Storytelling in games.

I'm with this guy:

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2…gful-story.ars

Basically he's arguing that game developers should stop trying to tell meaningful stories and instead focus their energies on making the game-play fun.

That's not appropriate for all genres obviously, but I wish there were some modern shooters that stuck to the DOOM formula - no story, no cut scenes, small but intelligently designed levels which provide non-stop action with a simple yet fun game mechanic.

I don't wanna sit through 20 mins of cinematic which explain to me why I should care about saving yet another 2 dimensional 3D world, I just wanna shoot aliens with a shotgun already!

Somewhere in the dark of time, there was a thread that identified a few RPG axes, one was the gameist axis and another was the narrativist axis, and I think another was the simulationist axis. Maybe it was on the codex. We should do a 3-d survey of people's preferences. 0-1 on each axis and then plot it.

I think they both have their place. The degree to which one is prioritized over the other, however, is wholly dependent on the respective genre. The confusion starts when you run into hybrid games; Bioshock, for instance, had a great story that greatly added to the game.

But are there modern shooters which cut the crap and just make with the shoot shoot? I haven't been taking much notice of shooters lately but not even Doom3, Duke Forever, etc managed to come close to the originals game-play-wise.

Originally Posted by badmofo
But are there modern shooters which cut the crap and just make with the shoot shoot? I haven't been taking much notice of shooters lately but not even Doom3, Duke Forever, etc managed to come close to the originals game-play-wise.

The Serious Sam games are great "pure shooters" if you're looking for something that's long on killing and short on everything else. The original 2 games were recently re-released as HD versions, and imo they're still just as good as when they were first released. I haven't played the newest SS game yet, but I've heard it's pretty good.

On a side note: I'm really looking forward to Doom 4. The guys at id have said that they're "returning to their roots" with it in regards to gameplay.

Originally Posted by Thrasher
Somewhere in the dark of time, there was a thread that identified a few RPG axes, one was the gameist axis and another was the narrativist axis, and I think another was the simulationist axis. Maybe it was on the codex. We should do a 3-d survey of people's preferences. 0-1 on each axis and then plot it.

Look here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_game_theory


The main problem is, however, that there are different definitions of "fun".

Whereas shooter fans might be well satisfied with an "RPG light" like the ME series, others who have ephasis on social interaction interaction in games - like me - are left behind unsatisfied.

Personally, I think the ideal way to tell stories in games is to let the players decide for themselves when and how they want it to be told. As in, let them ask NPCs or read books when they're in the mood for story exposition. Beyond that, I want stories to be SHOWN - rather than rigidly told through a voice-over narrative or endless text.

The way games stand out is through interaction, and as such - I want stories to be interactive as much as possible.

Nothing wrong with a nice introduction to set the mood, but for pity's sake - don't drown the player in dialogue or text without asking for it. Don't make NPC interaction "mandatory" - and let the motivation to progress be more about expanding gameplay - than merely the conclusion to the story.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Personally, I think the ideal way to tell stories in games is to let the players decide for themselves when and how they want it to be told.

I agree. Ideally, a game shoul be like a menu card in a restaurant. From which you chose your meal(s) - and its parts.

EDit : Interesting comment (is it from one from here ?)

DragonTHC | about 12 hours ago | permalink
Here's my two cents.

I've been playing games since the atari 2600 came out. I can easily say there are two camps in gaming. Adults and everyone else. Now what I mean by that isn't meant to be condescending. I'm simply stating there are those who still prefer their games to be meaningless timesinks. There's nothing wrong with that if you prefer it. Anyone who claims that gameplay trumps story simply hasn't reached the point where they want their stories to be interactive. They may prefer to read or watch their content. That's fine.

Just because David Jaffe has made several games which can't tell a meaningful story doesn't mean there aren't aces doing just that even today. There are names in gaming which are recognizable in other media. Drew Karpyshyn, Tom Clancy, Karen Traviss, Kenji Terada, and others. These names are all connected with storytelling of the highest caliber. They have shaped gaming as we know it today.

My preference is far more for this style of gaming than a meaningless timesink. Without these and other fiction masters, games wouldn't be the same. Without Drew Karpyshyn, "Mass Effect" becomes "Zero Wing". I think Jaffe should stick to making the amusing timesinks and stop projecting his failings upon the entire industry.