text-based games can be fantastic and have brilliantly told stories. Games with lots of text, like Torment, can do the same. This is not up for debate, as numerous games have proven this.

What you CAN say is "I do not like text-based story presentation", "I find such story presentations boring and it doesn't involve me in the story", etc. Those could well possibly be true for you. You cannot say "the stories are bad". That is a lie for a game like Torment. Just because you disagree with the presentation style does not mean the story is bad or that it is badly presented -- it just means you'd rather they used a different kind of presentation.

They're good for games, I've always said that. But the bar has been raised by games like MGS, and most of the people in that article agreed that visuals are very important in game storytelling. It was basically just Chris Avellone who said that good stories could be told in text games and the like. And, no offence to Mr. Avellone, but his KOTOR II paled in comparison to even KOTOR I in terms of storytelling. And they list him as "designer". What did he do, exactly?


You haven't even begun to see the brilliance of MGS2's story if you've only played "a couple of hours" worth. The story gets INSANE. Insane and awesome. And it's the kind that could only be told through a game, which blows apart your "it's just a movie" argument.

If you would read that article more closely, you'll see that it's Kojima who talks the most about game stories having to be uniquely game-like:

If you want to simply tell a story, you can create a film or write a novel. In a game, you can move around in the provided world freely and experience what goes on, within the limits set in that game. It is active involvement as opposed to bystanding.


The cinemas did not change that fact in MGS2. Or 3. Or the first one. Calling MGS2 "a film" shows complete and utter ignorance about that particular game as well as the entire subject of videogame storytelling.

I agree that, despite plenty of hefty cutscenes, there are so many other elements that could only be conveyed through because it's a game.

He definitely perfected his technique with MGS3, though I'd say that MGS2's story is a bit better because of the complete mindfuck it dishes out.

MGS3 though, man, what an amazing experience. Definitely the crowning achievment of videogame storytelling. It's so far above every other game in that respect that it's not even funny.

Have you beaten it yet? The last few hours of the game will blow you away, and the ending will leave you charged with all sorts of emotions. Very, very moving game.

Not yet. I got up to the part where you have to take some dude (who looks like Raiden)'s clothes. And when I found him, he was hiding in the toilet, and for some reason the toilet was considered 'out in the open', so I wasn't allowed to get changed there. And when I tried dragging his body up the stairs I was caught. Haven't played it after that, i've been a bit busy. But the story definately hasn't gotten too crazy yet. Just a few subtle comments here and there, such as "Who are the Patriots" "La le li lo lu", and the rivalry between Sokolov and the other scientist. Sokolov who came up with the Shagohod idea, and the other guy and his craaaazy 'Metal Gear' idea.

I can't wait. On a side not, I love how despite being 3 games in the same series, and similar in some respects, they all play very differently from eachother. 3's emphasis on survival, rather than "throw a chaff grenade to avoid the cameras" is refreshing. Not quite so sure if the idea of being able to kill everyone in a specific area is a good idea or not, as it lessens the importance of staying stealthy.. BAH! I just have so many things I want to comment on. I'll finish it in the next couple of days and we can go into everything in depth in the designated thread. :):):)

The story doesn't get crazy until the very end, where it wraps up things very nicely. It doesn't get as nuts as MGS2 did, no, that game will be unique as the craziest of the Metal Gears. What it does is take the plot of the series to a whole new level, and the ending will literally leave you breathless. I watched the ending about five times straight in a row right after I beat it for the first time.

Quote:There's an absolute shedload in MGS2's storyline that is not just 'presented' to you, that you need to go searching for.

Hell, the game came with a separate menu option which was a 1XX (can't remember the exact number) page novel, detailing, and enhancing the storyline from the original game from another characters perspective. Then, through twists in the storyline, you found out even more ways, some quite subtle, that the story intertwined with MGS2. It really enhanced the stories of both games.

That's good.

Quote:Oh, and you couldn't possibly know what the biggest of MGS2's philosophical questions are. Or at the very least, understand it. Almost all of his most profound and thoughtprovoking questions are raised in the final few cutscenes.

Probably true, as is true for anyone who hasn't gotten to the "good parts" of any game with a good story...

How far did I get in MGS2? I remember being in the hostage room part, but not how far i got past that... I might have gotten to shell 2. Might have stopped in the hostage room. Either way, it's about halfway through, I'm pretty sure.

Quote:And certainly, Hideo's way of telling stories was far from perfect. Watching a 45 minute cut-scene in a game (surrounded by a lot of 5+, 10+ 20+ cutscenes), while I found it utterly rivetting, is not everyones idea of a perfect balance of gameplay and storytelling. Regardless, the story was simply amazing.

My point is that it could be done just as well with interaction... it's a game. It should have it.

Quote:I haven't played Torment, but it's a game I always wish I had played. I've heard nothing but great things about it.

The only people who disliked Torment are people who dislike stories in games and/or having to read a lot of text in games.

Quote:They're good for games, I've always said that. But the bar has been raised by games like MGS, and most of the people in that article agreed that visuals are very important in game storytelling. It was basically just Chris Avellone who said that good stories could be told in text games and the like. And, no offence to Mr. Avellone, but his KOTOR II paled in comparison to even KOTOR I in terms of storytelling. And they list him as "designer". What did he do, exactly?

Torment is one of the very few games that goes beyond having a story (and presentation) that is "just good for games" and is great, period. Not many games can say that, but there is absolutely no question that Torment is one of them. And I'm far from alone in having that sentiment.

As for KotOR2, most of what I've heard has said that it's just as good as KotOR1 until you get to the last quarter of the game, which falls off. Almost certainly because of how Lucasarts didn't give them enough time to really finish the game. KotOR2 showed that he indeed can still do great stories... Torment was completely unmatched, but then he made Icewind Dale and IWD2, games with 'just good enough' stories, not truly great ones. KotOR2 does better, until the end part. And if you look, it wasn't just him. Schaefer also mentioned text adventures.

Quote:Tim Schafer: Well, technology helps make the experience more and more immersive to more people. Previously you would have to have quite a good imagination to turn, say, the words of Zork into a real world in your head. But now people who don't have that much imagination can still fall into fantasy worlds because of the increased "realism" of the presentation. But as that gets closer and closer to real, the parts where it's missing (facial expressions, etc) become more and more glaring.

I have frequently used that "imagination" word to you in that context, and you call me an idiot for using it, but it's the only word to use for such things...

Quote:Ragnar Tørnquist: Technology needn't get in the way of storytelling unless we focus too much on showing off our cool new shaders and particle effects and not enough on establishing an emotional connection with the player. Technology can definitely facilitate for better storytelling. The best visual stories are just that--visual. There's that whole "show, don't tell" rule which has often fallen by the wayside because of technology; The Longest Journey, which I wrote, was definitely an example of that. Mostly everything had to be communicated through dialogues. The more we can show, and thus allow players to figure out for themselves, the better. And nowhere is that more apparent than with human characters. Things like facial expressions and body language enable us to communicate the story in a massively different fashion, making it much more immediate and personal than what's been possible before.

It needs to be more than a gimmick, however. We need technology that fuels the narrative and the gameplay, and not the other way around. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should do it. We're still at a gee-whiz stage where every new technological innovation is tossed in there, because gamers will love it. And they do! Hell, I love big explosions as much as the next guy. But we have to look at the technology as a tool, as a means to an end, and not an end in itself.

It allows for better storytelling. Fantastic storytelling is still possible without it. Avellone said pretty much the same thing:

Quote:Chris Avellone: Absolutely technology facilitates storytelling. It adds the wonder and the action to the story, and it's the means by which the player perceives and controls his in-game personality. There are all sorts of events and wonders you can describe solely with a text story, but without the technology, animation, and a powerfully presented world, it's just going to be a bunch of text. You can only describe your encounter with a giant dragon, flying across the world in a giant airship, or using a gravity gun to fire saw blades at your enemies in so many words without the technology to back it up.

I don't think technology has ever gotten in the way of storytelling, and I think Infocom games are the proof of that. Even as simple as they seemed to be, as long as text could be presented on the screen, you could bring across a powerful story experience even without graphics or a 3D engine. I guess in the end, I think technology can only enhance the story experience (facial animations, voice acting, animations, fully realized world, scripted reactive elements, physics-based engines, etc.).

Kojima and Levine?

Quote:Hideo Kojima: I don't think storytelling and technology are related in any way. Detailed expressions (including facial expressions) and gestures make it easier to show subtle emotions, but this has nothing to do with storytelling.

"Technology can get in the way of storytelling by giving us really cool digital actors to work with, and suddenly (and I'm guilty of this) we think we're Spielberg."

Ken Levine: More technology equals more simulation. More simulation equals more emergence. Emergent experiences are the key to gameplay storytelling. Check out Grand Theft Auto III. What's great about that game? The cutscenes? Sure, they're well written, but is that what you remember? Or are they really the context for the unique action that each player experiences? Like the time you were being pursued by the Haitian gang and took your motorcycle off a ramp, crossing the river and watching the other bangers crash into the river behind you? That moment was never specifically scripted, but it was enabled by the story, which set it up and gave it context.

Technology can get in the way of storytelling by giving us really cool digital actors to work with, and suddenly (and I'm guilty of this) we think we're Spielberg. Face it, no game developer has the chops of a great film director, and no game character is going to emote like Brando. We've got different strengths and weaknesses.

Well, I suppose it is innovative (thanks :D) though I personally see it as just an evolusion of choices in stories.

As I mentioned ABF, the way I proposed doing it would be during a cinema, you would basically just press buttons on the controller assigned to certain responses. Heck, I might even be evil about it and force them to find out what buttons do what (though I'd stick with that for the rest of the game, in a general sense). I wouldn't have any "dings" or something that reminds you it's a game popping up myself... Anyway, for example during a cinema where a boss enters the room, like some giant that's stomping in slowly and then suddenly smashed in through a wall, I would have a bunch of reactions Link can do throughout the cinema. I'd make it short, since honestly this is starting to remind of of the infamous "FMV games" of the mid-90's, but as an example, when you hear the stomping in the background, pressing one button would make Link jump back in shock, another would make Link simply look around curiously, another would make Link take on a determined fierce expression readying his weapon, and pressing nothing means Link just stands there, completely unphased. Furthermore, pressing different directions would make Link face in different directions, since the echoing of the cavern makes it too hard to tell where the noise is coming from, you would be facing wherever you thought it was coming from. Heck, I could set it up so that you start by making him freak out, then immediatly force him into a tough expression, the combination of which would be designed to be a sort of "still afraid but putting on a brave face" look while he ever so slowly inches toward that big door you see off to the left, then suddenly the monster breaks in through the same place it always will, the ceiling dome, and then you can make your Link go right back to terrified again, but you can make it so he's just like afraid to turn around by not turning around, so at this point Link is like "I really don't want to look that way", and then, finally, the cinema ends and the battle begins, with you facing the OPPOSITE direction of the enemy. Whoops.

Quote:My point is that it could be done just as well with interaction... it's a game. It should have it.

This coming from the guy who likes minimum interaction in terms of controls when it comes to rpgs. Click here, click there. Wee.

And no, you could not have done MGS2's story with people standing around and you choosing what line to say.

Quote:Torment is one of the very few games that goes beyond having a story (and presentation) that is "just good for games" and is great, period. Not many games can say that, but there is absolutely no question that Torment is one of them. And I'm far from alone in having that sentiment.

As for KotOR2, most of what I've heard has said that it's just as good as KotOR1 until you get to the last quarter of the game, which falls off. Almost certainly because of how Lucasarts didn't give them enough time to really finish the game. KotOR2 showed that he indeed can still do great stories... Torment was completely unmatched, but then he made Icewind Dale and IWD2, games with 'just good enough' stories, not truly great ones. KotOR2 does better, until the end part. And if you look, it wasn't just him. Schaefer also mentioned text adventures.

Actually it's the opposite; there's barely any story until the end of the game, and the story that's there is boring. Even the designers talked about how they shouldn't have held back the story for so long.

Quote:I have frequently used that "imagination" word to you in that context, and you call me an idiot for using it, but it's the only word to use for such things...

I called you an idiot for saying that reading descriptions of something is a type of "visual image". In the case of something like Zork, it reads like a book. BG does not, for instance.

Quote:It allows for better storytelling. Fantastic storytelling is still possible without it.

I love how you completely ignore the whole point of what he said. Read more carefully:

"Things like facial expressions and body language enable us to communicate the story in a massively different fashion, making it much more immediate and personal than what's been possible before."

I haven't played a whole lot of TLJ, but it doesn't tell its story through little sprites standing motionless while text scrolls over their head.

And look again at what Avellone said:

"There are all sorts of events and wonders you can describe solely with a text story, but without the technology, animation, and a powerfully presented world, it's just going to be a bunch of text."

That's what BG is, basically. Sure there are nice visuals in the game, but when it comes to the story you see guys standing around with a bunch of text scrolling above there heads. It's completely static.

Quote:Kojima and Levine?

Don't confuse what Kojima said to mean that he thinks that technology isn't important to tell a story. What he means is that technology is just a tool, that the story has to be there before any graphics get involved. The same goes for a movie. Without a good story, the tools are meaningless. A story can survive with limited tools but the reverse is not true. His games are a testament to this.

And Levine, well he made one mistake:

"Technology can get in the way of storytelling by giving us really cool digital actors to work with, and suddenly (and I'm guilty of this) we think we're Spielberg. Face it, no game developer has the chops of a great film director, and no game character is going to emote like Brando. We've got different strengths and weaknesses. "

He should have said most game developers. Kojima is a better film director than most film directors.

Quote:This coming from the guy who likes minimum interaction in terms of controls when it comes to rpgs. Click here, click there. Wee.

And no, you could not have done MGS2's story with people standing around and you choosing what line to say.

First part: There is a difference in interactivity between the two kinds of controls, but it's small, and each one has its uses. In an RPG, I'd generally like to be able to choose either one.

MGS: First, since when does having choices necessrially mean everyone stands around? Second, a lot of MGS's story -- the comlink stuff -- IS done in a static form! A lot of that would be PERFECT for having choices of what to say!

Quote:Actually it's the opposite; there's barely any story until the end of the game, and the story that's there is boring. Even the designers talked about how they shouldn't have held back the story for so long.

KotOR2? I haven't played it yet...

Quote:I called you an idiot for saying that reading descriptions of something is a type of "visual image". In the case of something like Zork, it reads like a book. BG does not, for instance.

Remembering that argument is why I said that Torment is closer to being a book than BG was.

Quote:I love how you completely ignore the whole point of what he said. Read more carefully:

"Things like facial expressions and body language enable us to communicate the story in a massively different fashion, making it much more immediate and personal than what's been possible before."

I haven't played a whole lot of TLJ, but it doesn't tell its story through little sprites standing motionless while text scrolls over their head.[quote]

TLJ has 3d characters in rendered backgrounds... but they're somewhat simple 3d characters, it being a 2000 release. As Tornquist implies there, a lot of the story details are done in the words (everything is voice-acted, though, like most CD-based classic-style adventure games) more than facial expressions or gestures or something... he's obviously trying to change that to some degree in Dreamfall.

[quote]And look again at what Avellone said:

"There are all sorts of events and wonders you can describe solely with a text story, but without the technology, animation, and a powerfully presented world, it's just going to be a bunch of text."

That's what BG is, basically. Sure there are nice visuals in the game, but when it comes to the story you see guys standing around with a bunch of text scrolling above there heads. It's completely static.

Yes, he does say that. But then he says this...

Quote:I don't think technology has ever gotten in the way of storytelling, and I think Infocom games are the proof of that. Even as simple as they seemed to be, as long as text could be presented on the screen, you could bring across a powerful story experience even without graphics or a 3D engine. I guess in the end, I think technology can only enhance the story experience (facial animations, voice acting, animations, fully realized world, scripted reactive elements, physics-based engines, etc.).

which goes the other way. I'd say my original charitarization ('conflicted') is about right -- better graphics help, but good things were possible before then too.

As for BG, so the story is presented in text. So? Thousands of games had stories presented mainly in text, including numerous great ones! So it's potentially slightly "less interesting". So? If it's done well (like in BG) that is not a problem. Sure, emotions and stuff would be nice. But the game doesn't hurt for not having them.

Quote:Don't confuse what Kojima said to mean that he thinks that technology isn't important to tell a story. What he means is that technology is just a tool, that the story has to be there before any graphics get involved. The same goes for a movie. Without a good story, the tools are meaningless. A story can survive with limited tools but the reverse is not true. His games are a testament to this.

Well then, that's different... so the story DOES matter? But I guess that if the technology doesn't suit your needs, you consider that irrelevant... so it'd be more honest, it seems, for you to say 'it needs both story and graphics'. Otherwise you wouldn't be going after games like BG or Torment anywhere near as hard, because you'd acknowledge that they tell great stories, no matter how much you disagree with the presentation.

Or... you know, ignore my post, that's fine too. :D

Quote:First part: There is a difference in interactivity between the two kinds of controls, but it's small, and each one has its uses. In an RPG, I'd generally like to be able to choose either one.

MGS: First, since when does having choices necessrially mean everyone stands around? Second, a lot of MGS's story -- the comlink stuff -- IS done in a static form! A lot of that would be PERFECT for having choices of what to say!

Non-interactive does not mean static. Allow me:


stat·ic
adj.

1. Having no motion; being at rest; quiescent.
2. Fixed; stationary.

You seem to think that every facet of a game has to be interactive in order for it to be good. That is false. Believe it or not, but 95% of the time when a gamer thinks that they're "in control", they are simply playing the part that the designer chose them to. The degrees of freedom within that role vary from game to game.

MGS2 could not be done as a movie. Simple as that. The story is the game as Kojima pointed out. The rest just adds to the experience. Of course, you've barely played the game so you have no idea what I'm talking about.

Quote:Yes, he does say that. But then he says this...
Quote:
I don't think technology has ever gotten in the way of storytelling, and I think Infocom games are the proof of that. Even as simple as they seemed to be, as long as text could be presented on the screen, you could bring across a powerful story experience even without graphics or a 3D engine. I guess in the end, I think technology can only enhance the story experience (facial animations, voice acting, animations, fully realized world, scripted reactive elements, physics-based engines, etc.).

which goes the other way. I'd say my original charitarization ('conflicted') is about right -- better graphics help, but good things were possible before then too.

As for BG, so the story is presented in text. So? Thousands of games had stories presented mainly in text, including numerous great ones! So it's potentially slightly "less interesting". So? If it's done well (like in BG) that is not a problem. Sure, emotions and stuff would be nice. But the game doesn't hurt for not having them.

Of course it hurts the game because of that. You cannot have a better method if the other one cannot be improved upon. Your logic baffles me once again.

Quote:Well then, that's different... so the story DOES matter? But I guess that if the technology doesn't suit your needs, you consider that irrelevant... so it'd be more honest, it seems, for you to say 'it needs both story and graphics'. Otherwise you wouldn't be going after games like BG or Torment anywhere near as hard, because you'd acknowledge that they tell great stories, no matter how much you disagree with the presentation.

The presentation was not flawed because of the technology. This is where you are confused by what both myself and Kojima say.

Dark Jaguar Wrote:Well, I suppose it is innovative (thanks :D) though I personally see it as just an evolusion of choices in stories.

As I mentioned ABF, the way I proposed doing it would be during a cinema, you would basically just press buttons on the controller assigned to certain responses. Heck, I might even be evil about it and force them to find out what buttons do what (though I'd stick with that for the rest of the game, in a general sense). I wouldn't have any "dings" or something that reminds you it's a game popping up myself... Anyway, for example during a cinema where a boss enters the room, like some giant that's stomping in slowly and then suddenly smashed in through a wall, I would have a bunch of reactions Link can do throughout the cinema. I'd make it short, since honestly this is starting to remind of of the infamous "FMV games" of the mid-90's, but as an example, when you hear the stomping in the background, pressing one button would make Link jump back in shock, another would make Link simply look around curiously, another would make Link take on a determined fierce expression readying his weapon, and pressing nothing means Link just stands there, completely unphased. Furthermore, pressing different directions would make Link face in different directions, since the echoing of the cavern makes it too hard to tell where the noise is coming from, you would be facing wherever you thought it was coming from. Heck, I could set it up so that you start by making him freak out, then immediatly force him into a tough expression, the combination of which would be designed to be a sort of "still afraid but putting on a brave face" look while he ever so slowly inches toward that big door you see off to the left, then suddenly the monster breaks in through the same place it always will, the ceiling dome, and then you can make your Link go right back to terrified again, but you can make it so he's just like afraid to turn around by not turning around, so at this point Link is like "I really don't want to look that way", and then, finally, the cinema ends and the battle begins, with you facing the OPPOSITE direction of the enemy. Whoops.

I was going to get to it! I had to leave work is all. :D

Those are good ideas, and I've thought about this some more and have come up with some (IMO) really great ideas that sort of spin off from your main idea. Ones that would make perfect sense in gameplay, not "press button A to be shocked". But you were talking about cinemas, and that would work great right there. Maybe I'll get to do some of them one day.

During gameplay, that's where a whole different thing has to be done, yeah that's right. That's why I brought up the example of something I'd do in an FPS. As for controlling your character's reactions in real time, in gameplay, that's the sort of thing I think everyone is trying to figure out in the gaming industry. What ideas do you have for it? I suggested something along the lines of the world being interactive, but in terms of controlling your character's actions, well, the trick is letting them do that in a way that makes the player actually CARE what they are doing. Even I wouldn't really care at all about what look I have on my face (just using that as an example, you likely weren't talking about expressions anyway) in the middle of a fire fight, no matter how into the game I like to get.

So anyway, you have your ideas you'll mention soon enough, but let me think for a second on stuff I could actually make my character do in real time. In the past, decisions you make during conversations were great, but it's a little static, that is, not real time. I suppose how you play the game could determine a lot of the story. Some of that's been done before I think. A very simple example could be something like Goldeneye or Perfect Dark where you have to play a certain way to complete objectives, so like you can't kill the scientists, that sort of thing. But, taking that to another level would be pretty involving. I suppose if you fight various ways it has an effect on the storyline, for example, if you are very secretive and tend to sneak up behind people, future levels change to reflect that by making the enemies group up and cover each other. I dunno... Give me more time to think about it.

Quote:You seem to think that every facet of a game has to be interactive in order for it to be good. That is false. Believe it or not, but 95% of the time when a gamer thinks that they're "in control", they are simply playing the part that the designer chose them to. The degrees of freedom within that role vary from game to game.

Of course... it woudn't work any other way. If you want a game to actually tell a story, you've got to script what could happen. But the more choice -- and interactivity -- you can include, the better. The player is doing something, not watching something. For a game, that's an important thing.

Quote:Of course it hurts the game because of that. You cannot have a better method if the other one cannot be improved upon. Your logic baffles me once again.

First, marking down games because they didn't do something that was impossible for them at the time is absurd. That's what you're doing here.

Better is more than a comparison of technical details. It is a comparison of complete games. That means not just 'which game has more betterer graphics' but 'which game is more fun to play', etc...

Would Baldur's Gate II in 3D be better? Perhaps, perhaps not. If it ended up like KotOR or NWN, not. Saying "it is a worse game than it could be because it doesn't have emotions and movement and stuff in conversations" is ridiculous... sure, it doesn't. So? Games didn't, before just a couple of years ago! And yet games manage to tell really good stories... hmm, I wonder why?

Oh yeah, because quality -- and story -- is more than graphics. That's just one factor among many.

While facial animations and movement during conversations would make a game more realistic, when you've got interesting, well-written conversations going on, most people don't really care too much that it's not as cinematic as it could be... after all, these are games, not movies. They don't need to be like movies. Well-written text can do lots of wonderful things and game designers know it, so they use it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Sure, modern technology lets us replace some more of those words with pictures every year. But that does not degrade the accomplishments of the past because those games were done to the best of their ability... and as long as you can ignore little things like static conversations (something anyone who has played RPGs or adventure games should be able to do really, really quickly) and have a little imagination, it really doesn't matter. The addition is nice, but without it? Games can definitely be just as good. They're just different.

Quote:Of course... it woudn't work any other way. If you want a game to actually tell a story, you've got to script what could happen. But the more choice -- and interactivity -- you can include, the better. The player is doing something, not watching something. For a game, that's an important thing.

And reading hundreds of pages worth of text is better?

Quote:First, marking down games because they didn't do something that was impossible for them at the time is absurd. That's what you're doing here.

Better is more than a comparison of technical details. It is a comparison of complete games. That means not just 'which game has more betterer graphics' but 'which game is more fun to play', etc...

Would Baldur's Gate II in 3D be better? Perhaps, perhaps not. If it ended up like KotOR or NWN, not. Saying "it is a worse game than it could be because it doesn't have emotions and movement and stuff in conversations" is ridiculous... sure, it doesn't. So? Games didn't, before just a couple of years ago! And yet games manage to tell really good stories... hmm, I wonder why?

Oh yeah, because quality -- and story -- is more than graphics. That's just one factor among many.

While facial animations and movement during conversations would make a game more realistic, when you've got interesting, well-written conversations going on, most people don't really care too much that it's not as cinematic as it could be... after all, these are games, not movies. They don't need to be like movies. Well-written text can do lots of wonderful things and game designers know it, so they use it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Sure, modern technology lets us replace some more of those words with pictures every year. But that does not degrade the accomplishments of the past because those games were done to the best of their ability... and as long as you can ignore little things like static conversations (something anyone who has played RPGs or adventure games should be able to do really, really quickly) and have a little imagination, it really doesn't matter. The addition is nice, but without it? Games can definitely be just as good. They're just different.

I don't care if it's 2D or 3D. 2D games can tell stories just fine. Using the "you need an imagination" speach to excuse lame methods of storytelling is, well, lame. BG is an example of poor storytelling. I don't care what you did to make it seem good, the fact remains that its storytelling method was very poor. Blame it on time or technology or whatever, but that doesn't change anything.

Quote:I don't care if it's 2D or 3D. 2D games can tell stories just fine. Using the "you need an imagination" speach to excuse lame methods of storytelling is, well, lame. BG is an example of poor storytelling. I don't care what you did to make it seem good, the fact remains that its storytelling method was very poor. Blame it on time or technology or whatever, but that doesn't change anything.

Then why do your main complaints about BG, or Torment, or whatever, seem to be about things that they couldn't help, and that are inherent to 2d games -- static conversations (this is just a fact of life in gaming, OB1, and not one that bothers me too much. Honestly, it bothers me more in a KotOR than a Baldur's Gate... KotOR looks like it SHOULD have something like that, but fails, while BG doesn't (look that way), and doesn't (have it), so it's not missing. BG compensates with well done text that conveys some personality and emotion, I'd say... though the first one is far from perfect, as I've said many times before. But hey, that's why you make sequels, to improve on things, and they did...), lack of graphical displays of emotions, the "boredom" of reading lots of text (you obviously think this a much greater problem than I do.), etc... none of those are things the BG engine could have done better! Or should have done better. It's a fantastic strategic 2d engine and I wouldn't want it any other way.

As I've said, Torment improves on BG by having larger graphics (the characters, etc. are bigger on the screen than in BG), many more clickable-description-areas (click on the slabs in the mortuary and you get various interesting descriptive messages), more text to read (fleshing out the NPCs with more to say so they can establish a style and more detail so you can learn more if you want), and just plain better writing... well, not to mention a better story. :) BG's is admittedly somewhat cliche. BGII/ToB is better, and is intersting, but it's still standard fantasy stuff... and if there's one thing Torment is not, it's standard fantasy stuff.

The 'imagination' thing is, admittedly, most true for text-based adventure games, not Baldur's Gate. But there is truth to it in a BG as well... not as much as for a Zork or Planetfall, but truth.


DJ: Hmm... you definitely should tell people the controls. Otherwise it just annoys people... really, what would be the point? In real life you know what expression you're going to make, so why would it be different in a game? Giving the player too much information is annoying, true, but so is giving the player too little... ever played an adventure game that turned into a tedious excercise in pixel-hunting (drag that mouse over every bit of every screen in the hopes of finding items to pick up!)?

Still, yes, it could be interesting... as long as it doesn't play like an FMV game. Those things are dead and buried for a reason. :)

Just my two cents.

The best story I ever took part of in a game was Shadowman for the N64. It drew me in like nothing else. The graphics sucked, the sound was muddy, control was a pain... it was an Acclaim produced title. But the story itself had real depth with its extremely dark story line and well crafted pacing.

But as far as video games go, I mean the interactive story. Well that's based on how you play the game. I spent 4 hours. That's four, as in more than 3 and less than 5 hours, flying around the first level in Mario 64. I was trying to find every single coin in the level but I lost track of that and found myself trying to get to new places. I walked the top of the gates around the mountain, I slid down the hills, rode around on a Koopa shell to the top of the mountain, blasted myself from cannon to cannon, I aggrivated the Chain Chomp, fell asleep on a sign post and of course Butt-Stomped from the highest altitude possible.

Now, I love stories and all. Sometimes it's my job to write them. But that four hours was the best time I ever had with a video game. There was no plot, no 3 act paradigm, no slug lines or action lines there wasn't even a point to any of it. No saving the world, no princess, no great evil or any love triangle, it was simply gameplay and my imagination to put that gameplay to use.

Now, if they can make every game like that i'd sure we'd be starving for games with a well writen story with complex undertones and subplots with memorable dialogue. But in the end, that is exactly what you can get from a book or a movie, yeah you can deicde what path to take and which direction to drive your character but that's all meaningless in the game world. Nintendo took the idea of running around a playground with super powers and created Mario 64 and then threw in a story as an afterthought. And in my opinion, that's how video games should be.

I dont want cut scenes showing me hack jobs trying to emulate famous movies in CG with their franchises, I dont want to hear another old movie quote spoken by a cartoon, video game designers and developers are not story tellers and they never will be (hopefully) because they're manufacturing genius and they dont even know it. Dont formulate A to B scenarios or path driven story chapters, let the player do what he or she wants to do within the confines of the game's universe and structure and do not let the story in any way hinder that. No cut scenes, no scripted events, and for god's sake no more 15 minute CG explanations of a story that could be found on the back of a cereal box. Just let me play!

Of course the above doesn't really apply if it's an RPG, since the entire point of an RPG is to form your character through scripted events.

But my opinion is this, there are no grand story tellers in the video game industry. There are no story tellers period. The BEST stories in video games are still nothing when compared to the best books or the best films. There's no "Gone with the Final Fantasy" or "Pikmin's List", these people simply do not have the slightest clue of what it takes to tell a story. But when they can make me feel like i can do anything and spend 4 hours having an absolute blast doing nothing then I think they need to worry more about the impact on society as people leave their jobs to play the damn things, not story telling.

Hey I like a game with no story as much as anyone, like Katamari Damacy.

But hey, if a game has story, that's good too, and I HIGHLY disagree with you about game's stories never being able to stack up. I like the story of Final Fantasy 6 far more than just about any movie I've seen in recent years. This whole "stories are for books" thing sounds to me like some old timer trying to keep things like they "should be". Well, things are chaning... MAN! Rock and roll FOREVER! Eh, I don't know, point is, these people do know what the heck they are doing, by trial and error. Give them some CREDIT man, it's due!

Quote:But hey, if a game has story, that's good too, and I HIGHLY disagree with you about game's stories never being able to stack up. I like the story of Final Fantasy 6 far more than just about any movie I've seen in recent years. This whole "stories are for books" thing sounds to me like some old timer trying to keep things like they "should be". Well, things are chaning... MAN! Rock and roll FOREVER! Eh, I don't know, point is, these people do know what the heck they are doing, by trial and error. Give them some CREDIT man, it's due!

Definitely... many games deserve the "bad story" label, and most of the rest probably deserve "decent at best", but definitely not all. There are enough games that have good, well-told stories for me to say that without question. I disagree when people say no games have good stories... (like some of what Levine said in the article)

Quote:Then why do your main complaints about BG, or Torment, or whatever, seem to be about things that they couldn't help, and that are inherent to 2d games -- static conversations (this is just a fact of life in gaming, OB1, and not one that bothers me too much. Honestly, it bothers me more in a KotOR than a Baldur's Gate... KotOR looks like it SHOULD have something like that, but fails, while BG doesn't (look that way), and doesn't (have it), so it's not missing. BG compensates with well done text that conveys some personality and emotion, I'd say... though the first one is far from perfect, as I've said many times before. But hey, that's why you make sequels, to improve on things, and they did...), lack of graphical displays of emotions, the "boredom" of reading lots of text (you obviously think this a much greater problem than I do.), etc... none of those are things the BG engine could have done better! Or should have done better. It's a fantastic strategic 2d engine and I wouldn't want it any other way.

As I've said, Torment improves on BG by having larger graphics (the characters, etc. are bigger on the screen than in BG), many more clickable-description-areas (click on the slabs in the mortuary and you get various interesting descriptive messages), more text to read (fleshing out the NPCs with more to say so they can establish a style and more detail so you can learn more if you want), and just plain better writing... well, not to mention a better story. BG's is admittedly somewhat cliche. BGII/ToB is better, and is intersting, but it's still standard fantasy stuff... and if there's one thing Torment is not, it's standard fantasy stuff.

The 'imagination' thing is, admittedly, most true for text-based adventure games, not Baldur's Gate. But there is truth to it in a BG as well... not as much as for a Zork or Planetfall, but truth.

That's really, really lame. I could then say that the crappy apple pie that grandma made was actually great because I used my imagination and imagined it as not being crappy.

Static characters with lifeless dialogue boxes scrolling over their heads is a terrible way of telling a story. I've explained in great depth many times in the past why that is, and will not continue any further.




And lazy, saying that game designers can't be good storytellers is about as dumb as someone saying in the 30's that a filmmaker cannot be a good storyteller either, that they can only be a good photographer and editor. The medium is slowly becoming a better storytelling medium, and as long as this continues different kinds of people will want to make games, people who can tell good stories. There are already a number of game designers that can tell a good story. That Finnish guy (I can never spell that name), Hideo Kojima, Tim Shafer, and Fumito Ueda just to name a few. I agree that most games have shit stories and that there has yet to be a video game equivalent of Casablanca or Gone With the Wind, but I believe that that time is fast approaching.

There's nothing contradictory about saying that running around for hours in Mario 64 is more fun than playing through Grim Fandango or whatever. Of course it's more fun. Just as any Buster Keaton movie is more fun to watch than Citizen Kane. But there's a place, and an audience, for both types of games.

Quote:That's really, really lame. I could then say that the crappy apple pie that grandma made was actually great because I used my imagination and imagined it as not being crappy.

Static characters with lifeless dialogue boxes scrolling over their heads is a terrible way of telling a story. I've explained in great depth many times in the past why that is, and will not continue any further.

Don't. Repeating yourself won't make it any more true that games without that are the worse off for it.

Quote:And lazy, saying that game designers can't be good storytellers is about as dumb as someone saying in the 30's that a filmmaker cannot be a good storyteller either, that they can only be a good photographer and editor. The medium is slowly becoming a better storytelling medium, and as long as this continues different kinds of people will want to make games, people who can tell good stories. There are already a number of game designers that can tell a good story. That Finnish guy (I can never spell that name), Hideo Kojima, Tim Shafer, and Fumito Ueda just to name a few. I agree that most games have shit stories and that there has yet to be a video game equivalent of Casablanca or Gone With the Wind, but I believe that that time is fast approaching.

There's nothing contradictory about saying that running around for hours in Mario 64 is more fun than playing through Grim Fandango or whatever. Of course it's more fun. Just as any Buster Keaton movie is more fun to watch than Citizen Kane. But there's a place, and an audience, for both types of games.

It's Tornquist (with dots over the o.) and Schaefer. :)

But yeah, I agree with that, pretty much... I guess I'm a bit more optimistic of the state of games as they are already, but certainly most games don't have great stories.

No one here has any idea what i'm saying.

FF6 does not have a good story, it is trite 'save the world' backyard mythology with an inate hero fighting inate evil with no character driven plot. You walk around and get in fights to boost your stats so you can fight more difficult enemies and progress through the game in that way, occasionally having bits of story thrown at you that seem more random than crafted. The entire story element is built around the idea of exploring strange new worlds and dealing with circumstances and conflicts within each new area, in essense a collection of tiny stories to make one large one. RPG's (and most video games in general) have to be designed around that otherwise it gets boring. Unfortunately it's that sub-plot after sub-plot that makes the entire story trite sense those sub-plots aren't even that good to begin with because they were built around the idea of gameplay which in an RPG is building stats and strategically fighting enemies with a team of extremes.

A fighting type person, a healing type person, a person who only uses long-range weapons, a defensive person, etc. Each one comes from a different town and has an extreme personality to go with their extreme visage. The fighter is overly heroic with a strong body and mad sword skills, the healer is usually a cute woman with a weak body against attacks and so on. They do this so it's more fun to play the game.

But this is krap story telling, this is comic book-writen by a 12 year old-bullshit story telling where there's no guidelines, it simply happens because "It's cool". Your progress is blocked and you cant reach the next town, you must accomplish these goals and defeat this enemy. The enemy is a horrible one-eyed tentacle monster that lives in the north cave and eats puppies (unlike the last town that had a horrible one-eyed tentacle monster that eats ham), however in this fight you will have the added features of your new magic skills and a new character on your team. Okay, did you learn your lesson? Good, you are now set up for the next major boss battle you may progress to the next town or area.

A good story has guidelines, it has context, it has rythem and scope. Final Fantasy 6 is shit on the boot of Gone With the Wind which has REAL characters with REAL context and trials and it is an extremely well defined story built on guidelines created by master story tellers, including but not limited to the Jewish high priests that wrote the Bible, Star Wars is a good example of that. The story of Star Wars is one part actual history (The French Revolution and the Civil War) and one part Christian Mythos (Darth Vader being God, Luke being Jesus, etc) and will consistetly mesh the two ideals through the story of the films in a way that is genius and conducive to audiences. In fact it's so good, it's only been done by one film maker's vision. George Lucas is a good story teller, he focuses on what the story needs before peppering it with things that are "just damn cool". But Video games never get that treatment, they only get the "Let's do this because it's damn cool".

Can you name one video game with a story that doesn't involve fighting something? You cant because it would be a boring video game, But there's thousands of world acclaimed films that have heros in them where no fighting occurs, no great evil, just a good story with memorable characters and scenes.

Silent Hill has an awesome story that fits well with gameplay. It has hidden meanings and subtextual design, a 3 act paradigm, an already existing character that evolves through trial. A hook, an expo, and a resolution. All of it scoped in to a web of complimenting sub-plots, characters and scenary that are based on the STORY not the main character. This is the first mistake most video games make with their story design. Yes, i'm going to play as this character for the entire game but the story doesn't have to revolve around him; You need antagonists to cause change to the CHARACTER, that's what story telling is! In FF6 there are no antagonists, just monsters that you go find and pick fights with because they're eating the children or poisoning the water, you're playing as the antagonist; You're the one causing the change and that my friends is bad story telling but excellent game design.

If you weren't the antagonist, you wouldn't have a video game. You'd sit around waiting for something to happen to you. YOU have to go find the conflict and cause change in the characters and environment around you.

You guys just wont understand because you dont write scripts or read them, but there are strict guidelines a story MUST follow in order for it to reach your soul and video games by their very nature cannot do that effectively because video games call for a completely different type of story telling that should revolve around the game player, not the game's character.