| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (16)

Posted: Feb 21st 2008 5:12PM Crono141 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I thought these people were supposed to be professionals.
Reply

Posted: Feb 21st 2008 5:34PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think that because gaming is such a diverse medium, you'll always see a bunch of childish bickering and senseless banter when it comes to subjects such as "gameplay vs story". Inevitably, someone will bring up Bioshock as a great example of story with slightly flawed gameplay that is given its cred more for the story.

But when you have shit-flavored bubble-gum fluff Boogie Bunnies being released around the same time as epic and beautiful Lost Odyssey, you can see the disconnect that the above panel is dealing with in the gaming industry.

It would be like putting Wes Craven, Michael Bay, Steven Spielberg, and Alfred Hitchcock into the same room and having them talk about story vs. special effects vs. suspense vs. direction techniques.
Reply

Posted: Feb 21st 2008 5:55PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
... the people mentioned in the article, or the guy who posted it on Joystiq without proofreading it?
Reply

Posted: Feb 21st 2008 5:45PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
are you talking about the developers or the typo-riddled blog post?
Reply

Posted: Feb 21st 2008 6:17PM Nigeria said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Don't be mean.

He tried his best.
Reply

Posted: Feb 21st 2008 9:58PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
he's not being mean, its sort of sad that a news blog this high of caliber could let so many mistakes go through, i'm sorry but this article is practically unreadable
Reply

Posted: Feb 21st 2008 5:37PM Friend said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think there's room for both story shooters and popcorn shooters. I don't want every game I play to turn into Bioshock or Mass Effect, because a: I can only take so many 'amazing' 'compelling' stories a year before going insane, and b: the more you flood the market with anything, the more likely you are to find an abundance of crappy imitations.

As for Story VS game play: you need a balance.

Games with no story CAN be supplemented with gameplay. Games without gameplay CANNOT be supplemented with story. If you give me a game that says "Hey, you're a ninja and you need to kill some dudes because that's who you ARE." and leaves it at that, as long as it has good gameplay, I'm going to have a blast. I like ninjas. I like killing dudes. If the gameplay allows me to do that in a fun manor, then I need no further motivation.
The reverse is NOT true however. I don't care HOW good of a story you can cook up about honor and lost loves and dynamic characters who have depth and souls as they chop dudes up; if your gameplay is unplayable or bland, I'm not interested.

However, That's not to say good story is unappreciated or unnecessary. Mass Effect is a great example of where for the most part the gameplay wasn't great. It wasn't awful, but if it didn't have it's awesome story and compelling characters driving it along, it wouldn't have been worth a 10th what I paid.

Basically, in my mind, gameplay is always more important than story, but story can definitely bring TONS to the table.
Reply

Posted: Feb 21st 2008 5:40PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's simple. If you have a story worth telling in a game or if you build your game deliberately round a story then fine, tell a story as best you can and keep it as fun as you can at the same time. Trim off irrelevance, omit needless words and be done.

If on the other hand you aren't sure about a story, you don't want to have one or you just don't have the time or whatever then stick to gameplay and invent enough reason to just keep things in some sort of context if you can.

Portal without a story would still be great. The Club is creat. Goddamn Tetris is great. Sure, BioShock and HL2 are awesome too, but sometimes explosions and mindlessness are all thats called for and there isn't anything embaressing or even vaguely wrong with that.

The fact that it took a group like this so long to talk without getting anywhere is ridiculous and, while we're at it, who are these people? Tom Willits of id talking about story? People from unreleased game projects?

FFS. Ken Levine, Jane Jensen, Ron Gilbert, Clive Barker, Rob Yescombe, Tom Clancy, Doug Lombardi and Harvey Smith - THOSE are the people who should be leading discussions like this. Not unknown, unknowing rejects from the main lectures.
Reply

Posted: Feb 21st 2008 5:45PM erh said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Regarding photorealism and Karch's quote "If you want to tell a good story, it's only going to be possible when you think the people you see are real people. that's technology."

No, you don't need photorealism. Many animated movies (Miyazaki, Disney, Pixar) successfully tell stories and they certainly don't look real!
Reply

Posted: Feb 21st 2008 9:48PM Roxxorsmash said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm going to point out to you that movies are fundamentally different than video games, but I see your point and agree with you. Final Fantasy 7 is an example in which the characters are in no way photo realistic, but that doesn't stop it from telling a very compelling story.
Reply

Posted: Feb 21st 2008 7:42PM Mr Khan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Its a western developer's convention, after all, and they tend to equate greatness with realism

Groups like Insomniac, Incognito, and Traveler's Tales are noted exceptions, I don't like to generalize
Reply

Posted: Feb 21st 2008 5:55PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Who's the dumbass that let Dyack in? Games won't go the same way movies go, because it's just too broad, and the player has a distinct interaction with the game. Sure, there's survival horror games which kind of applies, but it still relates to the player. And imagine the clusterf*ck that the video game industry would be if the genre was called "science fiction." Couldn't that be 80% of all games?

When the Drama category is created, maybe SK can adapt "What's Eating Gilbert Grape" into a video game using the Unreal Engine 8.

Reply

Posted: Feb 21st 2008 6:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It sounds like they were confused over the difference between setting and story. A story has a setting and by and large a game benefits from one (Doom had setting and no real story to speak of).
It was a time of war...
Might work for a lot of games, but that isn't a story.
Reply

Posted: Feb 21st 2008 6:06PM Nigeria said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"If you want to tell a good story, it's only going to be possible when you think the people you see are real people. that's technology".

I don't think I agree this quote.

If the context was what I believe it to be - I think the gentleman was talking about graphics - then I don't feel people will ever get over the idea that they are interacting with graphics: there is a real lack of the human touch. There is a deadness about most characters and depending on the art style it can be tolerated by most gamers. But you, as the gamer, are constantly reminded – be it a stillness in the eyes or a irregular movement of the lips – that these are images created on a computer and not real people.

Of course, as I've previously said, it depends on the art style and form of the characters – those Pixar films being a prime example. But look at that Final Fantasy CG film: the hollowness throughout the picture. It wasn't just because it was a terrible film: we as the audience couldn't emphasize with any character due to the lack of humanness they each showed: a real deadness.

Or maybe I'm a Luddite.

I think I'm rambling. And slightly high. This made sense in my head.

...
Reply

Posted: Feb 21st 2008 6:18PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Though I think the gameplay mechanics of "Portal" added tremendously to its appeal, I think GLaDOS's dialog is what really set it apart from other games. That's just good writing.

Reply

Posted: Feb 21st 2008 7:39PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
HAHA! Saying that no one cares about COD 4 story is so wrong. Of course, a good number of gamers won't be able to tell you the whole story in detail accurately. But when you ask them what made this game so exceptional when compared to other shooter, you realize how much of the story elements come in account.

Apart from the usual astounding gameplay of the COD series, it is the setting and the storytelling (through 3 different characters), with events of incredible magnitudes, shown in simple but effective ways, and non-stop and mostly believable communications between your squad members that creates a real sense of "brotherhood" that gives the game such an amazing, if a bit short, single player campaign.

For most people, "All Ghillied Up" is their favorite mission, and this isn't because of the gameplay, it is because of the story that takes place in that level, and the stress and sense of vulnerability that comes of being "behind enemy line".

Well, I'll stop here, I think that my point is made.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW