Game designers stuck being "Romantic"
Our readers amaze us. In responding to our post about the "perfect" game enemy, reader Brad Lee diagnosed the ailment that afflicts game designers who insist on using the same old slobbering, ugly Zombie-Alien-Nazi enemies. Here's Brad's post, edited for brevity:
The problem is that games are still stuck in the 'Romantic' era. Too many video game developers look to romanticism for inspiration. (Romanticism was an artistic movement that emphasized exaggeration, emotion, nature, tradition, etc.) In Romanticism, an artist who wants to convey an emotion such as sadness uses dark colors. If he wants to convey evil, he makes the subject ugly. And so on.
Games use this art style simply because it's easier. There are a lot of costs to produce a video game -- graphics and game engine being the most expensive -- and I'm sure story and characters are probably a lower priority than other aspects of video games. Keep in mind that most games' stories are not produced by professional writers (or good writers anyway), so it is simply easier to use romanticism than try and craft a realistic story with [realistic] characters.
It is much easier to make a story about demons rampaging through the world (and only one guy -- you! -- can stop them) than to create a story about real people just struggling to do the right thing. Many game developers just don't know any better because they don't bother to take creative writing classes or to learn how to craft a good story. Many think they shouldn't have to [learn these things] simply because they are focused on the game and not the story or the characters.
Game developers are likely game developers because they love games, not because they love great stories. When those developers aren't working they are likely spending their time playing other games. If developers took some time to read [and analyze] good literature and watch classic movies we would probably have better stories and characters in our games. Until that happens, I'll be expecting to slaughter many more hordes of zombies, nazis, demons, and aliens in the years to come.
Any game designers out there care to post a rebuttal or confirmation? Are Brad's charges accurate? From where we sit, it seems he's nailed it.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Person @ Sep 2nd 2006 10:24PM
Wow I visit joystiq then flip over to another website for a few seconds, then come back to joystiq and a new news post appears.
on topic I think that this person does have a good idea, of what is wrong. I just wonder out of all the games developers in the world how many have watched a movie with a realistic approach to characters and their world, and how many have watched movies where it is all about the cool explosions and hot babes.
I would probably say Saving private ryan is a movie with a realistic approach to characters and there world, and mission imposible 3 is a movie with only explosions and hot babes.
MrP @ Sep 2nd 2006 10:24PM
If this is a valid concern, then "Bully" is a hella important game.
Brad Lee has all the answers @ Sep 2nd 2006 10:30PM
If developers took some time to read [and analyze] good literature and watch classic movies we would probably have better stories and characters in our games.
Oh yes! Brad is SOOO smart! He has all the answers! Man if only the developers I work with watched more movies!! Or read more books because THAT would make for more compelling stories! Wow thanks Brad!! I'll be sure to let them know that.
I'd love to comment more on this, but I really need to go read some books.
Hiro Protagonist @ Sep 2nd 2006 10:32PM
Damn slow news day.
I'm heading back to Kotaku.
Hah, yeah right.
The Origin Of Species @ Sep 2nd 2006 10:39PM
Reality isn't fun. That's why people play video games.
That said, endless stereotyping is no fun either. The perfect combination would be realistic people in unrealistic situations.
One thing the video game corporations should do is hire better writers. On some projects, costs are in the millions. Why not shift some of that capital to your story? Gameplay itself is meaningless unless you feel involved somehow, and good storylines really increase your sense of involvement in a game.
I would also like to add (in case some game developers read this) that meaningless quests for revenge, make really bad storylines.
kyou @ Sep 2nd 2006 10:47PM
Is it me, or Japanese games in general tend to have better stories than American games?
El Hajjish @ Sep 2nd 2006 10:48PM
I would like to see more emphasis on gameplay.
Jay @ Sep 2nd 2006 10:51PM
I'm in the game making world for the story and the gameplay. I don't read that many books, watch that many films so I'm pretty good for getting my own inspiration from dreams or whatever.
It's true in any field though, go *too* abrupt with your enemy, story or even gameplay ideology and you risk producing unmarketable junk. But when that formula is right you have the Portals, the original Dooms, the Lemmings. Fuck all this cinematography crap in recent games and get to making something original and great.
T-Bag @ Sep 2nd 2006 11:06PM
From 11:55AM to 10:08PM all you had to post was a comment made by a user in a in a news update that was made at 10:36AM? For shame Joystiq, for shame. The least you could have done was force Summa to rob a EB or Gamestop and blog about how the cops bludgeoned him to death as he tried to get away on a segway.
Ghost Box @ Sep 2nd 2006 11:18PM
I have been saying this kind of things for the longest. I used to cringe when in the 90s the movie industry started referring to CGI artists as "story tellers"
There is a reason why most game characters are without depth. Developers are creating them, not writers who IMO are the appropriate story tellers. Brad is right, but this isn't just about developers reading more literature or seeing classic movies. This is about employing real writers to help shape the story telling process in games.
Character development to an artists means how many character points the gamer builds up, what kind of armor he/she is allowed to wear based on those points.
What character development to a writer is, the way a character grows, the way the character perceives things in his/her environment and the people around him/her based on that growth.
I'm not talking about suddenly being able to read the thoughts of non-player characters based on wisdom points, but the relationships that the character forms with the story's other characters. This is equally as important and would help the game's story to build with tension or mystery.
The solution to this problem is to start hiring real writers instead of developers taking on these tasks. They are artists, but just because they can render a character, doesn't mean that they will properly "develop" that character.
Anyone who is tired of seeing a village destroyed and a surving hero emerging from the ashes should agree with me. There should be much more complex scenarios than that in gaming.
Instead of destroying a village and using that as the game character's origin and motivations, why not try different approaches? Make the villains in the story less transparent and their motivations even less obvious.
I mean the ESA says that the average gamer in North America is 30 years old. Character depth and complex scenarios are long over due. The gaming community is ready.
Real writers are the answer, real writers.
NorCal05 @ Sep 2nd 2006 11:21PM
I don't want realistic story lines! I wanna blow shit up!
david battilana @ Sep 2nd 2006 11:27PM
a game is a game. A story is a story. The 2 have nothing to do with one another. It is great if you get both in a single package but adding a super story to a bad game does not make the game fun.
I would rather have my designers researching game mechanics and trying different mechanics until they get something fun instead of reading a book.
Guitar hero. what was the story again?
oh yea, it was just fun. no story needed.
Tracy "Lord Moon" @ Sep 2nd 2006 11:33PM
While I think he's hit pretty close with the Romanticism, there is a bit of fault in play on the part of gamers and bloogers themselves. The tendancy to buy only what is a known and comforable commoditiy while staying away from the unknown. While aliens/zombies/nazis tend to be the cannon fodder of choice, there are excellent games out there that don't have any of them. The Farcry series comes to mind, as does Disaster Report. Now the argument could be made that Farcry just replaces the nazis with mercenarys, but the overlooked Mother Nature as it antagonist. Farcry has sold well, but the unknown quantity of Disaster Report had folks staying away in droves.
Which is a shame really. The game played like Resident Evil in that it was a survival game, but less on the horror.
I could go on and point out more games that lacked the alien/zombie/nazi menace and had others (robots, fantasy setting without undead, mafioso/criminals etc.) and had excellent stoylines. Which comes around the next point, writing.
Brad points out that game designers lack writing skills. But the fact of the matter is I think a game desinger would have to be a fool to think he or she could put out an epic game without a good storyline even if it included aliens/zombies/nazis. The success of The Suffering shows that a good story can still be had with long standing zombie/demon story. Beyond Good & Evil, while basicly aliens, the definition of it's world was the aliens were not completely abnormal though. The game was a critic darling, praised for it's story and unique gameplay, yet it barely sold at all.
So the fault is not all on developers, some falls in the lap of consumers that refuse to break out of their comfort zones and try something new. It's the same reason movie/tv sorylines are recycled, it sells because people are comfortable with it, they know it and like it.
varun @ Sep 2nd 2006 11:33PM
How much of it is driven by what the market (i.e.: gamers) want, rather than the developer? For example, I personally find the story of Just Cause very, very interesting, and thus something I want to play, but reviewers across the web panned it for sub-standard
graphics, and a story that was less coherently tied together than a straight through shooter, like Doom. I agree with what Brad says but interesting question is: is it the gamers who drive developers or developers that drive gamers? In my mind, I find it hard to justify developers pushing gamers in a certain direction; I think it's more correct to say the video game market demands games which have a greater emphasis on looking realistic and beautiful, than on a story line. Otherwise, we'd all be playing Zork, which had a heck of a storyline, but no graphics whatsoever. A great compromise was the Myst series, but somewhere along the way, interest in that died off, after it became clear that Myst's graphics were pre-rendered, and people wanted truly interactive environs, and wanted story to be sacrificed in the process. (See further, number 11 above - and he's absolutely right in asking for that. If that's what he wants, and the majority of the market wants, that's what it's going to get!)
Hiro Protagonist @ Sep 2nd 2006 11:36PM
5. "I would also like to add (in case some game developers read this) that meaningless quests for revenge, make really bad storylines."
But I quite liked Max Payne :(
10. "Anyone who is tired of seeing a village destroyed and a surving hero emerging from the ashes should agree with me. There should be much more complex scenarios than that in gaming."
But I quite liked Fable :(
11. "I don't want realistic story lines! I wanna blow shit up!"
I quite like blowing shit up :)
12. "a game is a game. A story is a story. The 2 have nothing to do with one another. It is great if you get both in a single package but adding a super story to a bad game does not make the game fun."
Yet people still buy those frigin FF games.
Tracy @ Sep 2nd 2006 11:37PM
"Now the argument could be made that Farcry just replaces the nazis with mercenarys, but the overlooked Mother Nature as it antagonist. Farcry has sold well, but the unknown quantity of Disaster Report had folks staying away in droves."
D'oh this should read.
"Now the argument could be made that Farcry just replaces the nazis with mercenarys, but the overlooked Disaster Report had Mother Nature as it antagonist. Farcry has sold well, but the unknown quantity of Disaster Report had folks staying away in droves."
RP @ Sep 2nd 2006 11:37PM
These observations are true, but much in the way I avoid books that are simply about people doing the right thing, playing such a game would not interest me in the least.
Bombsy @ Sep 2nd 2006 11:41PM
He hints at something there. Something he doesn't really address.
If gameplay supports a 'destroy all aliens/demons/monsters' story as much (or better) than one that is full of nuance and character development, why would a developer want to go with the latter, more expensive choice?
It's unfortunate but that's how it is. A lot of gamers aren't exactly being helpful to the situation, either. Gameplay is more important, they say. Well some of us want gaming to evolve, to grow.
I've seen gamers complain about Hollywood (especially when it comes to video game movies), but we have the same exact thing going on here. It's only ignored because oh hey the gameplay is grrrreat!
I'm tired of always being a bad enough dude to save the president who just is. I'm tired of being some twenty gun weilding badass with no story other than I'm here to clean up. I don't mind it once in a while, but damn.
You think a good movie is always about having a good story? It has to be executed well in other areas, too.
Drake Lake @ Sep 2nd 2006 11:43PM
I just hope some of the people commenting here aren't the same ones that want games considered to be art, because at the moment, it seems some gamers themselves disagree that games are art.
Noel @ Sep 2nd 2006 11:44PM
If you go to Disney World and complain that the story for Space Mountain sucks, you are missing the point.
Joe @ Sep 2nd 2006 11:47PM
I don't think he's got the complete story. There are some things he's not taking into account. Here are some possibilities:
-What's wrong with using stereotypes? Especially in the context of games when it often boils down to whether or not it's fun.
-It's a business. It can also be an art, but it is always a business. There is nothing wrong with game companies making games that they know consumers will buy. If there should be any blame placed at all, it should go to the buyers for not being more discriminating audiences. But even that would be a bit shady because no one has the right to determine the tastes of others.
-If you have ever created something, I'm sure that you have ran into the dilemma of wanting to create something new and original but lacking a few key details here and there, so you eventually "borrow" from other sources. And the moment you take from something from something else you feel as though you betrayed yourself. I would hardly call this easier.
-How would he know what game designers watch and read? I have an idea, how about we don't insult the intelligence of the game developers when we really don't know them? We don't know what they do in their free time. Most people have more than one hobby. Get off your high horse.
There could be an infinite amount of reasons why a developer might chose to use stereotypes in lieu of something more creative. If you knock something for using stereotypes, you might miss that they might be using the stereotypes in a creative way. The zombies in Killer 7 come to mind.
arch @ Sep 2nd 2006 11:54PM
wow #3 either you must be one SHIT dev. isnt it FUN to take things OUT of context?
BRAD is 100% correct. and frankly people like posters 9,11, and 12 have absolutly NO clue what so ever.
#11 poor poor child. you want to blow shit up. must be great bieng white trash with no education.
#12. a story and a game have EVERYTHING to do with eachother.
the proper post would be "guitar hero and games like halo have nothing to do with eachother and gameplay and story have everything to do with eachother."
again, BRAD is spot on. hit the nail on the head. and funny man devs such as #3 have a fire now lit up their asses. uh oh looks liek youll have to actually work for once.
Balando @ Sep 3rd 2006 12:07AM
While I agree with Brad, it must be noted that he is only looking at the problem from one angle. I am not in any way suggesting that he is wrong (to the contrary, he couldn't be more correct in his assertions), only that he should consider other avenues and genres of games if he is tired of killing aliens, nazies, zombies, monsters, demons, and any other repetitive form of evil that has been plauging video games for the past several years.
Take a game like Spore, for instance: it, more or less, addresses the issues he complains about without the benefit of a realistic story (unless, of course, one considers the evolution in the game a realistic story - that, however, can be a sticky subject), and yet it is one of the freshest games I've seen in a very long time.
Of course, he may already realize this and I've wasted my time. Who knows?
yeah @ Sep 3rd 2006 12:18AM
Yeah, it'd be great to see a fantastic, award winning story for a videogame, but the only problem is: a videogame is a videogame. Adventure games like Grim Fandango might be suited to a slow, engrossing, character based storyline, but what do you do for an action game? I mean, the kind of story this brad guy is talking about is to "create a story about real people just struggling to do the right thing"
Name one action oriented scenario where this might happen.
Right now, the Metal Gear series does this pretty well. The Half Life series is also pretty well respected for what it does with characters and story. But really, nazis, zombies, and monsters are not going to be soon replaced by real people with real life intentions.
It's boring and doesn't make for a good game. Let the rest of us stomp our Goombas and shoot our faceless soldiers.
Seer @ Sep 3rd 2006 12:20AM
Brad's argument begs the question "Do a majority of gamers really even want complex storylines like classical literature?" The answer, I'm afraid, is a resounding no. Remember, being 30 does not mean you're mature.
Ryuukuro @ Sep 3rd 2006 12:32AM
This is an interesting theory but, while I believe that game designers are MUCH more culturally educated than Brad gives them credit for, I don't think they're that educated in Romanticism. Not consciously, anyway.
If this is the truth then I'd like to see two games come out of this.
1. A game that takes every single element of Romanticism and pushes it to an even greater extreme, even directly referencing the works that formed it.
2. The exact opposite.
Both would be interesting if done well. However, I fear that rather than play the games for themselves, some people would rather spend all of their time on Internet gaming blogs to bitch about them.
Scott Jon Siegel @ Sep 3rd 2006 12:32AM
I love injecting literary analysis into games. Makes me feel like my B.A. will have a use someday. ^_^
If gameplay supports a 'destroy all aliens/demons/monsters' story as much (or better) than one that is full of nuance and character development, why would a developer want to go with the latter, more expensive choice?
That seems to be the unfortunate rub. "Successful" games are pretty big-budget already, so a lot of studios don't see any need to run out and hire professional writers (not that a qualified novelist, screenwright, or playwright is necessarily a qualified game writer, anyway).
Mr. Lee makes a terrific point, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an easy answer to the problem. As mentioned above, as long as consumers keep eating up the cookie-cutter storylines and characters, developers will have no need to do anything different.
Blain Newport @ Sep 3rd 2006 12:59AM
Romanticism has nothing to do with it. No game dev ever read William Blake or listened to Brahms and became inspired to make a game with zombies. The tools Brad talks about can be traced back to Greek theatre and probably earlier.
It doesn't seem like you're complaining about stock villians, but rather the lack of depth in the plots, settings, and characters in games. I suggest starting a new thread if that's really what you want to explore.
Brad Lee has all the answers @ Sep 3rd 2006 1:00AM
Wow #22 thanks again for opening my eyes to game development. I guess ALL games should have overly complex stories in them. I mean Madden, PGR3, Uno all those demand stories, or else they just aren't any fun right? In the next Mario...Nintendo should have Antonio Banderas do the voice acting, and Louisa May Alcott write the story, and Steven Spielberg direct it. That would make the game so much better and more REAL. I mean right before I hit the "B" button to throw a fireball at a goomba...we'll get to learn of the strife that the goomba has had under the tyrannical rule of King Koopa. I'm glad you let others know that they are incorrect in what they feel is a fun game.
People like Brad, and yourself remind me to "tighten up the graphics on level 3".
Go back to trying to sell used games, and game warranties or better yet why don't you try selling your amazing ideas to a publisher.
mercatfat @ Sep 3rd 2006 1:13AM
Everyone's missing the point.
I mean, has anyone ever stopped to think about the Nazi's feelings? They were, and are, real people. I'm fairly certain that they don't appriciate being constantly shot and beat any more than black people in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.
MthdDirector @ Sep 3rd 2006 1:19AM
I, too, wish that developers would pay more attention to story - but making a mediocre storyline great is not easy. That's just been my experience in studio production.
When done properly, story development is a very controlled and focused process. If you're adapting a book, or fleshing out a treatment, you hire a writer. Finding a writer can sometimes take a month or longer - depending on whether or not you're going to pay for pitches. Once you decide on a writer, you establish specific guidelines about the universe and what you're aiming for, and then send them on their way. If the treatment/beat outline comes back and doesn't work - hopefully you have what's called a "cutoff deal" where you're not obligated to use that writer through first, 2nd and final drafts. Sometimes the process repeats itself. Sometimes you strike gold and the writer delivers something truly special.
But, you see, this is a controlled and very deliberate process that can take anywhere from 4 months to a year (or even longer).
If game developers really don't care about story (as we can see here at least 1 or 2 aren't ashamed about it) - then there's no reason we'll see stories get better.
Yeah, this is a business. If you can sell a million copies w/ a sloppy storyline then who gives a shit?
Supply and demand. There isn't demand for it, and there isn't supply for it, so nobody knows how it can be any different than it is. Everyone advocates the status quo because that's all they know. To me, that's kind of sad. But hey, I'm a gamer too, so what do I know?
Trevor @ Sep 3rd 2006 1:31AM
Who is that NAZI BABE?
Heil Titler!
aphallatosis @ Sep 3rd 2006 1:36AM
I agree, I would add that more cookbooks should deal with the effects of incest on the victims adult life.
Brad Lee has all the answers @ Sep 3rd 2006 1:38AM
Thank you #31 for explaining to people just how much work goes into just even getting a decent story written. All the back and forth when working with a writer can literally kill a project, if not severly cause major delays. Dialogue alone is a huge undertaking when you are releasing in multiple countries. Some countries have serious issues with certain content...so rewrites, and story changes all have to be thought out. I think why developers don't care about the story has nothing to do with not wanting to make a good story...it has to do with getting the game up and running, getting in all content and making the game FUN. Most titles are developed in 1-3 years these days. Trying to stuff a complex story that works in the design of game, not just CG cinematics tacked on between load times, is just not possible for most developers that are under pressures from the publisher.
VorpalMonkey @ Sep 3rd 2006 1:39AM
I believe the problem lies not with the developers, but with the nature of games themselves. If you want to a game to be an engrossing, immersive, and interactive experience, it cannot have a story in which you explore the character's feelings.
What I mean is this: in order for the game to be extremely interactive, the player has to be the catalyst for change. He has to be the one who blows up the enemy base, or defeats the evil aliens, or whatever. That really doesn't translate well to a character driven story.
For instance, the (supposedly) greatest movie of all time, Citizen Kane, has an excellent main character with interesting development. However you can't translate this to a game well. I can see it now! Citizen Kane: The Game! Make decisions for Kane! Be careful not to run out of money, but don't let your corruption meter get too high!
Many people will point to adventure games like Grim Fandango as having an excellent story, and don't get me wrong, it does. I love that game. But, all it really is is a big movie where you get to control the character at certain key points to get him to the next chapter. You really had no effect on the story points that were great.
Another great example of this is Indigo Prophecy. It attempted to have an interesting story in which the player controlled the character, and his actions seriously affected the later game. But even this got bogged down in poor minigames that just felt added to increase the play time (anyone else remember having to find the wine glasses?).
The reason games fall back on aliens, nazis, and zombies is because the player can kill these without remorse. This allows the game designers to create fun gameplay.
Admitedly there are games where the bulk of the game is not spent in the killing of creatures. Prince of Persia comes to mind. The killing was only secondary to the platforming. Puzzle games also have no killing.
Regardless, I can not think of a single situation in which a character driven story could be told, that would also have fun gameplay that made you really feel you WERE the character and you were making these decisions.
It really all boils down to the fact that you can't put "Character Development: 100 pts" on an objectives list. Games, not game designers, are stuck being Romantic because of how hard it is to interact with the soul. The best we can hope for is a great story involving things we don't mind killing. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it is possible to create a game where you interact with characters to develop your own, but I don't know how.
Bombsy @ Sep 3rd 2006 1:43AM
MthdDirector makes a good point *without* sounding like a dick.
mercatfat @ Sep 3rd 2006 1:43AM
She's no Ilsa: She-Wolf of the SS, that's for damn sure.
Alex P @ Sep 3rd 2006 2:01AM
it seems like you can have fun gameplay without a story, but you can never succeed in making a game with a great story and no gameplay. So when it comes to push and shove, I'll take the game that is fun to play, even if it has John Madden going on a quest to take revenge against the Nazis for burning down his village.
But at the same time, yeah, I agree that game stories could be better. I also think that a lot of movie stories suck. Can we just agree that a lot of stories kinda suck? That's not a bad thing though, it's more like an oppurtunity...to not suck.
socrates @ Sep 3rd 2006 2:32AM
Brad is right that those types of villians show up due to the single-person-power-inflation of many games, but he is just wrong about Romanticism. (not really his fault that Joystiq put his comment up as a post, which is going to cause more criticism than it would otherwise be due).
It is true that, in FPS or 3rd-person single character games, villians tend to be either super-powered (and thus aliens, or mutants...it is strange robots don't show up as often as these two. why isn't there a modern, epic FPS that rips off Terminator/Matrix and has ridiclous looking robots as the enemies? this needs to happen) or super-evil (is there anyone more sterotypically super-evil than the Nazis?). This is fairly obvious and fairly unsurprising - in those games where you *are* one character, they make it feel more dangerous, and thus make the gamer feel more powerful. So, Brad is right there - but that has absolutely nothing to do with Romanticism.
Quite the opposite, really. While these single person games serve to prop up the male ego by trying to make the player feel more powerful,; pitting the human versus non-human yet thinking entities...Romanticism was an artistic/philosophical movement that sought to achieve the opposite. Philosophers such as Schelling rejected the human supremacy of reason that Kant represented, and flipped Kant on his head: the world did not comport to our mental structures, but instead the task was to figure out how we could ever come to gain even glimpses of the sublime infinities of earth and substance that lay beyond us. The "dark = evil" interpretation is incredibly wrong; Romantics, particularly German Romanticism, saw the poetry in art (talking more about *poesis* than strictly poetry) as a means of illuminating the dark mysteries of the world and nature. Reason and power could not penetrate the self-retreating nature of earth, but instead the creative force of art could access the same fundamental universal genius that provides the basis for all existence. Darkness was not at all evil; it was an attempt at poetically making a connection to the sublimity of earth. This is why Romantic composers preferred instrumental pieces over vocal arrangements (a large reversal in the music world); the swells and tones of instruments better simulated the swells and motions of the natural world.
Thus, the essence of Romanticism actually runs quite contrary to the story of most of the types of games we're talking about here. If you're just looking at art style, then other genres are more important influences. High Gothic probably has a bigger aesthetic influence (most id games (esp. Quake) are extremely Dutch Gothic)...Industrial, Dadaist, and Cubism also have large roles.
I didn't mean to rag too hard on this point, I'm just a dork about such things. I still like Brad's overall point (even though I disagree that the influence can really be laid at the feet of the Romantics): that there is a lot of room for innovation** in terms of artistic style (not that most video games *are* an art form, per se - that's a whole other topic). I mean, I can think of only one game that has ever had an expicitly Impressionist design (Chrono Cross, and that was just one area). Designers should look into alternatives to the darker/moodier way of approaching sci-fi and fantasy...and realize that there are non-kid-cartoony ways to do games that can still be epic and moving.
**(wait, there's a kind of innovation beyond crazy controller designs? I thought graphics didn't matter? heh, just kidding)
Moe A @ Sep 3rd 2006 2:38AM
Overall, there have been excellent points made throughout this discussion. But it goes back to Brad's post. One of the largest problems is game development. Game development is getting more and more expensive and complicated, meaning that developers need to spend more time and more money to create games. MthdDirector explained the writing process quite well. As is, developers are already working constantly to get games out on time, and if you're a gamer, you know how often games tend to get pushed back. Now factor in the problem of integrating the gameplay with a good story, and the development process takes longer and costs more, something that publishers don't look fondly upon.
Whether we realize it or not, these 5 year cycles of graphical updates along with more complicated hardware are helping to amplify the problem. It's funny how the technology gets better but the games still stagnate.
jarvi @ Sep 3rd 2006 2:39AM
"I'll take the game that is fun to play, even if it has John Madden going on a quest to take revenge against the Nazis for burning down his village."
They are saving that feature for Madden 08.
jarvi @ Sep 3rd 2006 2:45AM
We are hitting the point of Graphical Diminishing Returns. People need to put out a major amount of work for a minimal output to get the bleeding edge graphics. In the old days, the SNES was out. When the N64 came out, it was AMAZING. "Holy god, 3d! Look at that!" And Designers said " I can do cool stuff with this...." and genre's such as the 3d platformer, etc was created.
We, as gamers, need to face the fact that Games may never look better than they currently do.
Or if they are going to look better, they will be much MUCH more expensive.
By that same idea, you can see why it is very possible for Next-gen DVD's will fail . Put a VHS and a DVD next to each other, it's night and day. Put A DVD and Blu-Ray? Much harder to notice details.
Designers are going to have to look outside of graphics ( In terms of the " Quality" of their graphics) to make new, interesting games with an aestheic style. Look at the new PS2 game based on japenese caligraphy- amazing game, not realistic graphics.
Basically, Graphics will soon become a moot point, and gamers ( and designers) will have to look for other ways to innovate. Perhaps the control scheme?
I am sure someone will change that soon. :D
RadCap @ Sep 3rd 2006 3:02AM
'Nazi, alien, zombie horde' vid games are to Romanticism as Stephen King novels/movies are to Naturalism.
Put simply, the writer here hasn't a clue as to the meaning of Romanticism if he is attributing these types of games to the principles of romantic art. He has instead set up a flaming straw man in an attempt to smear the school of art which could in fact create great artistry in games.
Romanticism is the conceptual school of art. It deals, not with the random trivia of the day, but with the timeless, fudnamental universal problems and values of human existence. It is concerned - not with things as they are, but things as they might and ought to be. As such, Romanticism demands mastery of the primary element of fiction: the art of storytelling - which requires three cardinal qualities: ingenuity, imagination and a sense of dramal. All this and more goes into the construction of an original plot integrated to theme and characterization. These are elements that are not found in the types of games our ranter describes. Instead he tries to equate Romanticism with mindlessness or simplicity and some form of 'complexity' or 'moral depth' (ie conflicted, confused, ambiguous etc characterizations) with some form of unnamed but supposedly 'superior' form of art. This is as wrong as one can be when identifying Romanticism.
The distinguishing characteristic of the Romantic school of artists is their full commeitment to the premise of volition in both of its fundamental areas: in regard to consciousness and to existence; in regard to a man's character and to his actions in the physical world. Maintaining a perfect integration of these two aspects, unmatched in the brilliant ingenuity of their plot structures, the classic Romantic authors - such as Hugo, Dostoevsky, Schiller, and Rostand - as well as single novel examples, such as Sienkiewicz and Hawthorne - are enormously cocnerned with man's soul (his consciousness). They are moralists in the most profound sense of the word. Their concerns are not merely with values, but specifically with moral values and with the power of moral values in shaping human character. Their characters are 'larger than life' ie they are abstract projections in terms of essentials. In the stories of these exemplars of Romanticism, one will never find action for actions sake, unrelated to moral values. The events of their plots are shaped, determined and motivated by the characters' values (or treason to values) by their struggles in pursuit of spiritual goals and by profound value conflicts. Their themes are fundamental, universal, timeless issues of man's existence - and they are the only consistent creators of the rarest attribute of literature: the perfect integration of theme and plot, which they achieve with superlative virtuosity.
None of this is even remotely found in the types of games being described by the writer here who seeks to destroy the concept of Romanticism by linking it to the worst elements of that which he is actually ultimatly implying: Naturalism.
It is only the superficiality of the Naturalists that classifies Romanticism as 'an escape' or characterizes it as mindless or simplistic. This is true only in the very superficial sense of contemplating a glamorous vision as a relief from the gray burden of supposed 'real life' problems or moral relativism. But in the deeper, metaphysical, moral, psychological sense, it is art that is NOT Romanticism - it is Naturalism - that represents an escape - an escape from choices, from values, from moral responsibility - and it is Romanticism that trans and equips man for the battles he has to face in reality.
What Romantic art offers a man is not moral rules, not an explicit didactic message, but the image of a moral person - ie the concretized abstraction of am oral ideal. It offers a concrete, directly preceivable answer to the very abstract question: what kind of person is moral, and what kind of life does he lead? Thus Romantic art has a very strong emotional meaning for its audience. It is not abstract principles that one learns from Romantic art, but the precondition and the incentive for the understanding of such principles: the emotional experience of admiration for man's highest potential, the experience of looking up to a hero (or in the case of video games - BEING a hero) - a view of life motivated and dominated by values, a life in which man's choices are pracicable, effective and crucially important - that is, a moral sense of life.
Thus Romanticism is not 'easy', it is not 'simply', does not involve the 'use of cliches' in style. Most games don't even come close to Romanticism except in the most absurd stretch of portraying heroes against terrible villains. But from his description of what he seeks in 'great art or games, I seriously doubt he wants the richness that is inherent in actual Romanticism - which is why we end up with such a ridiculous characature of Romanticism instead. Smears of this type against romanticism merely reveal the intellectual and artistic second-handedness of author. It does nothing to actually describe the artwork in question and certainly commits an injustice against the only school which could produce truly great artistry in games. To paraphrase:
'If some critics actually took time to learn artistic theory, we would probably have better analysis. Until that happens, I expect to keep having to read second rate regurgitation of bromides that were old the first time they were misused.'
Matt @ Sep 3rd 2006 3:13AM
Then what about games with beautiful villainesses? They don't count?
Jay @ Sep 3rd 2006 4:23AM
>a game is a game. A story is a story. The 2 have nothing
>to do with one another. It is great if you get both in a
>single package but adding a super story to a bad game
>does not make the game fun.
It depends on the type of game...some games don't need stories. Some classic games put in backstories that didn't really have any bearing on the game outside of the instruction manual...you never saw cutscenes or anything like that...once you set the booklet down you set to work racking up a high score. But many games these days do try to work in a story as part of the game experience, and in those cases, the story and the game are not separate from each other...weakness in one detracts from the other, and it becomes vital that the story be a well-written one.
I will agree with you that a great story in a bad game doesn't make it a fun game though...I think it's agreeable to say that a good game with a bad story can be more acceptable than a bad game with a good story, but they're still both necessary. For me personally, a good example of the latter is Silent Hill 4: The Room. IMHO, compared to the other SH games, I felt SH4 had the 2nd-best story and atmosphere (a close second to only the original, which was amazing), but the gameplay on SH4 was by far the worst of all of them, and it was so completely horrid and frustrating that I couldn't finish it, even though I got most of the way through it. Story could not save that title.
ill trooper @ Sep 3rd 2006 4:39AM
A deep, character-driven mystery or adventure would require amazing A.I., which is not available. Every modern game that requires interaction with characters has only a few choices of what you can say or reply with. Even amazing games simply run cinematics when you're being told something - if you fire off a gun, the AI doesn't freak out and stop telling you something you need to know. Add this to ham-fisted, clichéd writing that I blame more on the writers limiting themselves to cater to who they perceive as a 'dumber' audience than a lack of writing skills, and you need to wind up with simple broad strokes for plots. I do, however, feel it's possible to have good plots in games.
It's going to be a dilemna if you stick to the traditional sense of a video 'game,' which primarily revolves around acheiving goals, something literature is not burdened with. I'm sure the combination of story-telling and story-making is going to get combined into something between video games and movies(read Neil Stepheson's 'Diamond Age' for an interesting take on 'interactives') but I don't think it's the end-all answer eliminating straight-up games or movies/books. Treating a book like a game, if you were allowed to change the course of a character in a book you were reading, you would likely opt to have them win at every adverse situation, avoid all pitfalls, and hence, miss so many great stories that stem from error and misfortune early-on in the story. The 'great tragedy' would always be avoided: look back on your own life, remember a situation you wanted to wind up opposite of what happened, and then ask yourself: Would you have met that hot new girl, gotten that new job after being fired, survived to be a better person, gotten a smarter new pony, whatever...
A nothing, open-ended 'anything is possible' sandbox that evolves into a series of choices and cascading consequences is simply too complex to create as of yet. Creating A.I. is simply too difficult right now.
Until this hurdle is overcome, It's always going to be easier to solve things with guns when you're playing against aliens or Nazis.
Jo-Beth Casey @ Sep 3rd 2006 5:12AM
Mr. Lee is wrong. Depictions in epic/adventure stories of dark, ugly, savage, cannibalistic enemies predate romanticism by at least a couple of centuries. The idea comes up for example in narratives about the exploits of the Consquistadors, and in early accounts of English settlers' conflicts with Native Americans.
The principal ur-narrative of the gunfight is the American Western, and it is in the themes and ideas laid down in the western that most shooter type games have their roots.
The violent action of the Western falls into two categories, which together comprise the basic action of almost all first- or third- person shooter type games such as Halo or Doom.
The first category involves a lone individual or small group facing down a horde of dark-skinned, cunning, often cannibalistic, ruthless savages. The sort of "cowboys and indians" situation depicted in movies such as Winchester 76 and Stagecoach, and before that in novels and sensationalistic news accounts.
The second category consists of an individual or small group moving through an area, usually a group of buildings or the interior of a building, and shooting it out with enemies who are often firing from behind cover or around corners. Examples can be seen in films such as High Noon, Gunfight at the OK Corral, and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. This type of shootout was also depicted before the advent of cinema in novels and news accounts.
Of course, both these types of action have their roots further back than the Western genre. The importance of the Western is that it popularized the notion of the gunfight (thanks to the development invention of the repeating rifle and the revolver), and it brought violent action to the center of the narrative.
Also significant is the idea of the "showdown", a forerunner of the "boss battle" perhaps.
So much for shooters. The RPG genre of course descends from the quest narrative, a genre at least as old as the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Odyssey, the big influence being of course fantasy literature, which has its roots in the chivalric tales of medieval times.
It worth noting that the enemies in RPGs are often animal-derived (dragons, giant spiders), as opposed to the usually humanoid enemies presented in shooters. Animal-derived monsters are more prevalent in quest narratives since these stories date back to times when it was not uncommon for humans to be menaced by wild beasts.
It is also worth noting that the monsters in RPGs usually attack singly or in small groups, which is the way monsters appear in most classic quest narratives. This as opposed to the "horde of bloodthirsty fiends" approach (cowboys and Indians, remember) of a shooter like Resident Evil 4.
Which is not to say that Romanticism is totally irrelevant to game culture (look at a character like Sephiroth, for example), but it is not a defining influence.
To address the issue of "real people facing real problems", no one is going to buy "Jules and Jim: the Videogame". No one. Games aren't about real people facing real problems. That's what art is for. Games are about excitement and diversion. Hence the zombie-killing, quest-undertaking, alien-shooting situation we have today. Also: what Vorpalmonkey said.
Donutta @ Sep 3rd 2006 7:15AM
The 'Grail quest' makes for an interesting video game experience. That's why developers stick with it. A linear, narrative-based video game that did not look to Romanticism will most likely be a highly boring affair. If not, it will often breed resentment. Video games are about choice, and we will never choose to fail as long as we still have a choice. And if we have no choice, then why wouldn't we just read a book?
It's not that game designers are stuck being "Romantic"; it's that snobbish Arts students/graduates are constantly looking to turn video games into literature. Remember, the key term in video games is not video; it's game.
Zaki @ Sep 3rd 2006 7:34AM
The problem with video game villains is that current American developers are having a hard time coming up with a contemporary villain. While it's tempting to depict Islamic fundametalists as bad guys, that would not be possible as it would've offend the typical Muslims who have their own normal lives and rights as their non-Muslim counterparts. In fact, since communism's fall, there is no more compelling villain of the current era that can provide true antagonism quite like the Russians. What we are left fighting against are just jumbled up cells of terrorist that have nothing to do with each other. You can say Al-Qaida, but I doubt they have any good, systematic structure or organisation the same way as the Russians or the Germans have.
So why are we falling back to ZombieAlieNazis? It's because they're not contemporary. They're easy to fall on as they provide good cannon fodder for us for no reason other than to be at the blunt end of our dammed up aggression.
If a game dev wish to avoid the ZombieAlieNazi cliche but still wants to do contemporary villains, how about this: Corporations are a good bet for villains as they usually care about nothing but profit & power at the expense of innocent lives. Or how about tyrannical regimes, those that oppressed their own people & wished to enforce their influence onto the world. Or create their own evil secret society that have an affect on world history since the early years.
Magallanes @ Sep 3rd 2006 8:45AM
I don't understand what's the point about this blog about the lack of history in the videogames because the development don't like to read books. The facts is there was not good books since 1950 (with some limited exceptions). Da Vinci code is a good book?. no. or harry potter... maybe a little. or some "self help books" or "talk about some conflictive matters, usually sex". For example sci-fi :asimov?, heinlein?.. exist games based in this authors. Or the best sellers :harry potter = a lot of games.. And such.
Videogames lack of history but almost all actual book too.