Story and Games

[OB1]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.