To be clear, I'm separating this discussion off from whether the games are enjoyable, or how they happen to bring you pleasure in your gaming style.
Having taken a run at both RED DEAD and MAFIA 2, I think one can argue that they're not so much games as movies where you participate in the narrative and fill in the off-screen (sometimes quite boring) bits. Interestingly, I prefer games like, say BATTLEField bad company 2 or MODERN COMBAT, or particularly UNCHARTED 2, in that they obey the rules of good narrative structure -- that is, leave out the goddam boring bits. You lose a degree of freedom in theory, but do you really gain enough in entertainment or emotion investment to trade off for the pleasure of story clarity and momentum?
All games are hacking about in similar evolutionary space right now, but I'd say the Bioware model -- where one has at least the chance of winding up with different narrative outcomes -- is both what I prefer and what is more, for the lack of a better word "game-y". It's the most intriguing new model.
Sound off down in the usual place.
36 comments:
I sat down to play the demo for DEAD RISING 2 and found that it was just a lot of cinematic stuff for the first 5 minutes. I really wanted to try it out but I had to sit through the story. Now, it's a cool story, sure, but for a demo?
Oddly, I'm noticing that the enduring model for video games is the one where there's some kind of story that plays out and you finish, and THEN there's balls to the wall sandbox play with your buddies online or whatever. It's why GTAIV appeals to me, and why I think most people keep playing HALO and CALL OF DUTY.
I dunno. The first new game I bought in a long (i.e. years) time was Heavy Rain. It starts with the boring stuff, but it does help build character. After that, I would say it stays pretty tight to a solid narrative structure. And it definitely had an emotional impact on me. As a parent, the early scene where youare trying to find your missingg kid in a crowded mall... I mean, I know it's a game, but my heart was pounding.
But on the whole, I've always been a fan of the multiple endings option. Fallout, anyone?
I definitely agree that the Bioware model is a good one, since I've never been able to push my way through — as of yet, at least — The Force Unleashed, yet I've completed the stories of KOTOR I and II several times. I've also completed Mass Effect I and II, as well as Dragon Age I and II, and I've enjoyed the fact that they had meater characters and stories...except for some aspects of Dragon Age II, since there was little/none in the way of romance plots.
I'd also add Heavy Rain to that list, as it's an awesome game, interesting usage of the controller, and has a nice depth of plot and character. It's also a game that you can play through, a lot, and end up with a different story numerous times.
Uncharted 2 was good, too, and it reminded me, in a good way, of Dragon Lair. It was a smoother Dragon Lair, with better controls and plot, as well as characters, but you knew you were going through a plotted arc with a modest amount of control.
Myself, I enjoy the games where I feel that I'm playing my character, even if it's within the confines of a scripted character; if I can name it, control its actions, gender, et al, then it doesn't bother me that it's within an arc. Sure, Uncharted 2 doesn't allow that, nor does Heavy Rain, but those are exceptions to this personal rule.
It's kind of like playing with the Kenner Death Star Playset, isn't it, except you don't get to be anyone BUT Mark Hamil.
Am playing Mafia 2, myself, but I have to admit, I'm bored with it. It's beautiful and atmospheric, but there's zero free-play to it, unless you want to steal cars and sell them or buy a pink suit.
In the same breath, I don't think Halo or CODx are that great, either. I won't include GTA because however rigid, there are enough mechanical variations to compensate for the lack of actual role-playing.
In that respect, it's hard to beat Fallout (although Bethesda's followon falls short of the originals). I'd much rather create my own character and play within a very loose narrative than re-create a scene from a movie I've already seen 20 times, though. Seems like either people really prefer the latter or there just aren't enough real RPGs out there to give them a choice.
Honestly, I like story in my game. I love story. Especially if it's well-executed story.
If the story's going to take up more than 5-7 hours of my life? It's highly likely I'm not playing the game. I've got too much other stuff to do.
(And I only started playing video games in 2004, so it takes me a lot longer to complete a level than most people. I don't have the eye-hand coordination nor the spatial recognition. Shoot, you should see how often I get lost in Portland, and I LIVE HERE.)
Surely it's massively dependent on the point of the game? No-one wants to see a movie where Indiana Jones walks down a load of dead ends on his way to the centre of the tomb, but for a game to have any feeling of reward for successful exploration there has to be space to get lost in.
It's also a matter of genre. An FPS restricts most of the conversations and character stuff to cutscenes, while an adventure game can be based around conversational choices, and whenever someone pulls a gun its in a non-interactive cutscene.
I could go on all day. Most of the time I do, as I write game reviews focusing on story for most of this year.
Full disclosure: Bioware could probably at this point make "Phone Book: The Reading" and I'd buy and play it.
Also, caveat: My opinion, not to be taken as statement of fact.
It does help that I care almost nothing about "story", that is, traditional plot; what motivates me to buy and play games is the same thing that motivates me to buy and watch TV or movies: the characters, and how they grow and change and interact with others. So the development of Shepard's relationships in ME and ME2, or the interactions with Lilliana and Morrigan in DA:O, or for that matter the choices made by the Vaultdweller in the Fallout games are what drive me to play (and often, replay) these games. I don't play puzzle games, and I rarely play shooters, because while the action is interesting, it involves a skillset (fine-motor dexterity) that I generally don't have. But I'll make exceptions for hybrid shooters like ME2, or the amazing worldbuilding and pseudo-characterization in Half-Life. "Sandbox" games like GTA and Read Dead Redemption and Mafia II just don't have the draw, because there's not enough development and growth for my investment of time.
I want to do all of the side quests in ME2 not because it gets me XP or improves my stats, but because it tells me something about my companions. Something more than "you have now turned this red part of the map to blue." If I want that sort of reward cycle, I'll play Civilization Revolutions (or, better yet, SMAC).
The importance of merging narrative structure with gameplay is something that I've been (unsuccessfully) arguing since I started working in the game industry.
Unfortunately, there's a strong push in the industry right now to do away with narrative altogether (for a good summary of that argument, go here: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/08/30/games-minus-stories/).
Combine that with the risk-averse, feature-driven nature of most publisher-funded development, the dire quality of most current game stories, the lagging sales performance of big-budget games, and the fact that many studios and investors seem to think that motherfucking Farmville is the future of game development... and, well. I wouldn't hold my breath for stories in games to get any better written, or better integrated with gameplay.
You'll probably see lots of games with Twitter integration, though.
I think the next big thing won't be any of the models presented but something closer to the model in Dwarf Fortress - procedurally generated games that let the player create their own narrative. I mean look at this game story. It's insane yet amazingly fun.
Whenever a game studio can create a game that merges the DF style of simulation with a playable UI and graphics, they will have a hit, especially if it can procedurally generate a narrative so that each playthrough generates a new story.
@Steve Um. I can see where that article is coming from, but I'm pretty sure I disagree; story (and character development) is why I liked Bioshock enough to play it through twice but only played Bioshock II as a rental for less than 4 hours and returned it almost immediately -- Bioshock was an interesting meditation on individualism and freedom wrapped in a moderately good FPS, while BS2 was a moderately good FPS that tacked on a lousy sequel storyline.
Arguably, as long as Bioware (and Bethesda, and Valve, and others) can produce interesting, character-driven story arcs that are integral to the success of their games, there will still be market for good games.
I agree with YOU, however, that it's entirely possible that the market will take the wrong lesson from the current game environment and games will get worse, not better, by excluding character and story (or by continuing to produce absolute crap).
Thanks for giving me an excuse to ramble about video games! I love rambling about video games!
I agree that Uncharted 2 manages to achieve the most successful movie-like feel of any game I've played recently. It's pretty much wall-to-wall action set pieces, with good character-building dialog in between. This goes a long way toward making up for how linear it is. This is a good model to follow for this type of game, but not for every type of game. At the end of it, I felt like I had just watched a really fun movie, but I didn't feel like it was collaborative art. It was definitely something that was presented to me, and I chose to experience it rather than participate in the creation of it.
Compare this with the above-mentioned Mass Effect franchise, which has really struck a great balance between game depth and narrative detail. The world-building here is so meticulous, I feel like the universe already existed, and the game creators and I are working together to create a unique experience in this world. By the end of the game, I felt like I was in complete control, but also like I had experienced exactly what the game's makers intended for me to experience. That is the mark of a great narrative experience, in my opinion.
Now that I think about it, there is almost as much random open world stuff to do in Mass Effect as in medium-sized sandbox game, but all of it is laced with tiny moments that contribute to character development, even if it's just a conversation in an elevator. By the end of each Mass Effect game, I really felt like I KNEW these people. When a game relies on its narrative as a main draw, that is really the ultimate test. Do you know who these people are? Do you care about what happens to them? Even if you don't like them all, do you understand them all?
Let's apply that last test to one of my favorite narrative experiments in all of video game history; Ico. Ico is one of my favorite games for a plethora of reasons, but what immediately struck me was how it built a rock solid emotional connection between the player and the characters, but did it almost completely without context. Not a very long game, not very difficult, and it has almost none of the trappings we have come to expect from video games in general. Not only that, but it's one gigantic escort mission, and escort missions are one of the most reviled video game tropes around. To me, Ico is a beacon of developer confidence backing up a solid design philosophy. Practically a silent film, told purely in visual language, and yet I found it as emotionally exhausting (in a good way) as any of my favorite three hour epic films.
So, yeah, a bit of a ramble. Just scratching the surface of this discussion with three very different games that use three incredibly different approaches to create three types of satisfying narrative. I really love watching the way the language of film has influenced the language of video games, and vice versa.
Mass Effect 2 has been one of my favorite games to play. I loved the game play and the story line. The best part was also how parts of the story changes depending on choices you have made throughout games one and two.
My boyfriend and I played Mass Effect differently from each other and I loved watching the differences in our characters (especially cause mine was female).
When it came to Red Dead Redemption, I liked the game, but stopped playing about midway through. It was something that held my attention too long because there was way too much downtime in the game.
I found Red Dead Redemption's story aspect somewhat frustrating, especially during the boring middle section in Mexico.
You're running around doing missions for opposing forces. Neither side comments on the fact you're doing this. Marston never hesitates. Everyone keeps blackmailing you with the promise of information for the completion of a task, then not delivering.
After the eighth or ninth 'Just do this for me and I'll tell you' fakeout, I was that frustrated that I could care less if this family I've never seen lived or not, and wondered if it wouldn't be just easier to *search* Mexico myself, since I was single-handedly starting a revolution anyway.
I started getting frustrated because I was supposedly being given free reign, but was stuck playing an increasingly stupid character, continually making the same mistakes and expecting different outcomes: Red Derp Redemption.
It could be worse. I kept wanting to smack Alan Wake on the back on the head for being an unredeeming moron, and a terrible writer to boot.
In principle I'd agree with you, as I was never a fan of the sandbox thing. If you have something interesting to show me, or for me to do, don't make me drive ten minutes to get to it. Life's too short, and I already waste enough of it driving in real life.
BUT - here I have to note that one of my three favorite games of all time is Shadow of the Colossus (incidentally, the pseudo-prequel to drave117's favorite Ico), in which you spend a massive amount of time alone, riding your horse through a barren, cursed land. And I wouldn't cut out a minute of it. In fact, I'd cut down on the demon's monologues so there could be more riding. It's beautiful, haunting, and a big part of what the game is (which is a masterpiece).
So I'd argue that you're presenting a false choice. The 'boring offscreen bits' are not a result of the sandbox design itself, but of it being done badly (especially in Mafia II, which is a bad game). Mass Effect 2 is quite a sandbox game in its design (most Western RPGs are), but it feels tight because it's a well-designed sandbox, and also the narrative accounts for it. It's also just well written, which goes a long way.
Uncharted 2 is of course the non plus ultra of linear games, and uses every trick in the book to impress, but games like that tend towards being exhaustingly up-up-up. Uncharted compensates with scripted breaks, but well-done sandbox games have natural down moments built in.
In the end, I'd say it depends on the story you're telling. If Mafia II had been a good game, I'm sure such a decade-spanning story would have benefited from a well thought out sandbox model. We'll see if that works when Rockstar's LA Noire comes out.
PS1 I don't like the GTA games, and consider them to be bad sandboxes. Many gamers would disagree with me. That's because my games (like yours, I think) need to have a point, a conclusion, and theirs don't. Diffrent strokes.
PS2 It's heartening to see such a high level of gaming literacy among the readers (and writer of course) of this fine blog. Bioware, Bethesda, Valve, Fallout, Dwarf Fortress... It wasn't exactly a given, but everyone seems so up to date on their narrative games... which means I've got no cool new titles to recommend.
(Play Planescape: Torment! It's awesome! Everyone, really, go play it! Hey, what's with the guys in white coats? No, leave me alone! I don't want to go to the white room! No! What are you doing with that syrinnnnnngggggg
I'm a second generation gamer(My dad wrote a Doctor Who DOS game in college) so I've tried my hand at just about everything all the way back to floppy-disc and SNES.
And I have to say I agree with you completely. I've watched games' potential grow and the consideration put into it's storytelling wither and die, no matter how many indie companies try to bring it back with old blood sweat and tears. Then Bioware came out, bearing real characterization and choice systems. And they're only getting better at it. Heck, they have coherant fanfiction! One can actually judge whether such fanficion is in-character or not! Most characters in video games are so abused by the desire to shamelessly pander larger demographics that they have no sense of individual voice at all.
John - grab the latest Irrational Interview (Irrational Games' web site). Ken Levine & Brian Michael Bendis discuss building worlds and telling stories in video games.
The key on story in games is to make it invisible yet omnipresent. Not a 5-minute cinematic, but little pieces all adding up. Obvious, maybe, but the trick is doing it well.
I also have to add this link: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1974-Enriching-Lives
Because it's a great look at Bioware in particular and the possible value of video-games as a medium.
I like both sandbox and scripted games. I think it's the big split of video games, like comedy vs. drama, or serial vs. episodic.
The story for RDR really didn’t engage me, but the side elements did. It was the opposite for Mass Effect - the story was great, but the side quests felt grind-y.
I wonder if we're at the point in the medium where video games are finally defining the way they tell stories.
Bioshock as a perfect example. I felt that game in a way that I can’t compare to movies, TV, reading, music. Most of the time when I talk about a great game I had to define it in terms of another media. But Bioshock…man, you just have to experience it.
@Killah Mate: Oh, gods. Don't get me started on Planescape: Torment. Whenever anyone makes a comment about games not being art, I simply point them at this game. More text than a novel, more characters than a play, more questions than the Voight-Kampff test, and an indelible (and impossible to answer) treatise on the nature of humanity and personhood. Given the EXTREME limitations the game was created under (I still can't get over the fact that it's 10 years old), it was a brilliant piece of work that I'm not entirely convinced has been matched (though Dragon Age and Mass Effect come very, very close).
@Clockworkjoe: I am always in awe of someone who can turn a game like DF into a screaming narrative, but arguably this is due to the *player*, not the *game*, and since I generally don't want to have to invent stories whole-cloth unless I'm being paid for it, games like DF don't hold much interest for me. Now, I get the appeal of them, and I'm not saying that people who play and enjoy them are having badwrongfun, but the narrative structure presented in your link is *despite* the technology, not because of it.
I'm of two minds on this. Does the story REALLY matter for a game like Half Life? I don't think so. Serious Sam was just balls to the wall carnage, and it didn't pretend to be anything else. How many games have we seen now where the guy helping you out betrays you in the last act when he gets the glowing orb you've been looking for? I think one is a passive experience, and the other isn't. When I'm holding my sniper rifle, I don't really care who or what I'm killing as long as it's a challenge.
I will make one exception. Keep the cut scenes short, and ideally interactive. Nothing drives me crazier than being forced to sit around watching a cut scene for more than 20 seconds. 20 Seconds MAX
I just love Leverage - the writing, the chemistry, all of it. Great.
@Jamie: Arguably yes, the story *does* matter with the Half-Life series. If there wasn't an interesting story behind the world of Gordon Freeman's adventures (even taking into account that Gordon is the silent everyman that is common to FPS), it would just be another version of Cabela's Big Game Hunter (also an FPS, also released in 1998). The narrative arc that drives Gordon (and us) to escape, then to fight back, and then to heroic sacrifice, makes HL into something more than just another FPS. Gordon is us: not a highly-trained member of Delta Force, not a robotic cyborg, but just some underachieving lab assistant who gets caught in events, and must cope, and succeed, or die. Granted, he's an idealized version of us: genius IQ, graduated from MIT, nearly olympic-level biathlon competitor, but still in theory one of us, with his thick frames and his nametag hanging from his pocket protector.
Please note that I'm not trying to claim that storyless games are somehow inferior or not worth playing, but I do believe that a good story (and good characters) can cause a game to be more than just a game. In the same way, like Neil Gaiman says, that Moby-Dick is assuredly a story about a whale, but it is also *more* than just a story about a whale.
Interesting. While there are many games that fall victim to the movie-with-shooting/driving/shooting-while-driving trap, I found the gameplay and open world of RDR to be amazingly compelling.
I thought that the final act of RDR did a dead amazing job of merging gameplay with story to create an emotional climax unparalleled in my experience with video games. In fact, READ DEAD is a game I would point to as a perfect example of gameplay and narrative working toward a common goal.
I'm not sure if what you object to is the storytelling, or the gameplay. Do you enjoy the cowboy simulation, but find the narrative bits to be obtrusive or do you find the storyline the interesting bit, and feel the game elements fail to keep up? Or does none of it work for you?
@Heronymus I think procedurally generated content will be the future of narratives in video games. DF uses PGC to create an environment but why not missions or stories? I think we will eventually see AAA games programmed with the Campbell Hero of a thousand faces myth structure so that every time you play the game, you go on a different quest.
@Grey Duck
I'm not a parent so the opening didn't have an impact on me, but I understand and respect why it would for you. From a pure gameplay perspective I was wholly disappointed with the game. It looked incredible but the controls failed the game, not to mention the gigantic plot holes in the story. Maybe the update for Sony's Move will fix the controls, but I will pass on replaying the game (I am personally against the influx of motion controls and 3D into gaming). Outside of the main game, the DLC ruined the continuity of the story, if Madison dies at the end of it, how is she in Heavy Rain's main game? (okay, my nerd rage will stop now)
To me Bioware is one of the greatest development houses in recent history (Team ICO also comes to mind), I loved Dragon Age and both Mass Effects. I spent too much time playing ME 1 and am on my 5th run of ME 2 (picking up the new DLC today). Bioware has found a great balance between narrative, great characters and gameplay. The NPCs in their games fell like real people and the small conversations between your team in ME 2 helped deepen the character development. My only complaint about Bioware would be the lack of homosexual relationships in ME 2, especially since they were supported in ME 1 and DA.
If you want to talk about plot driven games, sure.
But I think there's a real danger in thinking about games in terms of how they can be more like traditional narrative, at least from a design perspective. Once you go down that route even with a method that leads to branching plotlines ala Bioware, you're wasting the core of the medium's strength (to a greater or lesser degree), which is direct experince; it's ability to actually interact with the world that makes gaming unique. People need to be crafting experiences, not stories. That doesn't mean that sandboxy games are necessarily the way to go mind, as simply filling in the blank spaces isn't really the point; you still need to be creating something that has intrinsic value, something more than filler. Games like Red Dead and Mafia 2 ultimately have somewhat schizophrenic feel to them, one half of the experience acts completely outside of the other half of the experience, never really connecting with each other on the level of mechanics or narrative, resulting in two separate experiences being mashed together into a dysfunctional blob.
What the goal should be, and it's a bloody hard goal, is making sure that the narrative follows from the action of the player rather than having the player chase the narrative through their actions.
Bioware falls down in this regard never really reaching much further than a pretty decently written choose your own adventure book. Even to the extent that you have choice, you don't really get to make decisions; the fact that there's more than one path to choose between doesn't in anyway make those paths less inflexible or static. And your actions in the gameplay parts has very little bearing on what ends up going on around you; there's still that same schizophrenia with regard to the mechanical and narrative structures of their games; there's no unity or interaction between the component parts of the game.
People have mentioned Shadow of the Colossus and Ico, and those are probably the closest example to something that actually plays to the strength of the genre while still having something interesting to say. The narrative is emergent, but still defined. Heavy Rain comes at it from the other angle, and subordinates gameplay entirely to the narrative. This at least provides a consistent experience, though it can easily be argued that it doesn't fully take of advantage of the medium. In all three cases the consistency of mechanic and narrative provide stories that cannot be replicated in another medium without destroying core of the experiences. If you want to look to strong storytelling *in* games, rather than storytelling *attached* to games with duct tape, it's going to come out of one of those two models, not the Bioware or GTA or Call of Duty style approaches (Though I'm saying this with the same caveat that you started out with; this is not to speak to whether those games are enjoyable or not, or to who).
Can't believe nobody's brought up ALPHA PROTOCOL yet - the scruffy, lovable mutt to MASS EFFECT 2's sleek show dog.
It's an RPG roughly in the Bioware mold, but both shorter and much more fine-grained. You're a spy trying to get to the bottom of a big conspiracy, and although the underlying events are pretty constant, where you are inserted into the events and the choices you make - from how you relate to NPCs up to who you select to live and who you select to die - change the final outcome of those events to a greater degree than any other multiple-ending game to date. Every choice you make affects your game in the short term and the long term.
The end product is less something like MASS EFFECT's square-jawed space opera or DRAGON AGE's Middle Earth reboot, and more like Burn Notice crossed with Run Lola Run.
It didn't review well because it's unpolished (like a rougher MASS EFFECT) and the intro mission seems to be a love-or-hate thing with players, but I can't think of another time in any game I've played where one of the tensest, most thrilling side missions consisted entirely of a conversation at an outdoor café.
@Heronymus "story (and character development) is why I liked Bioshock enough to play it through twice but only played Bioshock II as a rental for less than 4 hours and returned it almost immediately -- Bioshock was an interesting meditation on individualism and freedom wrapped in a moderately good FPS, while BS2 was a moderately good FPS that tacked on a lousy sequel storyline."
You should've stayed with it, Bioshock 2 saves its best stuff for the end, unlike the first one which fizzles in the third act and then ultimately throws its hands up in the air and gives up.
Bioshock 2 is less ambitious, and suffers from not being fresh anymore, but ultimately it does some pretty neat things with its theme. (Which is parenthood, not Sophia Lamb's exercise in collectivism. There's more than one Lamb watching.)
It's also a lot better at the shooting people in the face part.
@Cliff Evans
I was one of the few who really dug Alpha Protol, and bits like those cafe conversations are largely the reason. Obsidian in general are great at turning conversations into set pieces. Planescape: Torment and Knights of the Old Republic 2 also have several confrontations with hostile characters that are largely played out in dialogue.
If only someone would give me a couple of million dollars, I'd run with that concept and build a crime procedural containing some variant of Alpha Protocol's timed conversation system, constructed largely around interrogation scenes...
@SH: I would play that game for days. A videogame that focuses almost entirely on character interaction and conversation? I'd be all over that.
Sadly, while I'd likely buy a copy, I don't know that anyone else would.
@Jamie: "Does the story REALLY matter for a game like Half Life?'
Hell yes! I loved Half Life 2's journey of the Freeman into the City 13 and out again. Thought it was a brilliant and unparalleled adventure/shooter, creating a culture that one could be immersed and still enjoy the shooter aspects.
On the original post, glad that I am not the only one who was utterly bored with Mafia II - which is a shame, it clearly had potential, but I've never done so little shooting in what I thought was a shooter game.
"Arguably yes, the story *does* matter with the Half-Life series."
it's been a few years since i last played any of them, but oddly (though maybe it's me who is odd), i don't remember really anything about the Half Life stories. but i do remember a lot about the gameplay: the weapons, the vehicles, the feel of the motion (much different than Bioshock's, for example), the sets, the enemies, the puzzles, etc.. the Half Life series are awesome FPSs - but the story was completely beside the point, for me.
same with the Bioshocks. the sets and enemies and weapons are all awesome; the music was fantastic; the gameplay brilliant. the stories? i didn't care a bit. don't have to, either, because it doesn't matter: those games run on rails. doesn't matter how i feel about the character or if i feel anything at all - i still have to push him through the rooms in the prescribed order and kill a certain percentage of the enemies while collecting the right number of magic tokens. i stopped gathering and listening to those tape players as soon as i figured out there wasn't anything in them that would help me get past the next mini-boss.
Eolirin and cleek seem to share my frustration. As much as I like the look or feel of a game, when talking about "narrative" I feel choice is key.
It's like a good D&D campaign. A good DM will let you do whatever it is you believe your character should be doing at that time, and weave the story around those actions.
At which point not only do I feel I am in a story, but I feel as though I have a crucial role in it, so I have a responsibility to the story. That experience really gets my attention.
I had hopes that Fable would be such a game, but like many other games, it had elements of a reactive world yet I still felt the cold steel of the rails.
Is it possible in prewritten games? It's as if true AI is required for such a game. I don't know if that's on the horizon.
My visions of such a game inevitably lead me to wonder if that is what real life is - the ultimate reactive narrative game.
And then I think that, if it was, I would have hit the reset button a long time ago. ;)
The "trend away from narrative" as discussed by Steve et al is probably not as rife as anyone thinks. There will always be a place for narrative driven games, because there are always going to be gamers that lack the creativity or inclination to mark a game with their own narrative. By the same token, as popular as [x]Ville Facebook games are, they tend to attract non-core gamers, and there is a distinct distaste for them amongst any gamers that happen to describe themselves as gamers. The market is broadening to include games lacking narrative because games don't necessarily need it (games can be played, not read or watched). But the classic narrative will never leave gaming for the same reason rom-coms are still being made, and Anita Blake novels compete with Neal Stephenson epics for shelf space at Borders.
On another note, Bioware develops sandbox games only if the sand in your box is in fact pre-fabricated castle shaped sand. They do an excellent job of presenting a malleable narrative, and probably have the most even and smoothest seam between game elements and narrative, but the split is there and it's clear to me. The "Choose your own adventure" analogy someone above mentioned is apt. It's also very episodic. Each planet in Mass Effect is a distinct, compartmentalised fragment of the whole. It's telling that the narrative justification for surveying for minerals and artifacts is weak at best and is never told in a dialogue. I felt vaguely cheated when I went through all that in ME1 and didn't get so much as a thankyou. This is the game side of the game, because they needed some motivation to look at the tens of thousands of words of descriptions of minor planets, but it's bland, repetitive and uncompelling.
If you want a proper sandbox that isn't as impenetrable as Dwarf Fortress, try Minecraft. There is no narrative scaffolding, only digging and building like a proper Lego Land. Those of you who like a sense of purpose or direction will flounder in this world, but if you appreciate the ability to express your creativity, you may find it's quite compelling.
I'm with Robert in that I like the style of play in games like Mass Effect 1 and 2 where your choices determine the outcome of not just the story but of how you are perceived by other characters in the game rather than a predetermined set of events by the game creators.
Houston Personal Injury Lawyer
Here what i found -> vision correction
Post a Comment