Ken Levine: Computer game plots must be stupid

[random n00b]

If you look at the Imdb top 100 list, you can see that many of the top selling films have relatively complex plots, yet the public have no problem understanding them. So, people are not the morons Ken levine would like to think they are.

"Relatively complex" compared to what? The 300?

 

 

Stuff like how all stories must have a climax that is proportionate to the buildup to said ending, or that cliffhanger endings dont work if the audience has to wait more than a week for the next part etc.

Kill Bill? STTNG? SAW? ESB?

[Tigranes]

The classical Hollywood narrative provides a general architecture that should be replicated, either in terms of form or concept, for the most part - not a draconian checkbox which must be completely adhered to in order to generate sales. Many movies try to include one key variation from the norm, but keep the rest pretty solid: a movie which breaks conventions in every imaginable way is going to end up being incomprehensible.

 

The same applies to videogames, perhaps even more, because in films the auteur status of some filmmakers allow them to carve out their own weird niches more successfully (bigger market and all, too).

 

Anyway, someone in the AP forum said something about how they need to hire some interior designers and make better looking apartments. The vidgame industry, more than other media industries, rely on folks who do it for the love of the game, often have unrelated degrees and did not study the videogame as a text, and whose background research consists of similar pop culture material. This has its good points, of course, but that also means that, as Kaftan says, they don't really know how to tell a 'good' story. There's a reason most fantasy stories are not only crap, but exactly the same, and the kind of 'deviations' they have are strictly prescribed deviations. There's a problem when the best the industry comes up with is Dungeon Siege 1.

[Istima Loke]

The whole thing is definitely not an April Fool's joke. That guy did some presentation some time ago (or something). Here's the link. It's a nice read, I think.

Edited April 4, 2008 by Istima Loke

[Kaftan Barlast]

Earnest Adams(freelance game design consultant) did a lecture at my school the other week, and he had one very good example of how most gamedesigners approach storytelling. He was working on STALKER and originally, every single one of the games 5 or so endings, ended up with the player dying horribly.

 

It hadnt even occured to the designers that after playing a game for 50+ hours, the player might not be so pleased to find out that it all ends with sudden and very unavoidable death. So Mr. Adams did what he was paid for and explained all about the not so fine line between "cool and unusual" and "cruel and unusual".

 

 

The world of gaming is probably chock full of similar examples of storytelling ineptitude.

Edited April 4, 2008 by Kaftan Barlast

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

I agree Kaftan... Fundemental story telling skills are indeed lacking.

 

There are a few books written on the subject, a particular personal favourite, and good starting point (I recommend it to alot of people who are interested in design), and that would be : http://www.freemangames.com/idea/5_1.php.

[Tel Aviv]

Speaking of earnest, I once thought The Importance of Being Earnest was a prequel to Ernest Saves Christmas and Ernest Goes to Jail. That's pretty stupid.

[Wombat]

The whole thing is definitely not an April Fool's joke. That guy did some presentation some time ago (or something). Here's the link. It's a nice read, I think.

 

Generally speaking, I find Levine's works interesting but, occasionally, they appear to be intellectual masturbation. I even think the majority would be happy with some intelligent twists at times, which can potentially deepens their experience. However, if it be rather like inter-action than one-way expression at all, there should be some triggers, which makes players believe the game has some meaning to them. It is definitely a plus that the designers have some intellectual background but there should be some ways to let players invite to their world. While Jordan Thomas and other designers taking care of immersion essence concerning atmosphere, likewise, there should be some factors to trigger emotional immersion or involvement, which eventually turn out to be Big Daddy and Little Sister relationship in Bioshock. Of course, it is bit stupid and rather direct but as an emotional trigger, it worked and seems to have invited many more people in the world which the designers realized.

 

In the end, Levine said game narratives are a new medium and that writers need to be flexible in the way they approach the story. He left the audience with three points of advice. The first was respect the audience; don't force the story on all players and make the narrative in a way that can please a diverse crowd. The second was trust the mystery; not all questions have to be answered. And the third was to empower the gamer to experience the game and its story the way he or she wants. "[if] you give him that little bit of trust," Levine said, "he will give it back to you by engaging in your story, and engaging in your game world."

 

Just like Levine, I don't like some of the decisions in Bioshock but he has been still being one of several writers in the game industry on whom I have keeping an eye.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

Are you fan of Big Red? Or do you just have her in your avatar and sig for some non-fan reason?

 

I like the concept of Red, the untouchable warrior maiden, like som kinda valkyrie. Also a total sucker for redheads.

[alanschu]

I must say that I'm a bit concerned about how many developers (including Levine and many other devs) talk about their fear of players missing stuff in their games, that players find everything on the first playthrough isn't neccesarily a parameter of succes.

Why put a lot of effort into something only 5% of the players can see, when you can instead put that exact same effort into extra things for everyone to see?

 

Wait, so you are saying that ideally games should be aimed at the lowest level of gamer? Those who find it impossible to take the time and effort to look into various corners of the gameworld and pursue obscure quests to see where they might go? I mean, the broad and well-marked path might be easy enough to travel, but it ain't very interesting. Or at least itr doesn't stay interesting for long? (Hello, my good friend Bioshock!)

 

In my opinion game developers (or at least publishers) are seriously beginnig to paint all gamers with the stupid brush.

 

 

Honestly I am surprised that you seem so shocked. When things like word-of-mouth advertising, as well as reviews (less important though IMO) and other references to the game can affect sales, if people miss key chunks of the game content because they didn't pursue more obscure parts of the game, then these will not be reflected in the critiques of the game.

 

If I made a game that had an absurdly stupid, fast main plot where the game was done in an hour, but had 4000 hours of the highest in quality for sidequests, you are going to get people that "finish" the game right away and are going to trash the game, saying it wasn't worth their money.

 

 

If a game developer makes a really cool sequence that ends up being optional, then it's possible that key sequence is only noticed by a small subset of players, and becomes a cult classic rather than a financial success. Because unfortunately, game companies need to make money if they're going to keep making games. With the cost of game development going up, but the actual cost of a game remaining static, they have to make up for it by selling more and more games.

 

 

 

EDIT: I just saw this:

The other appears to be a beyond generic computer game, utter formula, connect the dots, etc. Even the name Alpha Protocol. It sounds like a really bad DTV release, maybe one of Steven Seagal's recent films. The lead player character looks generic as crap. The screenies look generic. Heck, when I look at that batch of screenies I'm seeing screenies of games that were released three years ago, just updated with vanilla next gen graphics. When developers are looking no further than last years games as inspiration for this years games, how excited can I possibly get? I'm sure it will be a fine, vanilla game. But there are a lot of fine bland games on the market every day.

 

This is awesome. I love the irony. You are complaining because the games graphics don't excite you. So when even the "intellectual" gamer such as yourself demands the (very expensive) graphics before immediately dismissing a game long before it is even released, what's left for a game developer to do but sink even more money into graphics (at the expense of story and everything else) so that it appeals to everyone, because your graphical demands seem to be on par with the "stupid" gamers that you just chastised.

 

Cheers...

Edited April 4, 2008 by alanschu

[Pop]

I agree Kaftan... Fundemental story telling skills are indeed lacking.

 

There are a few books written on the subject, a particular personal favourite, and good starting point (I recommend it to alot of people who are interested in design), and that would be : http://www.freemangames.com/idea/5_1.php.

As interesting as that book looks, "Emotioneering"? He seriously uses that term?

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

I agree Kaftan... Fundemental story telling skills are indeed lacking.

 

There are a few books written on the subject, a particular personal favourite, and good starting point (I recommend it to alot of people who are interested in design), and that would be : http://www.freemangames.com/idea/5_1.php.

As interesting as that book looks, "Emotioneering"? He seriously uses that term?

 

yes.

[Pop]

Wow.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

It is a good book mind... I think MCA should write a book on stories in games. He could do loads of doodles like he does in his blog it'd be great.

[Pidesco]

Earnest Adams(freelance game design consultant) did a lecture at my school the other week, and he had one very good example of how most gamedesigners approach storytelling. He was working on STALKER and originally, every single one of the games 5 or so endings, ended up with the player dying horribly.

 

It hadnt even occured to the designers that after playing a game for 50+ hours, the player might not be so pleased to find out that it all ends with sudden and very unavoidable death. So Mr. Adams did what he was paid for and explained all about the not so fine line between "cool and unusual" and "cruel and unusual".

 

 

The world of gaming is probably chock full of similar examples of storytelling ineptitude.

 

 

There's a difference between "good storytelling" and "storytelling that makes you money." It's perfectly possible to create a game with a good storyline where your character dies horribly, it just would a lot harder to make. In fact it would be harder to pull off than every single story in the history of gaming put together. It would probably fail horribly too, in terms of sales. STALKER certainly wouldn't have pulled it off, though.

[Tale]

Wait, so you are saying that ideally games should be aimed at the lowest level of gamer? Those who find it impossible to take the time and effort to look into various corners of the gameworld and pursue obscure quests to see where they might go? I mean, the broad and well-marked path might be easy enough to travel, but it ain't very interesting. Or at least itr doesn't stay interesting for long? (Hello, my good friend Bioshock!)

 

In my opinion game developers (or at least publishers) are seriously beginnig to paint all gamers with the stupid brush.

Dial back the elitism. Just because a player doesn't want to wander around staring at corners and opening every single door looking for some thing that may or may not even exist doesn't mean you're better than they are. The simple fact of the matter is that if a developer is trying to present something, if he actually wants something to be seen or experienced, hiding the keys to progress or understanding somewhere the target audience likely won't reach defeats the purpose. If it's a matter of a little extra rewarding for extra effort or skill, it's an entirely different matter and not what Levine is talking about.

 

I don't even know what to say to the rest of your comment. The little side paths in games are traditionally the absolutely most boring parts of them. Hell, if developer can't make an interesting main path, how the heck are they making interesting side paths?

Edited April 4, 2008 by Tale

[Moatilliatta]

If you look at the Imdb top 100 list, you can see that many of the top selling films have relatively complex plots, yet the public have no problem understanding them. So, people are not the morons Ken levine would like to think they are.

Somehow the people who register and vote on IMDb doesn't strike me as the general public. Most of the people who watch films don't vote on IMDb and as such it only mirrors the wishes of a couple of nerds or semi-nerds who care about such stuff.

[Tigranes]

Dial back the elitism. Just because a player doesn't want to wander around staring at corners and opening every single door looking for some thing that may or may not even exist doesn't mean you're better than they are. The simple fact of the matter is that if a developer is trying to present something, if he actually wants something to be seen or experienced, hiding the keys to progress or understanding somewhere the target audience likely won't reach defeats the purpose. If it's a matter of a little extra rewarding for extra effort or skill, it's an entirely different matter and not what Levine is talking about.

 

That would be like implying auteur symbolisms and cameos should not be present in films because not all viewers might 'get' them, and thus miss out on the story. As long as the main story as a whole makes sense and and is presented in a strong and straightforward manner to most players, the rest should be up for grabs. For example, was talking to Xachariah in PS:T really necessary? No, without it the story made perfect sense, was 'whole'. But some people looked around, and by chance, foudn Xachariah (or whatever else that is not so easy to find), and it enriched their experience. It gave them an illusion of a world larger than one they were experiencing, and inspired them to go looking for more things - which they found. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

Oh, and while you could indeed call it 'elitism' to say that games should not pander to the lowest common denominator... well, I disagree. There is nothing wrong with a media product that is aimed at a specific audience and presumes certain knowledge, and is not accessible to the lowest common denominator. Certainly, it may not be as marketable, and that's something it needs to overcome, but there's nothing inherently 'good' or 'democratic' or 'valuable' about having every product being available to everyone; this every-ness and all-ness ends up in a diluted loss of quality. Adorno may be a tinhat Marxist sometimes but he was right about that. We are all 'elites' in some way in some cultural fields, and 'noobs' in others. There's no problem. If I am some sort of RPG guru I should be able to find games that I can enjoy in my own way, and also respect the right of a lot more user-friendly, straightforward games for newcomers to exist. The only challenge is how to balance all tihs and make both kinds of games possible in the capitalist market; and certainly, as the market gets bigger, I hope developers find a way to make those niches sustainable.

[unangbangkay]

I think what Levine meant is that games shouldn't try to hide their plots from players in the same way that some movies do. Movies often operate from a god's eye perspective in which the viewer is aware of things that the characters are not, enabling the viewer to see complex connections and symbolisms.

 

This doesn't mean that game players are morons or that plots need to be complex, but that plots in games should be more self-contained, enabling the player to form a more personal connection with the game. "Simpler" plots are more conducive to stronger immersion.

 

Look at how players love Planescape: Torment or Baldur's Gate 2 as wonders of game writing. Those plots were "simple" in that they didn't actively try to deny the player information, preferring to give the player hints and nudges along the path.

 

He wasn't talking about not having multiple endings or whatnot, he was encouraging designers not to FORCE a player into multiple playthroughs in order just to get a satisfactory, even excellent experience. And that, in itself, puts good writing and accessibility at the forefront.

 

Game plots can be deep and will in every sense benefit from being so, but like any well-written piece of fiction (especially fiction that must entertain as well as inspire/intrigue), game plots should allow players to be find ways to enjoy and connect with the game at each level.

 

He put Half-Life up as an example of good storytelling. He's right. Half-life is enjoyable at the basic level, providing an interesting environment to explore and run through and engaging challenges and set pieces. But it's enjoyable at a deeper level, exploring characters like Alyx, the scientists, the G-Man, or the universe-level events like the 7-hour war, the border wars, or the Combine. And it's enjoyable at a still deeper level, examining Gordon's philosophical role as a messianic figure, on the "meta" level, to use the cliche'.

 

Bioshock does this, Planescape and Mask of the Betrayer do this, Baldur's Gate 2 does it (though on a shallower level, I think).

 

Levine's saying "simple" when perhaps the proper term is "accessible" or "coherent". To not be so is failure on the writer and the designers part.

 

While I'm suggesting levels and terms, game plots should be enjoyable on the level of "playing", on the level of "immersing", and on the level of "interpreting".

 

Of course, like a summer blockbuster or a "plot-light" title, a game doesn't DEMAND this kind of depth. But this kind of depth needs to be more common in order for games to advance as an art from.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

General Statement: Movie Storytelling != Game Storytelling, Two seperate things entirely.

[Guest The Hero of 1001 Faces]

"Two seperate things entirely," eh? That is complete madness, and not the kick into a well kind, I'm talking serious folly. The basic principles of story telling are the same no matter the medium, the differences between a movie and a game only appear when you look at the most particular of details, and even then only in a small subset of games.

 

RPGs or games with "RPG Elements", and not even all RPGs, are the only games that have any tangible difference in storytelling. Mario's story has been the same for decades, and it's told the same way each time; only the places change. All games, RPGs included, follow the same principles and guidelines for story telling that movies, books, and oration have for millenia.

 

The only real difference between games and movies is that the player is supposed to be in control, but most game studios are lazy and use cutscenes to circumvent this. This, however, is one thing Ken does right. Off the top of my head, I can only think of 4 cutscenes in all of Bioshock; Beginning intro, Big Daddy Arrival, Little Sisters, and End Game, yet that didn't seem to affect BioShock's narrative much... at least in terms of quality. I'm sure it affected development time and cost quite a bit.

 

Say what you want about Ken Levine, he has "it," when it comes to narrative direction. He is the messianic figure of game development! I call him Genghis Ken, or Ken DIVINE complete with jazz hands. A good story has to connect with the audience, and sometimes you have to "dumb down" specific elements to build that connection. Sometimes people go too far, other times not far enough.

 

Fact o' life.

[random n00b]

sometimes you have to "dumb down" specific elements to build that connection.

Arbitrary, unsupported, overly generalising and fallacious.

 

The thing with interactivity is that details aren't compulsory. It's the player's choice to be immersed in the details of the plot, or not. They are accesory, not fundamental. In RPGs, the player controls the pace. There's plenty of room for thinking.

 

Rich narrative != convoluted narrative. At least, not in an interactive medium.

[mkreku]

So when even the "intellectual" gamer such as yourself demands the (very expensive) graphics before immediately dismissing a game long before it is even released, what's left for a game developer to do but sink even more money into graphics (at the expense of story and everything else) so that it appeals to everyone, because your graphical demands seem to be on par with the "stupid" gamers that you just chastised.

You are confusing graphics fidelity with graphics design. It does NOT cost more to make a room more interesting than that generic apartment in question! Put in some flowers, a couple of African masks on the walls, rearrange the furniture so it doesn't look like an ad for IKEA, etc. Stuff like that. Bring more personality and make it look like the apartment has been lived in (pizza cartons? ).

 

What you are talking about is rewriting the render engine (for more snazzy effects) and/or remodelling the objects (by adding more polygons). That is NOT the same thing as making something look less generic, but that's the main way of making the graphics consume more resources (money).

[Guest The Hero of 1001 Faces]

Have you read the article yet, or are you just saying my assesment is fallacious? If the latter, go read the article. Not the blurb from the website, the full article in PC Zone issue #193.

[alanschu]

So when even the "intellectual" gamer such as yourself demands the (very expensive) graphics before immediately dismissing a game long before it is even released, what's left for a game developer to do but sink even more money into graphics (at the expense of story and everything else) so that it appeals to everyone, because your graphical demands seem to be on par with the "stupid" gamers that you just chastised.

You are confusing graphics fidelity with graphics design. It does NOT cost more to make a room more interesting than that generic apartment in question! Put in some flowers, a couple of African masks on the walls, rearrange the furniture so it doesn't look like an ad for IKEA, etc. Stuff like that. Bring more personality and make it look like the apartment has been lived in (pizza cartons? ).

 

What you are talking about is rewriting the render engine (for more snazzy effects) and/or remodelling the objects (by adding more polygons). That is NOT the same thing as making something look less generic, but that's the main way of making the graphics consume more resources (money).

 

 

I did sort of misread it, though to be honest I'm not too sure what she's talking about now that you mention it, because the ability to make that room more interesting certainly existed 3 years ago (and beyond), with respect to genericness. Though taking the time to model the flowers, african masks, and furniture still costs money, and lots of it. To be fair, I also don't know what she means by "generic" because at times a "generic" looking area makes sense in a modern day environment, because so much of life actually is pretty damn generic.

 

I still feel my comments stand, because she is lambasting a game based in large part on some screenshots, which might not even remain that way by the end of the development cycle. Adding flowers, african masks, and rearranging furniture does not take much time (assuming the modeling and whatnot is already done, and you're just placing objects which even I can do, and is indeed cheap).

 

But then you also stand to break other aspects of the game by doing TOO much. Given the character, would it make sense for his apartment to have the flowers and whatnot? I hate it when things look bland, but I also hate it when things are too cluttered.

[Guest The Hero of 1001 Faces]

Do you know how to play the game?

 

What game? Did it come with an instruction manual?