Home
"Games not needing stories is also not what your piece is really about. It's about how you feel on the subject."
No, the article really was about games not needing stories. Obviously, it incorporates my own feelings, and mentioned that stories shouldn't be such a big focus of reviews, but you went a bit overboard in your interpretation there.
There's nothing wrong with writing about a story that accompanies the game, as long as people recognize its true nature in the video game medium.
You're being extremely short-sighted and foolish in your thinking here. If it were possible to define a quality story, don't you think someone would have done so already? Do you HONESTLY belive that with the mass of amazing, diverse, stories out there in literature or movies alone, one can give them a succinct definition?
That's lunacy.
But yes, I do know that neither Guitar Hero or Tetris (or the interpretation you gave to Tetris) qualify as meaningful stories.
"The act of writing it down merely records the story, preserving its existence for other people. They could just as easily share the "replay" of their game instead, so that you could watch the story unfold rather than read a prose/written retelling."
And if, in your words, "Tetris has a story about the neverending quest to arrange blocks into neat rows.", then it doesn't crack the list.
Guitar Hero has a story? I would argue it doesn't (does a broom you play air guitar on also represent a story?), but if you think it's "horrendously simple" and "adds nothing to the game", then it's hardly the good example then, is it?
"The story of Civilization is created by YOU as you play the game. Don't believe me? Head on over to Apolyton - they've got an entire forum dedicated to Civ4 stories. When people talk about Civ they often mention things like wanting to nuke the f'ing Mongols or build some important World Wonder. That's a story - the story of their civilization."
Hmm...perhaps I should have been more clear in the article. Of course, there is nothing wrong with either putting a story in games or enjoying it. (I certainly have!)
Rather, the article's point was to correctly identify story and game as being separate elements, and to note that there are more exciting, original topics of discussion than the redundant "story in games" one so many people go back to.
"Music is not an incidental, extraneous element of film. Take EDWARD SCISSORHANDS -- without that incredible score by Danny Elfman, it would not be the same film. Or take any of Wes Anderson's films -- when he is writing he will often think of the song he wants to play over a particular scene. For Anderson the music is like another level of dialogue, one the film itself is having with the audience."
An even better example would have been Fellini's or Leone's films. (I've actually never noticed this use of music in Anderson's films, although I think a lot of his work is overrated and mediocre)
Music might be more important to a movie than a story to a game, but it was, after all, an ANALOGY; Edward Scissorhands might have been worse without its music, but not by much. "
If you're going to describe everything as a valid story, down to the silly example of Tetris being "the neverending quest to arrange blocks into neat rows." (seriously?), then the entire issue becomes moot.
If Tetris is a satisfactory enough "story" for you, why complain about stories in games at all? It's accomplished anything you could ever want! Of course, we're talking about MEANINGFUL, good, unpredictable stories here, not stories by the overly trivial definition you apply to them.
As for examples like Passage, it's not even much of a game or a story; just a shallow, primitive effort overhyped by the "games are art" community. A similar example was "Seven Minutes".
And Civilization, like Guitar Hero or Tetris, has no story at all. It's a game which derives its popularity from being an early, well-balanced turn-based strategy.
And yes, I have read that GamaSutra article before. It's a nice summary, but does not even attempt to discuss what you claim it does; namely, how "non-cinematic" approaches can be used to enhance stories in games.
In fact, it's not even related to the main point of my article at all. (Whether stories are the least bit necessary in the first place) "
As for oral stories and other story-telling that changes...that's a fringe example that changes extraordinarily little between each iteration. More importantly, it's not applicable to games, since all the cutscenes and information is hard-coded beforehand.
"And no story is ever exactly the same no matter who it is experienced by, because we project our past experience onto the characters and environments; we change the story in our heads as we experience it. Sure, a traditional story will lead to highly similar experiences from person to person, but keep in mind that no story is entirely passive."
I knew before I even started writing the article that someone would come back with this argument, but it completely ignores the main point of that argument; while the individual INTERPRETATION is different, the story ITSELF is the same.
"Tetris has a story about the neverending quest to arrange blocks into neat rows."
And this doesn't sound like a silly, funny explanation to you? Look, if you quibble enough with definitions, then the entire discussion becomes meaningless from both sides.
In that case, EVERYTHING becomes a story.
"The power of games, which is what people are always striving to improve, is in their ability to create narrative structures and story spaces from which player-created or player-modified stories can emerge."
Really now? Like Guitar Hero, Wii Fit, Wii Sports, etc, etc?
"One final thing, don't get hung up on dialogue and plot being the core of stories in games. The environments can tell stories of their own (and this is the case in the best games). I think this kind of storytelling -- environment/level design and architecture -- is the real core of storytelling in games. And that is something that is tied to the mechanics and gameplay systems of a game."
- Site Links
- About Us
- Bitmob Staff
- Submission Guidelines
- Terms Of Use
- Privacy
- Popular Games
- Max Payne 3
- Star Wars: The Old Republic
- Diablo Iii
- Journey
- Fez
- Mass Effect 3
In other words, for Microsoft to hire hundreds of employees (because that's how many it will take) just so they can "make it possible to summon a moderator to a troubled match"? Do you have any idea what a colossal misappropriation of money, manhours, and effort this would be?
This is one of those articles that very clearly delineates the games journalist from someone who has actually worked in a white collar industry. (Not just video games)"