Awesome article. My favorite bits:
Quote:Ken Levine:
...
Again, for me it's rarely story per se, but the unique moments of gameplay storytelling. I loved the beginning of Beyond Good and Evil and how they defined Jade's character. You meet her by seeing her environment. She's living under an alien dictatorship, and she's built her home into a makeshift orphanage. As you walk around her house you see why she's a hero, how much the kids love her and why her life is important. By the time any real gameplay happens, you want to protect her, you want to help her succeed.
And the whole thing is done with almost no actual dialogue.
Totally agree with that. Smart man.
Quote:Hideo Kojima: There are two types of games. The first type is games as toys (play things)--the Nintendo way of thinking. The second type is games in which you assume the role of a character who is not you and experience the life of that character virtually. When trying to assume the role of a character, you need a setting. It does not necessarily have to be a storyline. You need a minimum setting to become that character.
However, being given a simple "container" (i.e. the role) is not enough to share the life of that character. Even if you are assigned the container of a police officer, if you are given 100 percent freedom, you are no longer a cop. In order to simulate the life of a cop, one must provide the player the sequences of a cop, the people he/she should be meeting, and the drama of a cop. Virtually experiencing all of these elements interactively allows you to experience someone else's life, just like when watching a movie.
In addition, a game will be monotone if the player is simply required to accomplish the assigned goal.
By adding the element of "infiltrate enemy territory without being discovered and save the world" to the simple rules of "hide and seek" (i.e. "do not get found"), you get to experience much more thrill.
Unlike film and novels in which you experience the story, in games I simply add the "story element" so that the player can enjoy the virtual experience.
Very well said. What an inspiration Kojima is.
Quote:Ragnar Tørnquist:
...
Of course, with games--unlike movies--mechanics can be enough, if the framework is interesting and the gameplay unique. Take Katamari Damacy, one of last year's best games: It's all about the gameplay, and it's hard to relate on any level to the story, although you could argue that it serves to establish context and motive. We understand why we're rolling stuff up. We might not care, because the very act of rolling is interesting in itself, but if we look for context and motive, it's there.
Another great quote.
Quote:Chris Avellone:
...
I find writing for games interesting because I think games are the next untapped ground for storytelling. It's an interactive entertainment experience, so instead of passively watching a movie or reading a novel, you are actually interacting with the story, which I think is the next stage of entertainment evolution.
Totally agree with that. That's why I want to make games. It's the new frontier! :D
Quote:Hideo Kojima: 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. Even if what is provided to you is a temporary personality (of a cop or someone else), you get to "move" interactively based on your own will. What you see, hear, and feel are of a much greater impact than in film or novels. It is like your being able to do as you wish as an actor in a film. With film, all you can do is watch someone else acting. What I do is create games and not create stories. I merely include story elements that are necessary for the game to work.
Man, and again Kojima takes a somewhat vague, abstract feeling that I have and explains it in perfect detail. Love the guy.
Quote:Ken Levine: The only reason they're interesting is because they are interactive, and they can change. Let's face it...nobody has to create great visuals in a movie. You can find thousands of unemployed great visuals working in restaurants and coffee houses all over Los Angeles. But we don't have great faces and scenery just sitting there. We have to make everything we have. And that's a hell of a lot of work.
Amen.
Quote:Ragnar Tørnquist: Every medium has its strengths. Games, I think, combine the best of all worlds: movies, music, literature, performance arts, theater. And it's still a medium in flux, which makes it malleable in a way that other media aren't.
I'm not saying movies or literature are stagnant, but the formats are established. A movie has to conform to certain established parameters.
Games, on the other hand, are still at a stage where everything is possible.
Damn, that's like a smarter version of the stuff that I preach to people all of the time. This guy is awesome.
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.
Hmm, very interesting.
Quote:Ragnar Tørnquist:
...
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.
Indeed.
Quote:What would you say to someone who told you that games have universally terrible stories?
Chris Avellone: I'd say game stories can be a little formulaic at times and a little unpolished, but then I would point up at the sky and say, "Holy s***, look at that!" And when they do, I would punch them in the gut, and while they were gasping for breath, I would lean down and go, "You are wrong. There are several games with compelling stories, stories that achieve greater strength because it's a story you can interact with. Thus, the experience is even more personal than reading a novel, where you are basically watching the characters go about their adventures without any participation from you except flicking your eyes across the page." At this point, the person would be about to get up, so I would kick them in the shins and then run.
Hahaha!
He continues:
Quote:I will also say that people tended to denounce comics and graphic novels for quite some time, but I think some of the best stories I've ever read have come from graphic novels--DC's Vertigo line comes to mind, which really put Neil Gaiman, Garth Ennis, and Grant Morrison into the limelight. Graphic novels are a lot like games in some respects, considering it's a fusion of art and story without the interactive element that technology provides.
Take
THAT, comics-haters!! I'm looking at all of you. *narrows eyes*
Quote:Hideo Kojima: I would agree with that person. It is weird that there is a "Best Story" category in video game awards.
As I said previously, the story of a game is only one component of the game design. The story should not be evaluated on its own.
Heh, well said again.
Quote:Ken Levine: I'd hand them a copy of X-COM, Civilization, Beyond Good and Evil, Half-Life 2 and tell them to talk to me after they've had a go.
Tim Schafer: Oh, hey. That was me wasn't it? I just said that. Yes, I would say 99.9 percent of writing in games is terrible. And what's left--the part that is good writing--half of that is ruined by nonprofessional acting.
I agree with all of these people. They make very different points, but they fit the same basic opinion: most game stories suck, but there are exceptions.
Quote:Ragnar Tørnquist: I'd say they were partly right, but that they probably need to play more games. The stories aren't necessarily terrible, but they often suffer from bad pacing, poorly written dialogue, clichéd characters, lack of motive and context, and so on--much like most Hollywood movies, then. But that's the thing: Hollywood isn't the be-all and end-all of movies. Independent cinema is going strong, and there's a thriving audience for movies with low budgets but great stories. The economics of game development mean that there are very few independent games being produced, and the blockbuster is becoming increasingly ubiquitous. The problem with the blockbuster is that it has to appeal to everyone, and it has to fall within established genre parameters. The price tag is so high that it must be an easy sell, or no publisher will risk putting millions of dollars into it.
To answer your question: Yes, for the most part, games have bad stories. Even great games have bad stories, but that doesn't stop people from buying them--not until they have a choice.
Another great quote from Tørnquist. That's exactly how I feel. Man, this guy is great.
Quote:Ragnar Tørnquist: The two aren't mutually exclusive, but you have to be constantly aware of the implications of every design decision, which is why it's hard for writers who aren't also game designers to write a game. Which is why we sometimes end up with subpar stories, because most game designers aren't good writers.
Quote:Do you agree with the sentiment that who we are is just a factor of what we like? If not, what else can you tell me about yourself?
Tim Schafer: Uh, no. I think not. Because what makes you happy does not necessarily relate to what is going on deep inside. Also, regardless of what kind of personality you have, really great art can cut through all that and reach many different kinds of people. So lots of different people can like the same things.
Ragnar Tørnquist: Despite the fact that I'm freakishly tall, I manage to blend into most crowds by virtue of my chameleon-like demeanor. Around the office, I'm known as an expert juggler and a skilled mime. In 1978, I played an important role in the Nicaraguan revolution. I have an enormous collection of Vietnamese bottle caps in my bedroom. My first spoken words were "vorsprung durch technik." And I lie constantly to cover up for the fact that I'm actually an unbelievably dull person.
Oh and btw, Hideo Kojima just sky-rocketed up my "Super-Fucking-Cool-Person-O-Meter", and he was already up there with the best. Just look at his choices:
Music: Bloc Party, The Music, New Order
Awesome. Especially New Order.
Authors: Dennis Lehane, Greg Rucka, F. Paul Wilson, Jack Ketchum, Hiroyuki Kurokawa. "Once I get hooked on a writer, I read all of his/her works."
Greg Rucka has written some really great Batman comics. :)
Movies: Old Boy by Chan-wook Park
Hell yeah!
Tim Shafer has great taste, too:
Authors: "Anything by Raymond Chandler, or Jim Thompson. Kurt Vonnegut was extremely influential in my formative years. Haruki Murakami's Wind up Bird Chronicles. And I can't pretend I don't read all those damn Harry Potter books!"
Nice. Murakami is one of my favorite modern authors.
Movies: Directors David Lynch, Coen Brothers, and Wes Anderson. Casablanca, The Road Warrior, Yojimbo, Drugstore Cowboy, Repo Man, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Sweet Smell of Success, Memento, The Big Sleep.
He likes the same movies that I do. Awesome. :D You people would be wise to watch all of these movies. Kojima's excellent choice included. ;)
And I'm liking this Ragnar Tørnquist fellow more and more. Look at his movie list:
Movies: "All time favourite? E.T. It makes me weep like a baby every time I watch it. South Korean cinema is definitely on top of my must-watch list right now, with movies like Old Boy and A Tale of Two Sisters--top notch stuff. There's some great stuff coming out of China, Japan, and Mexico as well.
Two brilliant minds recommending the same movie that I've been praising all over the place. These guys are too cool for words.
Great article!
If they're going to choose five people for this article, they chose some of the very best... that's what makes this article so great. The fact that these people aren't just talking, they've proven that they can deliver. And they show that here.
Avellone: Torment, KotOR 2
Tornquist: The Longest Journey, Dreamfall (upcoming) (will this finally get you to pay more attention to this series? I've posted multiple things about the game, but have been generally ignored...)
Levine: System Shock 2, Tribes: Vengeance, Freedom Force
Schaefer: Maniac Mansion 2, Grim Fandango, Full Throttle
Kojima: MGS
Quote:What would you say to someone who told you that games have universally terrible stories?
Chris Avellone: I'd say game stories can be a little formulaic at times and a little unpolished, but then I would point up at the sky and say, "Holy s***, look at that!" And when they do, I would punch them in the gut, and while they were gasping for breath, I would lean down and go, "You are wrong. There are several games with compelling stories, stories that achieve greater strength because it's a story you can interact with. Thus, the experience is even more personal than reading a novel, where you are basically watching the characters go about their adventures without any participation from you except flicking your eyes across the page." At this point, the person would be about to get up, so I would kick them in the shins and then run.
Probably his reaction is that strong because his Torment is one of the best examples of that gaming has ever produced. :)
I'd have quoted these (in full) too, though. For the graphics question.
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.
... but then I want to quote all of the other four replies too... all five of them make good points worth listening to!
Quote:Q: How do you think technology facilitates storytelling in games? How do you think technology gets in the way of the storytelling?
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.).
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.
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.
Definitely a great article and well worth reading. I don't agree with everything, such as the thing about game stories... sure, most games don't have great stories. True. But is it really as bad as some of them suggest? I'd be more inclined to agree with Tornquist or Avellone than Kojima or Levine on that one.
Well someone like Kojima has been in the industry longer than most, so it's natural that he would be a bit more jaded. But I agree, 99% of the game stories out there are terrible.
But he basically said they were all bad... he'd agree with the person who said game stories are all bad? What the heck? That's not true! Sure, they're mostly bad, but there are good ones, like Avellone and Tornquist said.
Well when the percentage of good stories is so low, it's close enough to be agreeable. He did say that there were some games with good stories. Even Tim Shafer did.
They all have to, unless they hate their own work...
I would go so far as to say that as far as basic plot goes, a simple on-the-surface-what-happens-next story, games are quite good. The only problem is that the media (with those few exceptions that everyone points out) doesn't allow for the story to be that deep. At least not without becoming a movie itself and having 45minute cutscenes (ala MGS2:SoL).
....
I'm positive I was going to elaborate on this, but it all just suddenly left my mind.. Anyways, I hope you get what I mean. With so much emphasis having to be put into gameplay, and so few resources left over for something as trivial as a story, it can't possibly reach it's potential. Perhaps with the advent of systems such as XNA, which should hopefully free up some production resources, games could start hiring professional writers to write their games. And the programmers/directors could work with the writers to allow them optimal oppurtunies in the game to get their vision across.
That's not really true. Like some of the brilliant minds above explained, the medium has the potential of all of the mediums rolled into one, and that's very much true. It's just still being figured out because there's so much you can do.
Play ICO. :)
Yeah I know. I did also kind of contradict myself in my post, too, by explaining that if they hired writers who worked with the developers then it would be more than possible for games to have a rich story. At the moments, story's with actual depth seem to be in short supply.
I did play ICO. I wasn't fortunate enough to be touched by it.
No, but I didn't feel compelled to, as I already had the ending spoiled for me by an inconsiderate poster at another board.
That doesn't matter. Beat it. NOW.
If you play through the game and again, all the way through, and still don't feel anything, then consider yourself a robot. :D
Ico looks like a great game for sure, but does it have story like they're talking about in this article?
Stories... as they say in the article, usually story is added later. The game is designed first, story is dropped in later. Only rarely is the STORY done first and the game designed around the story (Torment and The Longest Journey were mentioned as examples of that rarity)... that leads to definitely better stories, but it's not how things are done and it might make things harder in some ways (not having the gameplay really down), so it doesn't happen much...
And yes, most people don't appreciate it when that is done. They want instant (or at least quicker) gratification, not depth and complexity... if a deep and complex game is popular it's either an accident or there are mitigating factors like prior success (like for MGS2).
But when it's done well... it shows how not only is story far, far from "trivial", when a game is built based around the story, and not a story dropped into the gameplay, it can make the whole game a lot better. The game can be much more cohesive and beleivable... Baldur's Gate is a fantastic series, but when you compare that work to Torment the difference is obvious. BG's story gets better as the series progresses, but it starts out simple and stays that way for quite some time. It looks to me like the game -- where they would go next, etc -- in the first two games probably were decided for the most part before the particulars of the story were -- like BGII, it takes you to a little bit of the undersea, a little bit of the underdark, an Elven city, etc. as you get farther in... like a 'greatest hits of the Realms' thing... While Torment? You do visit other planes, true. You've got to in that setting. But it's obvious from the start that the story came first. Otherwise the game just wouldn't be laid out the way it is.
ICO is actually very special in that the gameplay and story come hand-in-hand. The bond you form with your female companion, for instance, is very important to the story on an emotional level, and at the same time it is the main driving force behind the gameplay. So I'm not sure which game first in ICO; the story, or the gameplay. The story is told through the gameplay in many ways so there's no clear line.
Why is no one else posting in this thread? Do they think we're having an argument or something? GR, look at my first post! There's some cool stuff there.
I have no idea, and I really wish they would, because this is a very important issue in games and this article is very enlighening. It's getting annoying that no one else has evidently read it, because they REALLY should...
Hmm, maybe the thread should be moved to TC or RC (though it really doesn't belong in either one), just to get the additional attention?
No don't bother. I'm pretty sure everyone read it and just didn't have anything to add. That's the case for me anyway.
"Video games are the new frontier for story telling"
I've been hearing that since King's Quest IV came out. Sure, true dat and all, but it's a little cliche at this point.
Yeah, but as I've said, these people have proven their opinions matter through great storytelling in games. The point, I think, is that games have not done everything they can yet and have more potential for new ideas than films or books... which is probably true.
Oh, and read the whole article people, not just what we quoted...
Videogames are still burgeoning. A little cliche or not, they are at the cusp of reaching their full potential. As a great poster at another forums once said (paraphrasing); it's like the door has opened slightly and we are peeking through to the other side, we just can't go through yet. Maybe a game like Spore can take us there.
Well I would say that the gist of most stores are created during the early stages of development, as the story will go hand in hand with the settings that will need to be created later on. Things like plot twists, little extras, and maybe even the games ending, or alternative endings can all be added later. But obviously something like "we'll have our character get out of the mansion, then go throught some sewers and through the underground science labs" would have to have been thought of early in the development process.
Those guys know a lot about videogames.
...
That's all I really have to say really.
Quote:Videogames are still burgeoning. A little cliche or not, they are at the cusp of reaching their full potential. As a great poster at another forums once said (paraphrasing); it's like the door has opened slightly and we are peeking through to the other side, we just can't go through yet. Maybe a game like Spore can take us there.
Spore is possible gameplay evolution, not really story evolution... doesn't really seem like a story-heavey game. But if you're talking in general, and not just about story, you're right.
Quote:Well I would say that the gist of most stores are created during the early stages of development, as the story will go hand in hand with the settings that will need to be created later on. Things like plot twists, little extras, and maybe even the games ending, or alternative endings can all be added later. But obviously something like "we'll have our character get out of the mansion, then go throught some sewers and through the underground science labs" would have to have been thought of early in the development process.
Yeah, and that's the point -- usually the story to explain those events isn't fully thought through until after they've thought of where they are going, and that means that the story won't be getting the focus so it probably won't come off quite as well as the gameplay does... most games are made that way, and I'm sure it's a big part of why they said (probably accurately) that so many games have bad stories.
Well yes, for example Four Swords. There's a game where the concept of splitting into 4 and solving puzzles that way was the thing that made them think "okay what half arsed way are we going to come up with to explain this?" and then they came up with the sword.
...
I still think Link #4 should have been in a white tunic...
OH and about that quote. I do agree with it, like I said. In fact I completely agree. However, to state it over and over again sort of insults the intelligence of gamers, if that's the intended target you are talking to. To direct that AT gamers is to say "they probably didn't realize that before or ever hear it before", which is insulting, that's all. THAT'S why cliche is bad.
And um, yeah I only read some of the quotes up there. The rest of it was new takes on that basic cliche and did get me thinking.
Just read the article, DJ... for one thing, OB1 left out the questions being asked... :)
Quote:Well yes, for example Four Swords. There's a game where the concept of splitting into 4 and solving puzzles that way was the thing that made them think "okay what half arsed way are we going to come up with to explain this?" and then they came up with the sword.
Definitely.
"new frontier", etc
Do you mean this quote?
Quote:Chris Avellone: I find writing for games interesting because I think games are the next untapped ground for storytelling. It's an interactive entertainment experience, so instead of passively watching a movie or reading a novel, you are actually interacting with the story, which I think is the next stage of entertainment evolution.
Maybe it's something we've heard before, but it's absolutely true and most games definitely don't use that to its potential, so what's the big problem?
@ DJ.
Do you know how long it took film to be respected as a capable storytelling medium? Many many decades. Games are still in their infancy, and unlike film the main hurdle right now is technology. So game designers have it much harder than filmmakers did in the early 20th century. You'll keep on hearing this from game designers because it's
so close. And close does not really mean five months from now. It will take individual games that push the boundaries of storytelling, and eventually there will be methods that will become standards for others to use.
Perhaps I wasn't clear.
Allow me to try again.
I fully agree with pretty much every single statement that article made, including the one about games being the next storytelling frontier, and that it isn't yet at it's peak, or anywhere close to it.
I only meant that the statement that games are the next frontier is cliche at this point and that we gamers have been hearing that, and already BELIEVE it, so saying it again is insulting because it suggests we never thought of that before on our own.
That's all. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I didn't think computer games could tell good stories or that there was a lot of even further potential. I don't think that at all.
I fully understood what you said. Which is why I said "You'll keep on hearing this from game designers because it's so close.". Some of these people are really excited about it, Ms. Sour Pants. So excuuuuuuse them, princess!
There is the point that he didn't actually use the word 'frontier', DJ... :D
I think the biggest hurdle to overcome is no longer technology, but commercialism. And communism!
Commercialism... yes, that is probably the biggest hurdle...
Tornquist, for instance, well might not be making the game he's making if he was working in the US... but in Finland, it's okay...
Why not? His games sell over here.
Adventure games don't sell! Everyone knows that!
*looks at big ol' stack o adventure games sitting next to PC*
That's exactly right ABF! ALL marketting department workers know that!
Sadly, they do... :(
(remember, here the difference between 'know' and 'think' doesn't matter for all practical purposes.)
Does he make that much money in Finland, though?
Adventure games do seem to sell better in Europe than they do here, so more of them are made there.
One country doesn't matter, really, it's European sales in general that do.
Yeah I know, but he could still sell games to Europe if he lived here. Not that there's any reason to live here if he's from Finland.
Funcom is a Finnish company, so I'd certainly expect so.
And yes, if it was a US company they could sell to Europe, but companies seem to pay the most attention to their home region... I can't explain it all. But the facts speak for themselves: US companies are out of the adventure game business. European ones, and especially some smaller companies, aren't.
If American companies made games based on European sales, we might have seen Sam & Max 2 by now...
So, why didn't Lucasarts release Sam and Max 2? Is it just because they hate their fans?
It's because they ate their fans, actually. Literally.
So who do they sell games to now?