🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉
Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
Nothing wrong with a good story.
/OFF TOPIC/ Shinkage, maybe you should tell everybody what the name means... from my search on it, I was hesitating between "Shadow of death", and "the other side of truth" ... guess I wasn''t too far.
quote:
Just noticed, my handle is S H I N K A G E not S H R I N K A G E. Please
Doh!!!! Arghhh!! Blast it, I do this all the time. I swear, if there was some RPG stat called "Chance to Correctly Pronounce Name: xx%" mine would be negative!
(You should have seen how I was mispronouncing Landfish''s nick... Lungfish, anyone... 
)Shinkage. Got it!
quote:
First off, yes, I''m am aware that designing the kind of game I would most like to see is, for all intents and purposes, impossible. That doesn''t mean it can''t be my "ideal" game.
K, just making sure.
quote:
Ok, now, you say that games such as Quake and Tetris give you a plethora of choices, such as what move to use, or where to put a block. What I don''t understand, is why you think these choices can''t exist just as meaningfully within the context of a narrative?
I think we''re finally close to understanding one another.
Just a hitch, tho'': If you can''t change something, you have no choice. I think what you''re talking about is a case of a game with a story in it. You can change the game parts, but the story moves you ultimately in the same direction. You play awhile, then you stop interacting and watch a movie or scripted sequence. There''s nothing wrong with this. Fallout uses this system. The problem I have with this varies to the degree that you can''t change your overall experience. If you''re stuck with playing the game parts without being able to impact the overall experience (story or setting), then you''re having two seperate experiences: one interactive, the other passive. However, if, like in Fallout, you can affect the overall experience (e.g., kill the Ghouls & take the waterchip vs. trying to find a common solution, etc.) then I think this is great. This is where branching plotlines comes in full.
quote:
There is no reason a game can not play through an epic story line and not provide the EXACT same gameplay mechanics you are evangelizing. Just think of the actual story as a sort of layer on top of the gameplay mechanics, and not something that is or should be manipulated by what you do in the game.
Okay, the devil''s in the details: What are you doing when you''re playing? At some point story melds with gameplay. Why are you killing Foozle? Who took the Sword of Slaying you''re looking for? Why are you breaking into the Dragon''s Lair?
If you have story completely immutable and seperate, then why is it in the game? If you say to motivate the player, or to give context and importance to his actions, then we''re back to square one: Making decisions which have no impact is pointless. You might as well be watching a movie and occassionally clicking your mouse.
quote:
I concede that meaning in games is in terms of the gameplay system. I suppose getting a sniper rifle can constitute a "meaningful" action in the system of Unreal. The extent of that meaning, however, is very limited. What happens when you die?
The enemy side gets the flag. You have to go out naked and find the Flak Cannon. Your rep goes down. The other side is one step closer to winning the match. Your tactical plans are ruined.
I think this is very meaningful and long term.
quote:
You keep on referring me to those links like if I read them I would be speaking and thinking differently. I did not read completely through all of them, but the simple fact is that I simply did not agree with what what they said.
Okay, I wasn''t sure because you''d made no specific comment / reference to them. This is some very sophistocated work, and I pointed to it because they''re the writings of some pretty smart people in the field. We don''t have authority figures (thank god!) but I think it would be foolish to ignore the expert work of people who have come before us. (If you''re gonna be a trendbreaker, at least be able to articulate what trends you''re breaking and why!
) BTW, if you know of any links that analyze this issue from your perspective I''d be happy to read them!
(I''m always looking for a well argued counter-perspective!)--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...
quote: Original post by Landfish
There was a Tetris Plus released for the playstation, and though it sucked, it had a narrative worked in.
The fact that it sucked wouldn''t have anything to do with the fact that story had no relation to gameplay, would it? I mean, c''mon! You''ve got to __WORK__ to make Tetris suck!
--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...
Author
I'll say simply that you aren't exactly the first to mispronounce my name here. Not by far...
Wavinator, I keep on reading through your argument and keep on failing to see your connection between how a completely linear plot can negatively impact gameplay. As long as the plot is well constructed and fitting to what the player is doing, there's absolutely no reason that it should be a bad thing. The actual gameplay mechanics aren't affected by it. Take Halflife for instance. I'll say up front that I don't think its plot was particularly interesting, and only somewhat well executed. It was, however, much more than had ever been accomplished in an FPS before that point though. The actual gameplay in it, however, was completely independant of plot. The only reason plot existed was to provide some sort of suspension of disbelief as to why you were blasting your way through hundreds of enemy creatures. My question is, would Halflife have been a better game had they removed the (obviously) completely linear plot from it? My thought is no...
Just because there is ONE element of a game the player can not affect, does NOT make that element bad. As long as there remain elements that can be affected that can stand by themselves, nothing is lost to elements that can not be changed. You seem to be operating under the assumption that there is some rule stating that EVERY aspect of a game MUST be COMPLETELY interactive, and this simply is not true. I see no evidence, either speculative or proven, that would indicate this.
That's just incorrect. Why might I be as well just watching a movie? Perhaps this statement is true if ALL the game contains is a linear plot with no interactive elements, but otherwise your conclusion is incorrect.
I have gathered one thing from those links you posted that directly relates to this debate, and that is that they all claim games are fundamentally non-linear. Actually, fundamentally seems to be a good word to use here. Looking it up, I get some good synonums--basically, mainly, primarily. Not one part of the definition, however, says COMPLETELY. And that is the point I am trying to make. There is no saying that a game need be COMPLETELY non-linear.
Edited by - Shinkage on September 27, 2000 7:36:31 PM
Wavinator, I keep on reading through your argument and keep on failing to see your connection between how a completely linear plot can negatively impact gameplay. As long as the plot is well constructed and fitting to what the player is doing, there's absolutely no reason that it should be a bad thing. The actual gameplay mechanics aren't affected by it. Take Halflife for instance. I'll say up front that I don't think its plot was particularly interesting, and only somewhat well executed. It was, however, much more than had ever been accomplished in an FPS before that point though. The actual gameplay in it, however, was completely independant of plot. The only reason plot existed was to provide some sort of suspension of disbelief as to why you were blasting your way through hundreds of enemy creatures. My question is, would Halflife have been a better game had they removed the (obviously) completely linear plot from it? My thought is no...
Just because there is ONE element of a game the player can not affect, does NOT make that element bad. As long as there remain elements that can be affected that can stand by themselves, nothing is lost to elements that can not be changed. You seem to be operating under the assumption that there is some rule stating that EVERY aspect of a game MUST be COMPLETELY interactive, and this simply is not true. I see no evidence, either speculative or proven, that would indicate this.
quote: If you have story completely immutable and seperate, then why is it in the game? If you say to motivate the player, or to give context and importance to his actions, then we're back to square one: Making decisions which have no impact is pointless. You might as well be watching a movie and occassionally clicking your mouse.
That's just incorrect. Why might I be as well just watching a movie? Perhaps this statement is true if ALL the game contains is a linear plot with no interactive elements, but otherwise your conclusion is incorrect.
quote: This is some very sophistocated work, and I pointed to it because they're the writings of some pretty smart people in the field. We don't have authority figures (thank god!) but I think it would be foolish to ignore the expert work of people who have come before us.
I have gathered one thing from those links you posted that directly relates to this debate, and that is that they all claim games are fundamentally non-linear. Actually, fundamentally seems to be a good word to use here. Looking it up, I get some good synonums--basically, mainly, primarily. Not one part of the definition, however, says COMPLETELY. And that is the point I am trying to make. There is no saying that a game need be COMPLETELY non-linear.
Edited by - Shinkage on September 27, 2000 7:36:31 PM
Shinkage,
Didn''t it suck in Half-Life when you couldn''t save the characters being attacked, when the scientist hiding in the bin didn''t get out and follow you when you had killed all the dogs, and when there was only ONE path to the surface.
Didn''t it suck in Half-Life when you couldn''t save the characters being attacked, when the scientist hiding in the bin didn''t get out and follow you when you had killed all the dogs, and when there was only ONE path to the surface.
Author
No, I don''t recall thinking it sucked particularly. Not that I would be against them having programmed the scientist to get out or making more than one path to the surface.
Perhaps I can bring the middle ground to the discussion here:
I consider a game with a solid, well-written, but entirely linear story, like a Tetris game with exceptionally well-rendered blocks and lovely backgrounds. You can''t affect it, it''s just "there", but it does make a difference in how you perceive the game.
A game with no story then ( and this is a big step for me ), would be like tetris with really basic blocks and no backgrounds. It''s the same game, and it''s still fun, but it doesn''t have the same "Ooooh!" value. That''s why HalfLife worked - it was just fluff, but no-one had ever spent that much time on the fluff in the FPS genre.
Plus, a story is probably more emotive and tightly connected to the game play... you might not be able to save the scientist, but it makes you feel that "if only you''d been that bit quicker, you might have helped him!". The story drags you in with PERCEIVED interactivity, to put that menacing stare on your face the next time you blast one of those aliens to kingdom come ( "THAT''s for the scientist, you bastard!" ).
Only, replaying the scientist scene will ruin the suspension of disbelief, when you find out that you really couldn''t have saved him at all, nomatter how good you are. So perhaps we should be talking about LIMITING replay, and not increasing it.
Also consider half-life with full story interactivity. You start the game, and manage to stop that reactor thing from exploding. End of game.
Not very interesting...
The Half-Life universe is built around certain events unfolding that you CANNOT prevent... it''s going to be very hard to find a way to make games that don''t have any "impossibilities".
People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
I consider a game with a solid, well-written, but entirely linear story, like a Tetris game with exceptionally well-rendered blocks and lovely backgrounds. You can''t affect it, it''s just "there", but it does make a difference in how you perceive the game.
A game with no story then ( and this is a big step for me ), would be like tetris with really basic blocks and no backgrounds. It''s the same game, and it''s still fun, but it doesn''t have the same "Ooooh!" value. That''s why HalfLife worked - it was just fluff, but no-one had ever spent that much time on the fluff in the FPS genre.
Plus, a story is probably more emotive and tightly connected to the game play... you might not be able to save the scientist, but it makes you feel that "if only you''d been that bit quicker, you might have helped him!". The story drags you in with PERCEIVED interactivity, to put that menacing stare on your face the next time you blast one of those aliens to kingdom come ( "THAT''s for the scientist, you bastard!" ).
Only, replaying the scientist scene will ruin the suspension of disbelief, when you find out that you really couldn''t have saved him at all, nomatter how good you are. So perhaps we should be talking about LIMITING replay, and not increasing it
.Also consider half-life with full story interactivity. You start the game, and manage to stop that reactor thing from exploding. End of game.
Not very interesting...
The Half-Life universe is built around certain events unfolding that you CANNOT prevent... it''s going to be very hard to find a way to make games that don''t have any "impossibilities".
People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
Shinkage,
Just a quick question: Do you play any games that have replay value? If so, which ones and why do you like them? If not, why not?
I thought I''d ask before I post anything else.
--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...
Just a quick question: Do you play any games that have replay value? If so, which ones and why do you like them? If not, why not?
I thought I''d ask before I post anything else.
--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...
Author
The only games I play with replay value are those that involve some level of real thinking. Anything like Quake or Tetris just simply gets real boring real fast for me. That whole "Gee this tunnel looks familiar" thing just drives me crazy.
Civilization II. That game I would play again and again for hours on end. Crazy replay value. The nice thing about that game was that the setup would be entirely different every time you played it (random maps and placement) so two different games could unfold drastically differently. As hard as I think though, I can''t recall another replayable game that I actually enjoyed the 10th or 20th time around.
Personally, I''d rather go through a game just once and really have an experience with it.
Civilization II. That game I would play again and again for hours on end. Crazy replay value. The nice thing about that game was that the setup would be entirely different every time you played it (random maps and placement) so two different games could unfold drastically differently. As hard as I think though, I can''t recall another replayable game that I actually enjoyed the 10th or 20th time around.
Personally, I''d rather go through a game just once and really have an experience with it.
Shinkage, I think I''m with you on that last statement...
I think it''s the "Save game/Reload" that brought out the interactivity weaknesses in the Halflife storyline - if that had not been possible, it might not have been so obvious.
Perhaps, all this talk of replay value works only for games that are simple, with no story? I''m thinking, a strong story-based game, that you can play ONCE, and then you have a really good book?
People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
I think it''s the "Save game/Reload" that brought out the interactivity weaknesses in the Halflife storyline - if that had not been possible, it might not have been so obvious.
Perhaps, all this talk of replay value works only for games that are simple, with no story? I''m thinking, a strong story-based game, that you can play ONCE, and then you have a really good book?
People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
