Can next-gen graphics hinder storylines?
In speaking with GamePro, designer Warren Spector (Deus Ex) explains how high graphic expectations can possibly hinder game story lines. "Hardware is not the solution to our story problems [in game development]," said Spector. "In fact, it may be that next-gen hardware is going to make it harder for us to work on story development and character interaction."
Spector believes that next-gen graphics require more attention, thus more time. That's time less spent on stories he says. "People expect a certain level of graphical quality, and reaching that takes time away from story elements." Right. But a focus on anything outside of stories will ultimately hurt plot development.
So even though most would agree that games on the whole have lousy stories, the question then becomes how important are stories to games? Light on story, heavy on gameplay? Vice versa? How about both? Mmmm. That sounds nice (when applicable, of course).
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
required @ Mar 8th 2007 6:33PM
a picture is worth a thousand words
Mr Khan @ Mar 8th 2007 6:34PM
I'm sorry, but no
If a dev is REALLY that worried about not having enough time to craft a good story because they're trying to get the Graphics Engine down, then they should hire a professional writer, tell them what you want in a story and turn them loose
Dracula Jones @ Mar 8th 2007 6:38PM
Exactly #2. I was going to say the same thing. I'm sure a good, dedicated writer or two on staff would solve this problem.
This is like saying movies are harder to write because you need to focus more on working with a better camera.
Miniboss @ Mar 8th 2007 6:39PM
@ 2.
Because that worked so well for Gears of War.
If you're making a game that focuses on telling a good story as well, essentially what you're doing is making both a movie and a game at the same time (provided you're doing cutscenes for your story portions).
Also, Joystiq, you might want to start putting in context to some of your stuff. He was talking about by making characters more realistic, you now have to focus on so much more to make the interactions meaningful. Whereas, you could get buy with a lot less back when Cloud had a big block o' polygons for a fist and he scratched his head to convey confusion.
CJC @ Mar 8th 2007 6:40PM
I'd say it really depends on the genre.
Racing/Sports: No story necessary
Puzzle
Fighting
Simulation: Totally up to the player.
Strategy/FPS
Action
Adventure
RPGs: Maximum, cram it in anywhere it will fit!
There we go! Naturally, it can shift, but I'd say that's the general order.
Author X @ Mar 8th 2007 6:40PM
Two words:
Phoenix Wright.
D2E @ Mar 8th 2007 6:44PM
The three most important parts of a game are as follows:
Gameplay, Storyline, Graphics
in that order. If one of those aspects is ridiculously high, they can slack off on the following one or two (following the above order).
i.e. Super Mario 64 is one of the most successful games ever. It had amazing gameplay, no storyline, and mediocre graphics. If a game looks amazing but isn't fun to play then there will be no point in playing... maybe itd be fun to show off to friends, but there would be no point point in playing...
radon @ Mar 8th 2007 6:48PM
Writers don't come cheep by any means, and hiring a team of writers could cause you to have to boot some Modelers or Animators. You can expect to spend about $40,000 a year per writer, and on a multi-year title this will really add up. Hence the problem, do you spend your money or Writers or Animators?, because unless your a studio with a bunch of AAA titles under your belt your probably not going to be able to afford to many from either group.
Evan @ Mar 8th 2007 6:49PM
I think realistic physics and AI hinder story lines. Old-school games often told the story through scripted actions that occurred within the game world. However, with new games, designers are discouraged from using pre-scripted actions in favor of letting physics-engines, AI routines, and procedurally generated worlds drive the game. However, physics engines and AI routines are horrible story tellers.
Judd @ Mar 8th 2007 6:49PM
D2E, Mario 64 was one of the first real 3D games.
For its time the graphics were incredible. And right now I'm playing Twilight Princess. I couldn't give a shit if the game looks last-gen.
steve17 @ Mar 8th 2007 6:53PM
i agree with #2.
it takes talent and dedication to make a game from a development perspective. on the other hand. there are tons of writers that could do a bang up job and you wouldnt have to dedicate any precious time towards it.
so they focus on the hard stuff and let other people work for them. not do everything yourself.
DarkNessBear @ Mar 8th 2007 6:55PM
Do people not understand that those that work on graphics are not ussually involved with the story or concepts?
Its just how you flesh out your team... you learn this in Elementary School. Jimmy you write the story line, Julie will paint the pictures and Carl you can get the paints and paper needed! Yay!
Killer @ Mar 8th 2007 6:58PM
Radon is right. I mean do we want games to go higher then $60. I know I don't. I wish it would go down, but fat chance of that.
ttoo @ Mar 8th 2007 6:58PM
Has anyone ever even heard of the Half-Life games....Great story, awesome graphics(for there generation), and amazing game play. Lets just all play the half-life series for the rest of our lives.
P.S. I wasn't serious in that second bit.
Tom @ Mar 8th 2007 7:05PM
There will always be games that excell in graphics more than others (like FPSs), while RPGs will have better stories, and yet other games (adventure and platforming) will tend to have better gameplay. Hence, there's something for everyone. Games that are able to capture 2 out of 3 usually get Game of Year and sell lots of copies, thus giving an incentive to developers to not concentrate on just one aspect. Duh.
required @ Mar 8th 2007 7:06PM
Evan brings up a very important point. Some people often get confused when they think of "next-gen" graphics. Realistic physics and AI are a key part of the picture as is audio, lighting, etcetera.
steve17 @ Mar 8th 2007 7:07PM
ttoo makes a good point.
lots of games pull off all three very well. while some games only pull off one and do OK but not super.
i think maby its a lack of dedication to a storyline. i dont believe graphics are ruining stories, its the developers who arnt putting in the time to make stories great. but other developers do.
its as simple as that. its either a lack of writing talent or lack of effort. both can be fixed if a story is a priority for them.
bgdc @ Mar 8th 2007 7:12PM
I'd say story and gameplay - speed, smoothness - always trumps graphics. I don't care about graphics. This goes for films too. I don't care about the visuals in 300 - just give me a tight story with great acting. The visuals are secondary to enjoying the product.
playclever @ Mar 8th 2007 7:15PM
All of my favourite games are heavily narrative-based. It's just what flips my switch. I prefer dialogue-based puzzles and texture in a game over pure play, but...
Games do not require a story.
Little Big Planet looks amazing, and it is the kind of game that will benefit from not having a story. Story is far from an essential element in gaming, and often it can be detrimental.
Still, there is a lack of appreciation for what narrative can bring to a game, and the recent focus on graphics and physics doesn't help.
In my view, hiring writers doesn't solve this fully. Narrative gaming will not move forward until developers acknowledge that character and plot development deserve to be integrated into games - they are not just filler, they are not there to create back-story. They are more important than that: They can *be* the game.
I want to see more games that create game mechanics around dialogue, that delve deeper into human nature in order to pose challenges to the player, that move beyond basic physical interaction with the game environment into something more.
In that respect, games have been gimped for years.
Jake @ Mar 8th 2007 7:15PM
Story isn't that important, unless it is an rpg or story dependent adventure game.
Gameplay > Graphics >>> Storyline
That is certainly subjective, though. If I were in it for the story, I'd be reading books.
Books have the best storylines.
Movies have the best graphics.
Games have the best and only gameplay.
I think I prefer games because of gameplay. Next is movies, meaning that graphics are secondly important. Way last is stories. The only books I read are non-fiction. I'm a geek, though.
AssemblyLineHuman @ Mar 8th 2007 7:21PM
A note: In this comment, I'm assuming you watched the keynote. Even if you haven't, the post will still probably make sense, but I still strongly recommend you give it a watch if you have any spare time. http://media.ps3.ign.com/articles/771/771268/vids_1.html
Now for the actual comment:
The pairing of that picture with this article gave me an interesting thought. I know Sony's Game 3.0 stuff is likely more of a marketing catch phrase than it is some sort of company philosophy, but it is a very interesting concept. Yesterday, Phil Harrison discussed "emergent gameplay," amongst other things. The Wikipedia article on the topic describes it as "the creative use of a game in ways unexpected by the game designer's original intent," but I think Harrison was using it a little differently, specifically in the context of LittleBigWorld. The game's entire concept is that the player can actively create environments from which gameplay slowly "emerges." An example of this would be the use of the cog attached to the wooden block as a sort of log-rolling game.
But why can't story in games be applied in the same way? Let's look back at LittleBigWorld. I think, through an actively involved community, stories can evolve in these sort of games just as gameplay does. Sure, the concept of a story may be a little more abstract in this sense; but given the freedom that this sort of game allows along with the ideal that we, as gamers, can use this freedom to create unique gameplay experiences, who's to say that we can't create our own stories as we go? When we share memorable experiences with friends in a unique way, I think we have, in a sense, created a story. Perhaps this is a little repetitive because I'm trying to fill in the gaps as I type, but the gist of the idea here is this: Just as LittleBigWorld has presented emergent gameplay as a quality that developers can strive for, games can, through their interactive nature, utilize "emergent stories" to make each experience unique.
playclever @ Mar 8th 2007 7:26PM
"Gameplay > Graphics >>> Storyline"
I would contend that gameplay is always number one priority, but that graphics and storyline are always relevant. Great gameplay is achieved through the utilisation of graphics and/or storyline - and with neither, there is no game.
you know @ Mar 8th 2007 7:31PM
ew jake, non fiction.... eeeeeew....
DBX00 @ Mar 8th 2007 7:33PM
In my opinion, great storylines keep the player engaged in the game. Twist and turns in the plot are what make me say, "I'll just play for another hour to see what happens next". I remember playing games like Resident Evil and Metal Gear Solid because they had that RPG style story that kept you engaged from the moment you started until the end. I definitely enjoy graphics (eye candy), but the gameplay is what keeps it challenging, and the story is what keeps you engaged.
Service_games @ Mar 8th 2007 7:33PM
My personal opinion... I think all game companies should hire professional fiction writers for their games (or non-fiction if the game calls for a more accurate representation). It baffles me why game companies don't put so much emphasis on story that it requires a professional writer.
SG
AoE @ Mar 8th 2007 7:34PM
@ttoo, while Half-Life is one of the better games out there... that's only when comparing the story to other video games, or perhaps big-budget action flicks. There's never been a game who's story/storytelling could be compared to say Dostoevsky's Crime & Punishment. Which is an extreme example to be sure, but honestly there are few games whose storylines reach the complexety/depth/characterization that even your average dime-store romance novel does...
Rubang B @ Mar 8th 2007 7:35PM
I'd go with a 70% Gameplay, 20% Storyline, 10% Graphics/Audio combo.
Gameplay >>>>>> Storyline >> Graphics/Audio.
Jon-Angelo @ Mar 8th 2007 8:11PM
I remember when I was in highschool playing Xenogears (not Xenosaga) for the PS1 until 3am, when I had my SATs the next day. I just wanted to see what was next, so, I kept playing. My point is, there are a ton of mech games out there (Xenogears had mechs btw), so, why can't the developers invest the time to craft a story like the one I found in Xenogears?
If you haven't played Xenogears then you probably don't know what I'm talking about, but if you have you might agree it could easily fit in with an action/oriented mech game like Armored Core, plus I just wanted to mention Xenogears lol.
mushiking @ Mar 8th 2007 8:12PM
yeah, cause mario has such great storylines.
FDude88 @ Mar 8th 2007 8:24PM
What about Final Fantasy Series? It had really good storyline.
Ben @ Mar 8th 2007 9:29PM
Yes it depend son the genre to a large degree, but I think we've been through the graphics versus gameplay arguments. Sure, they'll continue, but it's been proved that graphical intricacy doesn't harm nor does it make a great game.
With the current trend towards 'User Generated Content' and sandbox-environments I think the game design questions we should be asking are can game-players be game designers and in a wider sense is the push towards more and more User Generated Content a good thing?
http://gamenian.blogspot.com/2007/03/little-big-planet-and-user-generated.html
Fierce360 @ Mar 8th 2007 11:21PM
isnt there a team working on script and another working on gameplay and graphics?
mindg4m3 @ Mar 8th 2007 11:49PM
Wait, they are talking about adding story lines to games now? Because that is totally why i play games: because i am way to lazy to read a book.
dusty @ Mar 9th 2007 2:14AM
i was reading through the comments and i was thankful that there are more people interested in solid gameplay, and even a storyline, rather than graphics.
i think its very rare, in the world of gaming, that a game with superb graphics meets adequete gameplay expectations. pretty games are glitchy games, if you ask me, and solid games are mere polygons.
simple as that.
Saneless @ Mar 9th 2007 10:18AM
Psychonauts looked fantastic, as far as I'm concerned. Still had a kick-ass story.
It's not the graphics that cause the problems, it's the publisher focusing resources on graphics instead of good writers.
And then ultimately not knowing how to market it. Beyond Good and Evil is one of the best games ever made. It looks good, plays good, and the storyline and characters are f'in fantastic. Didn't sell worth a crap because UBI was talking about it like you were some dumb chick taking pictures of things. WTFG Ubi.
Sparky @ Mar 9th 2007 10:58AM
Post # 21 (AssemblyLineHuman) has it right:
This is not about a traditional movie plot or story you'd see in a novel.
This is about games changing the "story" based on how you play the game, in other words, this IS about Gameplay, and the critique that the industry is using more time and money to develop killer graphics rather than to develop improved AI and emergent gameplay.
Perhaps this is my biggest critique of the Playstation3 so far...
they promised not just killer graphics, but a profoundly different gaming experience as well. If developers would use the resources of the PS3 to deliver a TRULY new gaming experience, I would spend $600 on one immediately.
Ska Oreo @ Mar 9th 2007 4:24PM
@ ALH
That was beautiful man. Truly beautiful.
James @ Mar 10th 2007 10:47PM
I think you have to take into account the extra emotion you can pack in with better graphics -- look at the trailers for Mass Effect; I've never seen feelings conveyed so precisely in a game before. I think we left the time when the same people were working on writing and coding behind about a decade ago. As it is, we're just giving the writers more tools to work with -- if they take that as an excuse to cop out, that's not the technology's fault.