🔒 Locked

A Study in Contrast

Started by Landfish Sep 7, 2000 at 2:52 PM 25 replies 1.6k views

Original Post

Sep 7, 2000 at 2:52 PM

Everything anyone has ever said about the role of Story in Games is wrong. That goes for me too. Read this, and then you''ll see what I mean: A Role-Playing Game is not a game. There are two forces at work here. Game and Story. They ARE NOT OPPOSITE. These two forces both exist in pure forms; tetris and Fiction. Somewhere along the line, somebody mixed the two. We put a story around a game, or a game in a story, however you want to view it. What we found is that the game got better because it had a CONTEXT, and the story got better because it had a CHANCE OF FAILURE. I reiterate: They are not opposite. No gameplay ever gets worse because there is more story around it if the story is any good. No story ever gets worse if the gameplay is any good. This idea is a crock of shit; Geoff Howland drawing abstract connections between concepts because he feels it should work that way. Let''s try an example. An RPG is not a game. It is a game and a story; a story with games embedded in it; a game with a story around it. As much as I dislike Square, we will use Final Fantasy VII as an example because most people are familiar with it. Take all of the combat and statistics out of FFVII. What''s left is something like a movie or a book. What you took out is the game. You complete the game by defeating the final boss. This causes the conclusion of the story. Game and Story are still not the same thing. They are still not opposites. They are symbiotic (if you don''t know what that means, go read a Spiderman comic...) Now, you can certainly have varying degrees of game/story ratio! For example. Tetris: Game 100% Story 0% Tetris is a Game. Quake III: Game: 99% Story: 1% No Story doesn''t make it a bad game. Game and story aren''t related like that. Without a story, it does lose the CONTEXT, which made it somewhat more interesting to play alone or for long periods of time. Ninja Gaiden: Game: 82% Story: 18% Took a simple side-scroller and added cinemas between levels. This made the game more interesting by adding a CONTEXT. Or, you could say that it made the STORY more interesting since you added risk of Failure. I know that''s not really what they were thinking, but a game COULD be written that way. Final Fantasy VII: Button Smashing: 20% Story: 80% Here''s where the shift really happens. RPGs are usually considered Stories made more interesting by games. The game provides a risk of failure, but the purpose of running the application is to experience the story, augmented by the games. Crime and Punishment: Game: 0% Story: 100% This is a narrative. You finish it. You don''t beat it, succeed or fail. This doesn''t really change anything. The game still needs to be a good game, the story needs to be a good story. If it''s straight game, no story. Straight story, no game. Making good Gameplay is an art of it''s own. Making a good story has long been it''s own art. Making the two work together in a way that''s beneficial to both, that''s called the Art of making Video Games (read: not "games"). ====== "The unexamined life is not worth living." -Socrates "Question everything. Especially Landfish." -Matt

Nazrix

Sep 7, 2000 at 3:06 PM

quote:
Original post by Landfish
Making good Gameplay is an art of it's own. Making a good story has long been it's own art. Making the two work together in a way that's beneficial to both, that's called the Art of making Video Games (read: not "games").

======
"The unexamined life is not worth living."
-Socrates

"Question everything. Especially Landfish."
-Matt

Yes, I feel much better about all this after reading this post. And to bring it all back to your original point about games needing writers, they need it not only for that good story as well as helping to make game & story work together...

(*delightful sigh*) All is well again in the mind of Nazrix. Now I can get back to actually working on a game err whatever the hell we decided to call it

Edited by - Nazrix on September 7, 2000 4:12:16 PM

Landfish

Sep 7, 2000 at 3:12 PM

Huzzah! Naz, thank you for understanding. I can survive metaphysically as long as one person understands what I''m saying.

Nazrix

Sep 7, 2000 at 3:14 PM

quote:
Original post by Landfish

Huzzah! Naz, thank you for understanding. I can survive metaphysically as long as one person understands what I'm saying.

No, thank you for clarifying. I don't think I could have gone to work today until I resolved this

"NPC's are people too!" --dwarfsoft

"`Nazrix is cool.' --Nazrix" --Darkmage

Edited by - Nazrix on September 7, 2000 4:15:07 PM

Wavinator

Sep 7, 2000 at 4:25 PM

quote:
Original post by Landfish

Everything anyone has ever said about the role of Story in Games is wrong. That goes for me too.

Hehe, this reminds of the illogical axiom "This statement is false."

quote:

There are two forces at work here. Game and Story. They ARE NOT OPPOSITE. These two forces both exist in pure forms; tetris and Fiction. Somewhere along the line, somebody mixed the two. We put a story around a game, or a game in a story, however you want to view it. What we found is that the game got better because it had a CONTEXT, and the story got better because it had a CHANCE OF FAILURE.

One of the problems I have with this is that it seems the more I have of one the less I have of another. Unless I have a plot that branches a bazillion different ways, and each branch is just as good as another, I can''t see how the essence of fiction, which is perfectly crafted linear storytelling, is parallel to complete player freedom, which might (?) be the essence of gameplay.

This is almost borne out it the percentages you''ve listed. In FFIV, you have tons of story but not that much game. In Quake you have tons of game but not that much story. This makes me see gameplay and pure fiction as opposite ends of a linked continuum.

You could convince me and become a personal diety with your own shrine here next to my computer

if you can show me a game that has 100% gameplay, and 100% story. I think then I could come to see them not as opposites in direct conflict.

(BTW, as a mental exercise, let''s add story to Quake 3 Arena and make it really matter...)

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

felonius

Sep 7, 2000 at 5:47 PM

I agree with Wavinator,

You can''t say that story and gameplay aren''t opposites although they are two different parts of the (video) game. Some balance must be chosen. Assuming that AI doesn''t get any better then making more of one shifts the balances making the other less prominent.

Game design is about choosing how to make the balance of the two (and choose to be a bit provoking) *opposite* forces. Although you can put more in of one without removing any contents of the opposite you will shift the balance and the player will use more time on the one than you added some to.

In other words the players time must be devided by some relative measure - and I think that that is what Lnadfish did in the first posting. Everything summed to a 100% and that was a percantage of the players time in front of the screen. How much of the time was he/she *active* in the game (gameplay) or *passive* in the game (listening to a story).

I think, though, that you can measure each side with a some absolute value. Not of the time it takes from the player but in quality. This is actually what reviewers do when they judge games. I have seen some that judge gameplay separately. They could judge the story too, if they wanted to.

So we must choose a balance and then focus on making the quality of the players time we use on story and gameplay as good as possible. This does not mean that we should add more content, which use more player time (unless we do it for the other side too so we avoid shifting the balance we choose) but we should make that content that there already is in the game better, so the player has more fun when playing.

This is what Wavinator talks about. Getting a score of 100 in both gameplay and story. This says nothing about the balance in time just that both parts are hugely fun.

Jacob Marner

ahw

Sep 7, 2000 at 6:08 PM

Woohoo ! very nice thinking here

OK, then. So I''ll just second Wavinator and ask you, why does it feel to me that you have a balance between the two, and not a simple addition. Why do they seem to be complementary ?

What is a story ?
and what is a game ?

What does a story brings to us ? (I ahve kind of found my little conclusion for games, but here ... I can''t understand)

Oh, just one more disturbing thought that occured to me :
"
-So what makes you play a game ?
-well, good gameplay !
"
play game, game play , d''uh ?!

nazrix :
LMAO

There is a word for the kind of questions I am asking : Philosophy. But we have a more common expression in french : "enculage de mouche" (you could translate as "to take flies up the ass").

But anyway...

youpla :-P

Anonymous Poster.

Sep 7, 2000 at 6:12 PM

There have been many games that do just this, Wavy (Gravy. . .*heh*). (100/100 split that is) I haven''t played them, but Half-Life and System Shock are supposed to, some of the better crafted RPG''s do. I won''t bother giving a list of titles, I''ll just say how you can do it: Have the player _play_through_ the story. Don''t have cut-scenes. Don''t pull away from the action. And why not? Current technology can handle it.

And Landfish- yup. Thanks for stating it so clearly. Through these story v. gameplay threads, I think this is the little thought that''s been gnawing at the back of my brain.

Another thought- I actually like some of the earlier Final Fantasy''s. Why? Even at the time, I was fully aware that the game play sucked, but what kept me going was that I had the ability to actually partake, in however limited a fashion, in an epic 60-hr. cartoon, however limited the quality. Now, if someone were to ''juice up'' both sides of that equation: *YOWZA*, or something to that effect.

To express it mathematically, these two attributes have a positive (as opposed to inverse, as most here would maintain) relationship. One boosts the other, and both work in gestalt fashion to increase the whole. Right. . .

So if you only need one person to secure your metaphysical position, how many does it take before you start having delusions of grandeur? I just hope I wasn''t the pebble that started an avalanche. . .(oh what would the neighbors think?)

If you see the Buddha on the road, Kill Him. -apocryphal

ahw

Sep 7, 2000 at 6:24 PM

Anonymous poster : wooh, you might jsut be right on those examples, though I won''t agree with Half Life, I played it, loved it, but please, don''t mix "creation of an atmosphere" with "good story". On the other hand ... system shock ... aaaaah, that might just be it.

LF : I just forgot something : You jsut justified the creation of a Story making forum, IMnsHO. I think you clearly explained it, and made the two components : story and gameplay (we have to ome up with a better word than that) much more important as music and graphics.

*excellent*

---
Let''s start a war said Maggie, one day.

Nazrix

Sep 7, 2000 at 6:37 PM

ahw,
Yeah, I generally like carefully analyzing things, and asking such questions. I was fearful that we were getting nowhere fast. I guess I''m a little extra impatient today

I have yet to play System Shock, but I think that Thief did a pretty good job at balancing game play and story and also making them work together. I don''t think it''s quite 100%/100%, but pretty close.

I especially like the way they made game play and story go together. They allowed you to overhear pieces of the story along the way rather than giving you a bunch of text to read. They also allowed you to read notes lying around occaisonally. This allowed you to experience the story within the game. Plus, the cut-scenes were cool, and didn''t interupt the game.

And, of course, the gameplay itself was quite inovative.

Wavinator

Sep 7, 2000 at 7:18 PM

Okay, Half-Life and System Shock are excellent examples to chew on.

Now, I may have a very narrow interpretation of story, but I believe what ahw said about HL applies to SS has well: Both of these games had *excellent* atmosphere, and that''s not the same as story. (Or is it?)

I guess when I think of story as it applies to a game, I expect it to be something I can play *in*. That is, something that I can affect, just as I can objects and enemies in the rest of the game.

I''d classify both SS and HL as 75% gameplay, 25% story. In both, you mostly interacted with the level (combat, navigation and object use, mostly); then you stopped to watch a scripted senario (the ghosts in SS, or the game events in HL). I didn''t see you really being about to interact with the story all that much.

BTW, I thought the story in both was mediocre. SS was probably better than HL, but both would never end up on a best seller list. (I do believe they were better than anything we''ve had to date... but that''s different.)

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Landfish

Sep 7, 2000 at 9:29 PM

Doh. You''re right, I was contradicting myself more than a little.

The percentages were referring to time spent, not quality. It''s my belief that length has nothing to do with quality, if anything, brevity does. (take that you 300 hour RPGs) If you have 99% game and 1% story, that 1% had better be damn good if it''s going to help the 99 at all. Hence my original call for better writing in the industry.

I''ll be happy if I can just get you all to agree with this: An RPG is not a game, but a reference to the vessel which holds the game in the context of a story.

Wavinator, if you accept the above statement, you will not be conceding. If you consider the most important aspect of the "game" part of an RPG to be Gameplay, I whole-heartedly agree. If, however you say that gameplay is the most important part of the RPG in general, I can have an army of angry Square fans banging down your door in no time.

Wavinator

Sep 7, 2000 at 11:36 PM

quote:
Original post by Landfish

I''ll be happy if I can just get you all to agree with this: An RPG is not a game, but a reference to the vessel which holds the game in the context of a story.

Urghhh? *scratches head, pounds club against ear* OK, an RPG is a name for a thing that is both game and story? Therefore they''re inseperable... am I following you?

quote:

Wavinator, if you accept the above statement, you will not be conceding.

I''m totally cool with conceding,

but I''m not sure I completely follow.

quote:

If you consider the most important aspect of the "game" part of an RPG to be Gameplay, I whole-heartedly agree. If, however you say that gameplay is the most important part of the RPG in general, I can have an army of angry Square fans banging down your door in no time.

*buys a shotgun, lots of nails, lumber, and a hammer...*

I have got to get a friggin'' console! I knew there was something mystical about Square games when a coworker could eerily recount all the details of a Chocobo dance...

PC CRPGs are my game of choice. When I played Fallout, Sentinel Worlds, Starflight, System Shock, or the the early Ultimas, I didn''t so much remember the story. I more remembered the object use, the exploration, the puzzle solving, the leveling up, and the combat. (IOW, the gameplay)

Now, I freely admit that I don''t understand consoles RPGs. I''ve heard the Aeris death reference that you made in another post mentioned time and again elsewhere. Could the rules and audience of the console be that different? If so, then maybe what I''m talking about applies only to PC CRPGs (heck, maybe it only applies to sci-fi CRPGs, I dunno!)

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Landfish

Sep 8, 2000 at 8:33 AM

Actually, I cannot stand Square. Especially FFVII.

Anyway, I think you''ve got it. Kindof. In all games with a relatively high ratio of story to game, the line between the two is very clear. When the boss is talking to you, that''s the story. When he attacks you and you fight back; that''s the game, becuase this part of the RPG has specific rules and a win/lose structure. You could actually just play combat or just view story, but the two would be diminished in quality without eachother. (that''s why we mix them.)

So in essence, when you say "the most important part of a game is GAMEPLAY." I say yes. It is. Many RPGs suffer from horrendous gameply in the "game" part", and hence people all but ignore the combat sequences, feeling that they are just an obstacle to the plot.

So an RPG, some select platformers, and the very rare shooter is something that can not be called just a "game". There are games IN it, but it is not itself the game. It''s more. Like Game + Story = video game. By that logic, tetris would not be a "video game" just a "game". Confusing, I know. Can we find some better terminology?

BTW, today is my birthday! Happy birthday Landfish!

MadKeithV

Sep 8, 2000 at 8:47 AM

Ugh ugh ugh. This is not a good day to be moderator here

Landfish, glad you spotted the contradictions in your original post. Yet, there is still one GLARING one:
First you say "Game and story are NOT opposite". I agree. They aren''t even related.
Then you go on to give statistics that are of the n, (1-n) type. Probabilistically, mutually exclusive events. I.e. Game and story ARE opposite. Do I have you retching yet?

Now, here''s my little heretical view.
You can make a game that''s a full 1 ( on a scale from 0 to 1 ) in the game department, and a full 1 in the story department. This will be called a story game. When you start, there is no story. There is only a game. The way you play the game develops into a story. This story is based around you.

THIS is 100% pure, unadulterated roleplay. This is what we used to hit on every now and then in our RPG club when it was still around. This is rare, hard, weird, new...
but not impossible.

The story is interactive, a living entity, something growing and wallowing around you, something beautiful, ugly, painful, blissful...

Give me one more medicated peaceful moment.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.

ahw

Sep 8, 2000 at 9:23 AM

MAdKeith : LOL

The holy Grail of P&P RPG, the ruleless games. It exists, I played it !

But, did you notice that what we so hardly try to do, kids do it naturally, and everyday ?

MadKeithV

Sep 8, 2000 at 9:30 AM

Yes, I have noticed, and I think it attests to the wonderful complexities of the Human Brain that we still haven''t figured out how to do this with a CPU.

I''m trying to do this, now that I know what I''m aiming for. I''m aiming for a new kind of interactivity, based on story, and not on whacking.

Give me one more medicated peaceful moment.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.

ahw

Sep 8, 2000 at 1:45 PM

A computer is just a *tool* taht we create to compensate what our brains can''t do; just like a sword is an enhanced nail (or claw for that matter), a hammer is an iron fist, etc

now can we make a tool more efficient than its natural model ? And given the fact that the brain is probably the most difficult organ to simulate/emulate, and the fact that not all things that we create really can do better than their natural counterparts (I think about wings vs planes as I say that), I really wonder for the future of AI

youpla :-P

Ratheous

Sep 8, 2000 at 3:20 PM

The question is, I suppose, do you truly want 100% gameplay and 100% story, rather then 50% game and 50% story (a perfect balance between the two). What I mean to say is that to have the CRPG entirely game and entirely story simultaneously, the gameplay would have to BE ''writing the story'' as you go along, based on what the player does.

The obvious problem with this is that the player can''t write the scripts for all the other characters in the game as well as his own and still have things to discover/overcome - thus no challenge, no game. That only leaves the designer to cover every possible action the player could ever possibly imagine taking, and build them all into the game. Why hasn''t anyone done this yet?? Couldn''t be simpler.

... Isn''t it our dissatisfaction with this situation that often motivates us to become developers in the first place? The perfect game doesn''t exist?? Fine then, I''ll create it myself!

Anyway to *completely* meld the two, the story would have to be dynamically rewritten as the game progressed in response to the player''s actions. The current state of AI technology isn''t up to the task, and if we could build it, then what computer could run it in real time? Maybe we can ship an entire development team with every copy of the game to manage the gameplay and content on demand.

What''s the middle ground? Ah well, no one said life would be easy...

____________________________________________________

"Two wrongs do not make a right; it usually takes 3 or more."

Buster

Sep 8, 2000 at 3:27 PM

Pac-Man: Game 100%, Story 100%

Topic Locked

This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.