30th March 2005, 6:08 PM
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.