Moderator: JC Denton
by Archonus » 01 Feb 2009 10:43
by icycalm » 01 Feb 2009 11:25
by Archonus » 02 Feb 2009 02:37
by icycalm » 02 Feb 2009 02:49
by icycalm » 02 Feb 2009 03:17
Archonus wrote:At the same time, though, I'd imagine some of the games I enjoy today would be kinda bland if it weren't for some of these "absurd" aspects of modern games. That little "Hulk Hogan vs Andre the Giant" stand-off Alex and Hugo do at the beginning of their fights in Street Fighter III: 3rd Strike always came off as totally badass to me, and they wouldn't do that unless there was some sort of plot involved with the game.
by Afterburn » 02 Feb 2009 07:42
by icycalm » 02 Feb 2009 07:55
by Volteccer_Jack » 03 Feb 2009 04:00
icycalm wrote:You guys are free to try though! It took me ages to crack this one, but now that I've done it I find it very amusing to observe others' hopeless, flailing efforts, watching them stumble into every little pitfall that I fell in, repeating every little mistake. This is about the only kind of entertainment I get out of the internet these days, actually.
Afterburn wrote:I'm going to pose a question that it sounds like Archonus wants to ask:
If a game feels "bland" (to use his phrasing) without its animations or cutscenes or "clever dialogue" or whatever, does this mean the game is bad? Or rather, is the fact that it requires cutscenes and a story to hook people in a knock against a game?
For example, if all the cutscenes were removed from Halo, you'd still have a competent first-person shooter. If all the cutscenes were taken out of any Metal Gear Solid game, a big chunk of the audience of those games might be less inclined to play them. Does this mean there is a fundamental flaw with the MGS games?
I'm leaning towards yeah, probably.
icycalm wrote:The idea of prefabricated characters and plots in games is absurd, if you sit down and think about it. The only reason it doesn't immediately strike us as absurd is because, in the last two or so decades, we have been brainwashed to think otherwise. I will explain all this in detail at some point.
by icycalm » 03 Feb 2009 05:34
by Worm » 03 Feb 2009 05:49
[paraphrased] All simulation is pathetic.
What makes videogames both pathetic and awesome is that they create the illusion of doing cool things that the player can't do in real life. They contain elements that don't affect the mechanics, but provide context (e.g. rather than feeling like you are maneuvering a sprite into a hitbox, you feel like you are guiding a missile into the enemy base).Gradius is about the epic fight. The almighty spaceship Vic Viper against the evil fiends of Bacteria. The powerful Gladius of Justice in the face of cruel, greedy creatures.
D&D doesn't have a story, precisely because it's not yet written. Could you hand someone D&D and say "This game has a great story?" Of course, you can always tell someone a story about what you did in a game, but only after you are finished playing (i.e., after it has been fabricated).Volteccer_Jack wrote:As far as I can figure, the most likely example of a story that isn't fabricated beforehand would be in an actual roleplaying game, with the oh-so-obvious example game being Dungeons & Dragons.
by Afterburn » 03 Feb 2009 08:45
icycalm wrote:Halo's story actually adds just as much to the game if not more than MGS's does to MGS. The difference is that Halo's plot adds just atmosphere, while MGS's adds both atmosphere AND plot for plot's sake.
Worm wrote:Well, "short" is the operative word, here, because we get into diminishing returns very quickly. Such attempts are already clumsy in comparison (Would you rather be told that the blobs you're shooting are demons, or have the enemies actually look like demons?), and it only gets worse the more information you expect the player to sit and absorb passively. Eventually we end up with chunks of movie stuck into a game, presented with an inflated sense of importance, as if the point of the game is to unlock the next DVD chapter.
by icycalm » 03 Feb 2009 09:16
Afterburn wrote:I think the problem lies in how the story is presented.
Afterburn wrote:If it is forced upon the player, as in the MGS games
Afterburn wrote:then the plot assumes a self-importance that being in a game it has no right to. A game like Deus Ex or maybe Mass Effect, where a lot of the story is optional, and you need to willingly seek out extra and background plot, is the better approach, I think.
Afterburn wrote:The problem becomes, then, how much story is too much?
I wrote:First principle of ANY kind of functional design: When judging how much is too much is impossible, what you must do is add as little as possible. (Because even the slightest, tiniest bit above the minimum is already too much.)
by c001357 » 03 Feb 2009 14:54
by JoshF » 03 Feb 2009 15:25
by Bradford » 03 Feb 2009 17:08
Story, n. 1. An account or recital of an event or a series of events, either true or fictitious, as: a. An account or report regarding the facts of an event or group of events . . . b. An anecdote . . . c. A lie . . . 2a. A usually fictional prose or verse narrative intended to interest or amuse the hearer or reader; a tale. b. A short story. 3. The plot of a narrative or dramatic work . . . 6. The background information regarding something . . . .
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Lanuage (4th ed. 2000).
To decorate with scenes representing historical or legendary events.
by Recap » 03 Feb 2009 17:42
by Bradford » 03 Feb 2009 18:10
Recap wrote:What chess has is not a "story", but a "narrative".
narrative, n. Consisting of or characterized by the telling of a story.
by Recap » 03 Feb 2009 18:45
Bradford wrote:I understand what you're saying, and I think I was trying to say the same thing (using the word 'context,' but alternately I think you could use 'framework,' 'matrix,' etc.), but the distinction you're drawing is getting us nowhere until we take the time to codify the specialized manner in which we're using each term. The dictionary definitionnarrative, n. Consisting of or characterized by the telling of a story.
appears useless for the present purpose.
Can you explicitly define 'story' and 'narrative' in the manner that you are using them?
Also, are you rejecting my notion that distinguishing poker from chess in terms of simulation is either correct or useful (or neither)?
by Afterburn » 03 Feb 2009 23:54
Recap wrote:Quick'n dirty since English is not my native tongue:
Story -- narrated happenings (fictional or not)
Narrative (in my context!) -- settings; every possible development and not a specific one
by icycalm » 04 Feb 2009 00:24
by Recap » 04 Feb 2009 00:43
Afterburn wrote:
"Story" is an event or sequence of events; everything that actually happens in a story.
"Narrative" is how a story is told; in what order; in what form, a flashback, chronological or non, and so on.
Stories are delivered by narrative means. Narratives arrange events in a certain order and style to communicate them. In a way, story pre-exists narrative.
by Afterburn » 04 Feb 2009 00:55
Recap wrote:This is pointless material, but I really disagree with your definition for "story". An event which isn't somehow narrated can never constitute a "story"; that thing would be just that thing -- an "event".
Recap wrote:You missed my parenthesis. I was giving an explanation (not a definition) for my usage of "narrative" in a previous context -- if you think about it, in a game, the rules, the setting, its development are exactly the how; that's why I think we can always talk about "the narrative of a game" even when the game has no storytelling at all.
by icycalm » 04 Feb 2009 01:08
Recap wrote:that's why I think we can always talk about "the narrative of a game" even when the game has no storytelling at all.