Weekend games: It's time games said something more

[bangaio]

Nope 8)

[Papercut]

To hell with reading the rest of that crap, the first line has made up my mind. (and yes, I am well aware of how arrogant that sounds)

You should have read the rest of the thread, that first line was an editor's tag line, not written by Rhianna and not part of the article.

I guess that means we can dispense with the rest of your post then?

Except for...

Gaming does not need to change to survive.

Yes it does, see Sega and Nintendo.

It certainly needs to change if it wants to retain a more mature audience, and attract a larger female audience.

Thank the lord Im getting into the industry in a few years, even if it kills me and does no good in the process, Ill be kicking and screaming as each era of change is brought about.

Help us all.

And then hopefully dance over our good friend Pratchett.

Bang out of order, way to go to make our new guest feel welcome.

My take on the article: I don't see meaningful narrative being very important in most video games, but it would be nice to see a higher quality of story telling here and there.

Books and films do a much better job of story telling than video games do, and they always will. It would be nice if video games were better at story telling, and even provided social commentary or emotionally powerful themes, but it isn't essential.

For a game's narrative to be told skillfully enough for this to happen, then I feel the game would become too linear and suffer as a result. For a story to be told well, the author has to tightly control pacing and plot development, in an interacive environment that is very hard to do.

A game like Deus Ex or Half Life suffers an awful lot because the story plays out over too much time.

The only type of game I can think of where this can really work is text adventures (and maybe graphic adventures like Grim Fandango). Not a very popular game style these days, sadly.

I'm quite happy for most games to have a sketchy story that serves as a simple backdrop to the gameplay, rather than have games which primarily tell a good story with some gameplay along the way (MGS2 suffered horribly from this, and still told a poor story).

[Sketcz]

<sigh>
Somehow Ive been dragged into a situaton where I need to defend myself. Oh well.

I did go an read the article after posting, and concluded that I still didnt like it. SO left my post as is.

Games do not need narratives.

Also, Ive argued this in another topic, games do not need to attract a bigger audience. Why in gods name must the market change to entice girl gamers? If they want to play games, they play games everyone else plays, by catering to them, more money goes to making THEIR games, which I dont buy or play.

Bigger audience = more market slices in the pie.
More market slices = more funding going towards those slices
All of the above = really bad tasting pie

Gaming needs to change internally, the way it handles its current market, how anyone can be so naive to think that more people getting into gaming would be more beneficial than cementing those in gaming, is beyond me.

The market model needs to change, but the target audience does not need to grow.
It worked from 84 to 95, my personal favourite gaming era. (83 if you count the vectrex)

Maybe I am blinkered, but I dont see why the market must destabilise itself by adopting the ideas suggested.

Why? Is it money? Do things need to change so profits can become even more bloated?

Some University courses on games design dedicate 1/3 rd of the curriculum to narrative. WHY? Narrative is NOT needed to make a good game. Gameing was born without narrative, and while narrative is great, it is not essential.

There are times when I wish games would de-evolve actually.

[mid]

I tell you what, I'm well against the introduction of these electrical guitars into Dylan's act, too.

Narrative is with us, in everything from Final Fantasy to Max Payne. At the heart of the piece, Rhianna is very sensibly suggesting that the standard of narrative we have right now isn't that great, and that games would become better, not worse, if it wasn't the afterthought, cobbled together by a guy who designs gameplay rather than writes stories for a living.

It may not be Shakespeare, but Halo benefitted enormously from the fact that I didn't feel the need to snigger at the quality of the dialogue for a change. I felt more emotional connection with the events because the story was well told. Hell, I didn't try to skip the cutscenes for once, its that good.

As long as we keep room for instant-action arcade antics as well, addressing the quality of storylines surely can't be a bad thing?

[mid]

Also, Ive argued this in another topic, games do not need to attract a bigger audience. Why in gods name must the market change to entice girl gamers? If they want to play games, they play games everyone else plays, by catering to them, more money goes to making THEIR games, which I dont buy or play.

I don't buy RPGs, but I'm not calling for Square to concentrate on making another racing game. Not every game is made for me, just like I have no intention of watching American Pie 3, listening to Girls Aloud or reading Jackie Collins.

[PeteJ]

Some University courses on games design dedicate 1/3 rd of the curriculum to narrative. WHY? Narrative is NOT needed to make a good game. Gameing was born without narrative, and while narrative is great, it is not essential.

I don't believe anyone on these forums would disagree that a narrative is essential for a game to be good. If KoTOR was limitless dungeons stripped from the Star Wars world, I'd say it'd still be a decent game because the RPG and gameplay mechanics are so compelling. What it important, and what was the point of the article, is that a good narrative can improve and enhance a gaming experience.

One of my gaming highlights in around 20 years of gaming - Silent Hill 2. You wouldn't believe how much that game was improved through story telling alone. It was, and still is, one of the finest examples of horror story telling ever created, over any medium.

Gaming can learn plenty from books and cinema, however I believe these can learn a thing or two from games also. I've said this a few times, but gaming is far beyond anything else when it comes to manipulating and enhancing the emotion of fear, and I believe people should begin to realise this more.

[razu]

I agree with otaku84 in that games do not need narative, but that's because of the kind of games I like to play, (games based on the skill of the player rather than immersive entertainment experiences).

However, when I do venture into the world of story based games, MGS for example, I do find the level of story telling to be lower than the average "straight-to-TV" movie.

As for "culturally-significant content", I prefer games to have monkeys trapped in balls.

[saif]

Film has been taking quite liberally from games IMHO for a while (Bullet time = SF2 finisher??) but I don' think that it NEEDS to go the other way round. I am mixed up about this though. Narrative is clearly important as it gives purpose to the action. But like most things, its all about the balance of the force and I am much happier taking liberally from eastern cultures to move gaming forward as that is the narrative style that works in games imo.

Hollywood style games vs Anime style games?

8) plus other smilies I have never used.

[Fragmaster]

Rhianna Pratchett its Terry (Discworld) Pratchetts Daughter. 8)

Didn't she also used to write for PC-Zone.... anyhow it isn't all about shooting... Final Fantasy? Jet Set Radio?

Story telling wise, Final Fantasy is probably one of the best, whereas JSR is more of a cultural icon.

Also I know plenty of girls that like games the way they are, there is nothing wrong with them, its just that many girls of today aren't interested in any games people throw at them.... Think of a genre that hasn't been covered?

[The Sheriff of Nottingham]

Surely the point of the article was not to say "more games need narrative" or even "games need more/better narrative", but instead that games have the potential to make you think a little deeper than they currently do. Here's my made-up-on-the-spot theory of the three levels of gameplay thinking:

1. What do I do now/what button do I press/how do I react to this situation?

2. What do I do next/what will happen if.../how do I manage the situation?

3. Why am I doing this/what is the meaning of my actions/how do I feel about the situation?

It seems to me that twitch gaming mainly occupies level 1 (with a bit of 2), and most other current types of game fit somewhere between 1 and 2. Obviously strategy games are further into 2, giving you more time to think and plan ahead. But very few games that I've played make me think at "level 3".

Now I'm not saying, and the article isn't saying (as far as I can tell), that all games are falling short for not doing this, or that all games should try. But wouldn't it be great if a few more did?

[LeatherRaven]

otaku84
<sigh>
Somehow Ive been dragged into a situaton where I need to defend myself. Oh well.

This was only because you wrote an entire post criticising my article for...well... basically the strap line and didn?t take any notice of the post I?d written where I said I didn?t write it! So don?t grumble when people pick you up on that.

otaku84
Thank the lord Im getting into the industry in a few years, even if it kills me and does no good in the process, Ill be kicking and screaming as each era of change is brought about.

I find it hard to believe that you want to get into the games industry and yet you have such a limited view of the potential for games. What?s wrong with games evolving and attracting a bigger audience? How the hell do you think gaming got from Pong to your "favourite era" of 84-95 without change?If people had such a Luddite view about films we?d still be stuck watching silent black and white movies. Change isn?t necessarily a bad thing, neither is attracting a mainstream audience because there will always be different kinds of games for different kinds of gamers.

otaku84
Why in gods name must the market change to entice girl gamers? If they want to play games, they play games everyone else plays, by catering to them, more money goes to making THEIR games, which I dont buy or play.

There is a big difference between attracting female games and creating games for girls and the former does not necessarily mean more of the latter. Yes of course publishers/developers want to attract more female games because at the end of the day that means more money, but they don?t particularly want to do it by creating more Barbie games, the want to do it in the way that the Sims has i.e. creating a huge franchise that appeals to both sexes. The pre-teen female game market in the US is a multi-billion dollar business, but it?s the older female market that they're after. Of course you?re right that a lot of female gamers play exactly the same games as the guys and enjoy them and in my opinion it?s just about concentrating on making better games all round.

The piece I wrote wasn't specifically about the lack of narrative in games, although it's something as a scriptwriter I feel strongly about. No games don't need narrative, but they do need diversity, and good narrative has a big part to play in that. Sheriff of Nottingham has got it spot on, the piece was more about how games have very little social commentary in the way that films, books, comics have been doing for many years I'm talking about the way that Death of a Salesman or American Beauty deconstructed the American dream, or how Full Metal Jacket and Platoon looked at war or even how Mary Shelley railed against the dangers of unrestrained science and bad parenting in Frankenstein.

No one is suggesting stopping making the games that you think are great, but sooner or later we're all going to have to learn to share our toys.

[LeatherRaven]

Didn't she also used to write for PC-Zone

I still do.

[Brats]

I tell you what, I'm well against the introduction of these electrical guitars into Dylan's act, too.

Nice analogy!

There are very few games that have no narrative at all nowadays. Even Fighters and Shmups have stories and background. You only have to witness the huge amount of fervour over the storyline to the Street Fighter series to realise that even twitch gamers care about narrative.

But I agree that narrative isn't always welcome. Super Monkey Ball 2 was worse than SMB1 imo because of a number of factors, but a redundant story was one of them. Maybe if the story said something more interesting, then it would have worked better, which is the point of the article.
As long as we keep room for instant-action arcade antics as well, addressing the quality of storylines surely can't be a bad thing?[/quote]

[MartyG]

I like your post Sheriff - the type of games I enjoy playing most of all (RPGs) go some way towards level three, but I'd certainly like to see this developed to the next level.

Everything requires change, otherwise things become stagnant. I don't want to be playing the same games I played ten years ago. I want the games I play to have a storyline that has meaning. I want it to wrap me up within the game world to the point where I think I'm part of it. I want to be convinced that what I'm doing in a game has consequences. I?ll certainly open my arms to devcos who try to do this.

There's room for the twitch games too, and clearly such games don't require much in the way of narrative. Most of them still have a storyline of some kind, albeit inconsequential.

Regards
Marty

[Sketcz]

To LR, just so you know, Ive gone and read everything posted here, including as Ive said before, your article in full, though only after my initial post.

Firstly, dont knock silent films, there are some perfectly enjoyable ones out there, that in some ways does more than a film with speaking.

Im not going to go back on what Ive said or apologise, and I wont deny it, I am someone who does not adjust well to change.

While I would probably argue first that gaming can be a medium as powerful as anything else out there (Id rather play a game than watch a film for a start, and some have some real tear jerking moments), I dont like the rapid rate of "evolution", and find it difficult to take in, and yes, I dont like it when large groups of non-gamers dip in and out of games without the commitment of those stick with it long term. A selfish view? I dunno, I dont particularly care either.

I like gaming, I like it when games are aimed at me, I like it when the market appears to be aimed at gamers like me.
I dont like overemphasis on narrative, as much as I love a good story in a game.
I dunno, what I want to say is difficult to put into words, but I have this strong gut feeling, that tells me to not like things, the way they are right now.

By the way, that is a terrible tagline to that article, throws everything else into the wrong perspective. I hate the Hollywood "system", what little I know of it. Games seem as far removed from most other mediums as I can imagine, that I think is a good thing.

EDIT:
Let me just add this, again.
Commentary on the wider world, in gaming I find to be a redundant idea.

Now this is gonna drop me in it, but those deeper meanings you mentioned in those films? I never got them, I dont get these hidden, subtler messages, why? I absorb media for a mesage, I do it to entertain myself. I watched and enjoyed some of those films, and then get these overly intellectual types, who have to go to great lengths explaining these things to me.

damn, that makes me sound stupid, which Im not. But I find such things totally pointless. They go completely over my head. Even when i enjoy a good story, I dont look for any commentary on anything, I like the story to engage me, on a personal level, but not debate anything for me.

In all honesty, I hate it, when you watch a film, and you get some.... person...... who feels the need to waffly wax lyrically about all the subtle hidden meanings, which to me, are not there. If I want meaning, i read the paper.

So, in a roundabout way, Im back to my initial thought. I cant let this rest, it itches my brain something terrible. Your whole premise I find scary.

Good god, can you imagine, in a decade, people sitting around, discussing the hidden subtler meanings to games they've played? How in a clever way, it parodies real life meanings and god I cant even fake a sentence about this stuff.
Id run a mile, one of the things I detest about films, would have infected gaming.

Am I the only person to absorb fictional media PURELY for face value story telling, I go out of my way not to read deeper, for me, its the story, an interesting situation.
I like the fact that gaming can offer me a story and not have deeper meanings. It is my sanctuary as I said. Take SC2, great story, enough to draw tears, but deeper "whatever"? Probably not. Heck, take any narrative game.

What you are proposing, in my mind, is totally, incompatible with gaming.
It is a medium unlike any others, and should not have to follow such routes, be damned cultural importance, and mainstream acceptance.

DO WE NEED ACCEPTANCE?
I dont.

<sigh>
Im gonna go now, Im bored, tired, sad, scared, and Im making myself out to some kind of low brow, uneducated games player, which is far from the truth.