Which is what I was saying.
Now we're going in circles trying to find an argument.
I agree with him, RPG stories in particular are utter toss. If you are playing them for the story I would suggest that would get considerably more from reading a book.
Last edited by baboonanza; 29-11-2012 at 03:10 PM.
A good game makes a story, not the other way around. Everywhere outside computer "games", you'll be treated like an idiot for suggesting games are for storytelling. Try to tell a story during a football match. Even Game Masters in pen&paper RPG games - which have many similarities to telling a story - know that it's futile and ultimately harmful to force a story on players. A good GM should be able to take the story off the track if it makes sense, if players decide to try something interesting but unexpected.
Don't confuse entertainment software with games. Sim City is not a game - not according to its own creator. He offers a ball as a comparison. A ball is not a game. You can do many things with it, but you need to set your own goals. Only then it becomes a game. Minecraft is not a game, not any more than LEGO is. LEGO is not terrible and neither is Minecraft, but they're not games.
And don't mess with Science Fiction. The term has science in it, meaning there's an expectation of rigour, methodology, and honesty. It has to be plausible. If you want to set a story in the future because you like lasers, explosions and cool effects - and you keep inventing things like wormholes to get pesky physics and distances out of the way - don't call it Science Fiction. Science Fiction is not for people who dislike science. Call it Space Opera, or, if you prefer a more neutral term - futuristic. Both of these terms are widely recognized so you don't lose anything.
Diablo3 is not PvE or PvP, it is PvAH. -- Tei
I miss when games had compelling stories that kept me playing just to find out the next plot twist. I remember Final Fantasy II and III (in the US) were like this. Why don't they make games like that anymore? Well, it's because I'm 33 years old. I can play all the JRPGs I want, but I can't be 10 again. I think, for me, there's a lot of nostalgia involved in wanting good stories in games, but it's nostalgia for the mindset of a 10 year old, not really nostalgia for classic game design. It's not that I'm older so I need more literary stuff in stories, actually, it's just that I'm older so I start to fall into that trap of, "I've seen this before, be more original!"
I'm still trying to decide whether my Game of the Year this year is XCOM or The Walking Dead. So what this guy is saying is beyond mere bollocks to me. It seems to have emerged out of a total separate universe where I suppose Mass Effect is the only game that has ever existed?
From a standpoint I think is shared by the general PC gaming community, why on earth would a 11+ year old game like PS: T still be discussed and praised if we didn't care about stories? In fact, I've come to realize in the past few years that story aspects (plot, characters, universe) vastly outweigh other aspects of games and while a game with the right stuff (storywise) may require a little oomph to move it along, it wouldn't even be worth playing in the first place if it didn't have the right stuff. It's the same reason games like Europa Universalis remain niche while Crusader Kings 2 was mentioned more than any game (even with the likes of dishonored and xcom) in the "Game of the Year" thread on this forum.
Choices aren't meaningless at all either. What reason would even provoke that idea? Generally you don't get a choice between several completely separate progressions in storyline, but making decisions that alter the outcome of certain events is by no means meaningless, it's what really separates a game from a book or movie isn't it?
It's disappointing so many developers still think of a "video game story" only as what you shovel to the player in a cut scene.
Also, calling it an "NP-hard problem" is laughable in that it's clear he doesn't know what NP-hard even means. Just say "I don't know what to do besides cut-scenes" and be done with it.
And it's not just that mechanics are important in a game. They make and define the game. Outside of computer "game" community, games are distinguished by their rules. If Heroes of Might and Magic III was a board game (possible, but awfully time-consuming to calculate everything) it would be called an expansion to Heroes II. Yes, because mechanically Heroes III is extremely similar and it's the least innovative HOMM game in the entire serries. It adds the least number of mechanics. Oh yeah, it has new pictures and a different set of "cards". So does Munchkin Cthulhu.
Diablo3 is not PvE or PvP, it is PvAH. -- Tei
Who cares what you call it? The fact is, people like to play stuff like the Walking Dead. Games writers like to write about them. Self-described gamers like to discuss them. Jumping in with NotAGame!! just makes you look like a dick.
That's absolutely silly considering the complexity of old text only games. he's just being a doofus to get press.
And hell, why do books get away with special treatment? Prose is prose right? We're there for the elegance of semantic construction, the beauty of a well-formed paragraph, the evocative descriptions and the smart, witty dialogue. Don't go putting a fucking story in it! That's ruining the purity of the written word! If you want a story get someone to tell you one! Books are for pretty combinations of words!
On the other hand, DayZ is a fantastic game. It has a loosely defined goal, i.e. to survive, and the complexity of the rules allows for a vast range of possible interactions within the system. Countless truly fascinating stories have come out of the game, and there's not a single line of dialogue or cutscene in it.
So what is exactly wrong with making this distinction, when the Walking Dead fails spectacularly at being a game but while it's obvious that the developer's intentions lay elsewhere? Clearer notions would lead to a better understanding and a fuller appreciation of things that they define. Same as it ever was.
Language changes, and language has moved on. Game now encompasses video games, there are far more people that see 'game' as the sort of thing we talk about than what you're trying to limit it to. And in that case, I'd suggest that if you really want the distinction to exist in the word, maybe stop calling your thing 'game' and call it something else instead?
Are we actually devolving to the definition of the word "game?"
Dear lord in heaven, grant me the ability to smite these noobs.