response to interview

[Tigranes]

Games now offer neither more nor less in general: that really only stands up if you start comparing a very small section. The examples Patrick give are fine: equally I could summon familiar arguments about how we can't have truly epic RPG worlds anymore - the KOTOR / ME 'planets' were pathetic - and we can also talk about whether some of the 'clunky' or 'silly' things that Patrick says went away, aren't actually desirable. But that's a big can of worms.

 

What I was really trying to say before is that what games offer now is, in general, a very different type of experience guided by different design logics than, say, before ~2001. Which is why there is still value and delight to be had in these older types of games. Get with the times? If we had a different kind of industry, and games like Fallout, for example, were still being made using new technology but using older types of design logics, do you think they would flop? I don't think so. If we had a kind of industry that was able to grow, cultivate and maintain these various kinds of games, I think the consumer demand would justify such a decision. But of course, you can't just snap your fingers and have that happen in the world of the market: and now people don't play those games not because they hate them now and they're not good anymore, but because they're not there anymore, and because the market's discourses have trained them to believe that what has been a stylistic metamorphosis was actually a linear technological advancement.

[Slowtrain]

Advancements in UI and control systems is just astounding- compare System Shock 1 to System Shock 2 to Bioshock, the original is arguably unplayable today, the second is playable but has a pretty clunky interface (with the sheer joy of interface tetris) and Bioshock offers a streamlined and simplified evolution that dispenses with pretty silly logistics (do I carry this bag of chips or the vodka?) in favor of making the *experience* the focus.

 

 

 

Hi Patrick!

 

These are the only games I've played of the ones you mention, so they are the only ones I can speak to.

 

SS1: You don't really say much about it except that it is largely unplayable today. I'm not sure what that means. Can you be more specific? I haven't played it recently, but I played it a lot up until a few years ago so I am still pretty familair with it.

 

SS2: I would say that using the inventory as your one example is not very convincing. Some people like inventory fiddling, some people don't. The interface has a lot going on, but I wouldn't term it clunky: one merely has to hit tab to pop back and forth from a standard FPS mode to a fiddle about mode. Regardless, my problems with Bioshock had nothing to do with the interface. Rather they had to do with a lack of meaningful choices in gameplay, the never die chambers of eternal bliss, the removal of skills, the reptitive enemies, the bad FPS combat. SS2 did not have great FPS combat either, but it had a lot more going on than Bioshock did.

 

Bioshock: Yes, it certainly REMOVED a lot of things from System SHock 2, but I don't think it added very much. Except the graphics and visuals, which are definitely very nice. But graphics and visuals are the most quickly dated and forgotten aspects of a video game, so its hardly the thing to want to hang your hat on, I would think. ALso, the story is pretty much recycled from System Shock 2, with the exception of the Big Daddies/Little Sister thing.

 

[Slowtrain]

I should also point out that I am in no way down on Alpha Protocol. There is not enough info (from what I've seen) to make any sort of determination about the game, so I am just hanging around and waiting patiently. I was merely commenting in response to some of the "open questions" earlier in the thread.

 

ANd just a general note on the changes you guys have made becuse you felt the game was too boring:

 

I remember Warren Spector talking about his original design of Deus Ex, and how when they had finally brought most of it into a playable state, people that Spector had try the game out said it was just too boring. So he redid a lot of the games systems, dropping some of his "realism" that was in his original vision of the game, and made it more gamey and "fun". And look how that turned out! Yay!

 

So I'm not saying anything bad abut the choices you guys are making now.

 

 

Maybe later though.

 

lol

Edited June 26, 2008 by CrashGirl

[Patrick K Mills]

Hi Patrick!

 

These are the only games I've played of the ones you mention, so they are the only ones I can speak to.

 

SS1: You don't really say much about it except that it is largely unplayable today. I'm not sure what that means. Can you be more specific? I haven't played it recently, but I played it a lot up until a few years ago so I am still pretty familair with it.

 

SS2: I would say that using the inventory as your one example is not very convincing. Some people like inventory fiddling, some people don't. The interface has a lot going on, but I wouldn't term it clunky: one merely has to hit tab to pop back and forth from a standard FPS mode to a fiddle about mode. Regardless, my problems with Bioshock had nothing to do with the interface. Rather they had to do with a lack of meaningful choices in gameplay, the never die chambers of eternal bliss, the removal of skills, the reptitive enemies, the bad FPS combat. SS2 did not have great FPS combat either, but it had a lot more going on than Bioshock did.

 

Bioshock: Yes, it certainly REMOVED a lot of things from System SHock 2, but I don't think it added very much. Except the graphics and visuals, which are definitely very nice. But graphics and visuals are the most quickly dated and forgotten aspects of a video game, so its hardly the thing to want to hang your hat on, I would think. ALso, the story is pretty much recycled from System Shock 2, with the exception of the Big Daddies/Little Sister thing.

 

 

If you haven't played Half-Life 2, Portal, GTA4, or looked at the Spore Creature Creator tool I really don't know how convincing any broad statements you make about the modern game industry can be.

 

The reason I consider SS1 to be borderline unplayable today is that it was developed prior to the interface that all first person games today use and as such requires a lot of relearning before you can play it. Combine that with a very low resolution and you have a game that I can spend only a few seconds in before becoming motion sick and frustrated. Anyone who played Quake before System Shock 1 would probably have a hard time getting into SS. Of course, that's how a lot of RPG fans like it, I'm not accusing you or anyone else here but, you know, the RPG Codex set.

 

I would argue that the idea that the visuals of a game are quickly forgotten is kind of a weird thing to say. It's been months since I played Bioshock and I can't remember which button I pressed to shoot lighting nor can I recall the names of most of the secondary characters. What I can tell you is the color palate used in every area of the game, the architectural influences present, and I could rattle off a top ten money shots without even having to think very hard. I doubt I'll ever forget those scenes- I still remember the layout of Lord British's castle in every Ultima game since 5, Sigil from Torment will be with me till the day I die, and the moment I stepped out of the train station in Half Life 2 will be with me for a very long time.

 

Graphics are not ephemeral. Humans are visual creatures, there is a reason you play games instead of reading books and it probably isn't the interactivity and it definitely isn't the story.

 

Additionally, Bioshock had a very distinct series of themes and story elements, I'm wondering what it is that makes you think that it's just ripped off of SS2? The plot structure was very similar but the story and themes were definitely distinct.

[Jorian Drake]

Graphics are not ephemeral. Humans are visual creatures, there is a reason you play games instead of reading books and it probably isn't the interactivity and it definitely isn't the story.

 

...for me it is slightly because the interactivity, and mostly because the story....

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

and I read books too

Edited June 26, 2008 by Jorian Drake

[Patrick K Mills]

...for me it is slightly because the interactivity, and mostly because the story....

 

I would suggest a new hobby if that's really the case. Games have almost universally terrible stories. I can count on one hand the number of games I've played that had story and writing that was good enough to qualify as totally sweet. If you include games that had writing comparable to the average genre-fiction pulp I *might* have to use two hands.

[Slowtrain]

If you haven't played Half-Life 2, Portal, GTA4, or looked at the Spore Creature Creator tool I really don't know how convincing any broad statements you make about the modern game industry can be.

 

 

Well, I can't play every game. I play what I can, listen and read what peopel say about their own experiences and extrapolate as best I can. I freely admit its not scientific, but sadly no one wants to pay me to play and comment on games for a living.

 

WHich I actually wouldn't want to do anyway.

 

The reason I consider SS1 to be borderline unplayable today is that it was developed prior to the interface that all first person games today use and as such requires a lot of relearning before you can play it. Combine that with a very low resolution and you have a game that I can spend only a few seconds in before becoming motion sick and frustrated. Anyone who played Quake before System Shock 1 would probably have a hard time getting into SS. Of course, that's how a lot of RPG fans like it, I'm not accusing you or anyone else here but, you know, the RPG Codex set..

 

I agree with that argument, but it is not really getting into issues of gameplay. You're talking control schemes and resolution. Sure, nobody like learning odd control schemes and by today's standards 640 * 480 is um a bit of an eyesore to say the least. No disagreement. But I've not in any way disagreeing with the notion that technology has very much improved in graphical aspects and presentation of all sorts. Games look BETTER nowadays. Absolutely. But I should also point out that the very game you are criticizing for its graphical appearance here and now in 2008 was once criticized heavily for its cutting edge take on graphics. (The usual "why make a game that no one can actually run argument). Again, graphical splendor ebbs and flows as the years pass, gameplay is what stays with you.

 

I would argue that the idea that the visuals of a game are quickly forgotten is kind of a weird thing to say. It's been months since I played Bioshock and I can't remember which button I pressed to shoot lighting nor can I recall the names of most of the secondary characters. What I can tell you is the color palate used in every area of the game, the architectural influences present, and I could rattle off a top ten money shots without even having to think very hard. I doubt I'll ever forget those scenes- I still remember the layout of Lord British's castle in every Ultima game since 5, Sigil from Torment will be with me till the day I die, and the moment I stepped out of the train station in Half Life 2 will be with me for a very long time..

 

Graphics are not ephemeral. Humans are visual creatures, there is a reason you play games instead of reading books and it probably isn't the interactivity and it definitely isn't the story.

 

Sure. I will agree that the pictures we form in our head about the games we play are very important. We are primarily visual creatures after all. Our lives and our histories are filled with images .But nobody goes back and plays old games because they looked great five years ago. They go back and play them because of the gameplay, wether its the awesome NPCS interaction or the TB combat or the cool research tree or the skill based dialogue options. That's what brings us back to the old games. Gameplay is the transecdent aspect of games, not the resolution or the HDR or trilinear filtering.

 

 

Additionally, Bioshock had a very distinct series of themes and story elements, I'm wondering what it is that makes you think that it's just ripped off of SS2? The plot structure was very similar but the story and themes were definitely distinct.

 

Its the same basic plot structure though right down to its twist in the middle. The Big Daddy's and Little Sisters are different though.

[mkreku]

A game like GTA4 offers an amazing level of world sim and free-style gameplay that could only be generated in the past with meticulous scripting a la Ultima 7.

Please feel free to elaborate on how GTA4 is even an advancement over the previous part of the series, GTA: San Andreas. Exactly what in GTA4 did you think evolved from GTA: San Andreas that makes it worthy of a mention in a discussion about how games evolve over time?

 

You talk about how the UI and the control system has changed for the better. I agree. But it's like a drop in the ocean compared to what's been lost in the same period of time. Not many people like inventory tetris, true, but is the solution really to just remove the inventory then? Sure, the game will become more "streamlined", but wouldn't a better solution be to work on the UI to avoid the inventory management from becoming a chore? A lot of design decision recently seem to rely on removal of features instead of refining of features.

 

And I must admit that it's a little worrying reading about how you refer to a standardization of control methods for a game genre as game evolution. Yeah, it's a chore having to relearn the controls for games before the mouse-look revolution, but is that really a point to prove how new games are still evolving in the right direction? I certainly don't think so.

 

Oh, and it's not really a secret that Bioshock offers vastly less choices for the player than System Shock 2. Choices that matter, skills that made a difference, different playing styles (not just a choice between burning and electrocuting your next enemy), a more varied and important inventory, more complex problems to solve (were there any in Bioshock?), longer playing time (around 10 hours for Bioshock.. and over 40 hours for System Shock 2). Yeah, Bioshock probably had a smoother UI. Is the trade-off really worth it though?

[Jorian Drake]

I can count on one hand the number of games I've played that had story and writing that was good enough to qualify as totally sweet. If you include games that had writing comparable to the average genre-fiction pulp I *might* have to use two hands.

... Poor you...

[Patrick K Mills]

... Poor you...

For being discerning? Ignorance is bliss, I guess, but it's not my preference.

[Xard]

Both CrashGirl and Patrick made a lot of good points.

 

CrashGirl, Patrick is very right with you not being able to judge modern gaming too well without testing those games he mentioned. It was a bit surprise you hadn't played those as I tend to agree with you quite often.

 

Advancements in UI and control systems is just astounding- compare System Shock 1 to System Shock 2 to Bioshock, the original is arguably unplayable today, the second is playable but has a pretty clunky interface (with the sheer joy of interface tetris) and Bioshock offers a streamlined and simplified evolution that dispenses with pretty silly logistics (do I carry this bag of chips or the vodka?) in favor of making the *experience* the focus.

 

Now I don't nearly as long gaming history as you can CrashGirl have, even simply by my age. I had PC back in 95 and 96 (original Red Baron was luv ) but apart from watching elder ones playing Land of Lore my contact to RPG's was nil. Then I got playstation, fell in love with Ape Escape and MGS and was happy (mostly) console player for many years. Then in 2000's I got proper, powerful PC and got intrigued about RPG's after hearing about some upcoming game named "Knights of the Old Republic" (I was huge SW fan). Idea of RPG's started to fascinate me (for the record at the same time great classics of adventure games did too) and I decided to dug in this previously alien genre.

 

Because of this I've always considered my views on older RPG's to be "pure" in the sense I can't be blamed on being nostalgic. Therefore it is quite striking my Three Favourite Games of All Time are PS:T and Fallouts. Games ranging from early 90's to beginning of 2000 are rather dominating on the list. There must've been some magic lost in the way then.

 

I really think that from today's POV 90's were the Golden Age of gaming. Machines got enough raw power to generate and uphold more complex and bigger worlds and gamy systems, innovations were plentiful as mushrooms in the rain and great definining titles of genres were published; RPG's got titles like Fallout and Ultima 7 and Baldur's Gate made the genre profitable again, adventure games got their glory days from Sam & Max and Monkey Islands to Grim Fandango, Doom, Quake and Half-Life came out, real internet multiplaying began...

 

Maybe there'll be similar, even greater period from 2010's onward, who knows. I won't deny it nor I claim innovations are nonexistent in modern games or that their by default inferior to older ones, but I can't help but feeling like gaming industry is currently in its "80's". Sure, 80's had some original, innovative and "soulful" stuff, but they were far less numerous and more under the radar than in 70's.

 

Change from Golden Age of music called 60's and 70's to horrible commercial, overproduced and stagnant age of 80's... and change from introspective, artistic era of Hollywood called 70's to 80's cinema that was defined by blockbusters and all worst aspects of Hollywood...

 

I feel 90's to 2000's in gaming world is in current light equivalent of of these two changes of decades in other industries.

 

I wonder when in comes equivalents for alternative rock masters like REM and Pixies, unabashedly powerful GnR and golden days of Metallica that shovels away bad aspects of modern gaming like those bands did to soulles music that dominated most of the radio waves.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Xard

[Jorian Drake]

... Poor you...

For being discerning? Ignorance is bliss, I guess, but it's not my preference.

I can name atleast 5 good games per year from 1994 and on, most of them had great story, but either bad promotion or graphics, like Septerra Core.

I don't know, but if you evade some genres you might lose out some of the better games aswell, the best stories are still those of adventure games, I think those are the best part what remained true to the real pnp RPG-s, even more than computer 'rpg-s'.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Jorian Drake

[Slowtrain]

CrashGirl, Patrick is very right with you not being able to judge modern gaming too well without testing those games he mentioned. It was a bit surprise you hadn't played those as I tend to agree with you quite often.

 

 

Well, I could lie and say I've played them, but what would be the point of that? I did buy HL2 and still have it in my closet but still haven't ever gotten around to even opening the box.

 

As I said in my post to Patrick, I play the games that I can play, which in fairness to me is still a lot of games over the years. But yeah I can't play everything. The usual excuses: time, money, mortality, inclination etc and so forth.

 

But I don't think that not having total knowledge of all games should prevent me or you (or anyone else) from having opinions as long as they are grounded in some sort of experience, both firsthand and secondhand.

 

I'm always open to learning new things so I am more than happy when someone says: Did you think of X and Y and Z? And if I haven't then I've learned something.

 

I don't know what else to say really.

[Patrick K Mills]

Well, I can't play every game. I play what I can, listen and read what peopel say about their own experiences and extrapolate as best I can. I freely admit its not scientific, but sadly no one wants to pay me to play and comment on games for a living.

 

Well, you should play the games mentioned, because they are some of the best games released in the last five years without question.

 

I agree with that argument, but it is not really getting into issues of gameplay. You're talking control schemes and resolution. Sure, nobody like learning odd control schemes and by today's standards 640 * 480 is um a bit of an eyesore to say the least. No disagreement. But I've not in any way disagreeing with the notion that technology has very much improved in graphical aspects and presentation of all sorts. Games look BETTER nowadays. Absolutely. But I should also point out that the very game you are criticizing for its graphical appearance here and now in 2008 was once criticized heavily for its cutting edge take on graphics. (The usual "why make a game that no one can actually run argument). Again, graphical splendor ebbs and flows as the years pass, gameplay is what stays with you.

I can't play SS1 because of the control scheme. If it was just the resolution I'd bite the bullet, but the combination of the two renders the gameplay moot- I don't get to experience it because of factors unrelated to gameplay. Yes, the game is ugly only in light of time, but it could also be ugly despite it. If a game comes out today and looks terrible, a lot of people just won't play it- maybe it is their loss, but you can't say that they are wrong to not play something they find visually uninteresting or offensive.

 

As for the gameplay staying with you, the two games I have the fondest memories of are Ultima 7 and Planescape: Torment. Both of them had crummy gameplay. I'm not making the argument that gameplay isn't important, instead I'm trying to make the point that games are ultimately a multi-media experience and every part matters for the whole.

 

 

Sure. I will agree that the pictures we form in our head about the games we play are very important. We are primarily visual creatures after all. Our lives and our histories are filled with images .But nobody goes back and plays old games because they looked great five years ago. They go back and play them because of the gameplay, wether its the awesome NPCS interaction or the TB combat or the cool research tree or the skill based dialogue options. That's what brings us back to the old games. Gameplay is the transecdent aspect of games, not the resolution or the HDR or trilinear filtering.

Honestly, I don't have the time to go back and play games from five years ago unless I'm researching something or am really, really bored (or it's a game like an MMO that is constantly offering new content). If you have a game that relies on people playing it for a very long time (MMOs, serial titles) you need to constantly offer new content, gameplay refinements, and yes, better graphics.

 

 

Its the same basic plot structure though right down to its twist in the middle. The Big Daddy's and Little Sisters are different though.

 

That may be, but I don't consider plot structure to be the most important thing in a game's story. There must be a compelling theme, first and foremost, or it's all just a muddled sub-pulp dime-store adventure story. For an example see: virtually every game ever made. The themes (except for the survival themes) in Bioshock were very distinct from the previous Shock games, and far more refined than in the other Shock games.

[Patrick K Mills]

I can name atleast 5 good games per year from 1994 and on, most of them had great story, but either bad promotion or graphics, like Septerra Core.

I don't know, but if you evade some genres you might lose out some of the better games aswell, the best stories are still those of adventure games, I think those are the best part what remained true to the real pnp RPG-s, even more than computer 'rpg-s'.

 

"Good" is a relative term. I don't evade genres except sports and jrpgs because they tend to frustrate me. Most game stories are awful, so terrible I'd not even let my children play them for fear that they'd get the wrong idea about what constitutes good storytelling.

 

On the other hand a few games have passable or intersting stories and writing. These are the games that many people who are fans of game writing like to hold up as real gems and proof of games as art. The problem is that anyone who reads anything other than Star Wars novels recognizes these stories for what they are, mediocre.

 

Then there are a very very tiny number of games that have really interesting themes, well characterized players, very good writing, and a solid structure. Rarely do they have all of these qualities. Even rarer is it that they are also fun to play. In fact, I can't think of any.

 

EDIT: OK, I can think of a few.

[Slowtrain]

Honestly, I don't have the time to go back and play games from five years ago unless I'm researching something or am really, really bored (or it's a game like an MMO that is constantly offering new content). If you have a game that relies on people playing it for a very long time (MMOs, serial titles) you need to constantly offer new content, gameplay refinements, and yes, better graphics.

 

 

Just a note that I am not intending this as any sort of hostile debate. Its just something interesting to talk about. Tone can be hard to judge in the internet so I just wanted to clarify that.

 

I agree that the control scheme of SS1 was tough. It took me a lot of play to get it and even then if something took me by surprise the only option was to run away and regroup. No way was I was I able to actual respond to a surprise attack using the GUI.

 

Anyway, 2 points:

 

I am not saying anybody should neccessarily want to go back and play old games. Speaking for myself personally, I wish I didn't have to, but games like XCom and Jagged Alliance 2 and Fallout and Daggerfall and EF200 (Hello 3dfx and glide!) and yes, even System Shock 2 are not really made these days. That type of gameplay appears to be out of favor for the moment. I am hoping it is somewhat cyclic, but who knows. Those are not the only types of games that I like, but IF I want those types of games there is nothing to look to currently.

 

 

Secondly I am not saying that awesome graphics are a bad thing. I remember when I first played MDK and I was totally blown away by how cool the graphics were. Sadly, that thrill only lasted a few minutes then I got tired of shooting at little twirling robots and stopped playing. lol.

 

But good graphics can definitely make a gameplay experience better. Far Cry was the first game where I really came to believe that. Without those incredible island graphics Far Cry would not have been as fun to play as it was. IMO, the designers made a mistake by locating so much of the game either inside or outside at night. They should have pushed their strength and kept those awesome jungles and blue seas at the forefront at all times.

 

Or watching the mountain split apart in the distance while riding up the valley in the tanks in Crysis. That was a jaw dropping piece of visual awesomness that I literally reloaded several times just to watch over and over again. Mediocre games can be made more nteresting with grahpics and good games can be made better. No question.

 

However, in the end, the gameplay in both Far Cry and Crysis is far too pedestrian and unfulfilling to make the game's worth all that much despite the awesome graphics. Crysis pushed aside Far Cry and some next gen game will push aside Crysis with its visual splendor.

 

SO, I gues my overall point is that technology has enhanced the visual splendor of games as it has advanced. WHich is great. I am all up for that. But I don't see the same pushing forward of gameplay depth. Rather I see older games that were more complex and interesting than games are today.

 

And I freely admit here that not every gamer likes complexity in games. As I posted earlier in this thread there are gamers who buy the latest FPS, turn on God mode and cheat in all weaons and ammo and have a great time playing the game through just like that. And they are happy as clams. I don't understand it, but I accept it.

 

But there are also plenty of gamers who are looking for more than that. You can find them on every forum, including this one.

 

ANywa, thanks for talking with me. I enjoy it.

[Redfield]

On the other hand a few games have passable or intersting stories and writing. These are the games that many people who are fans of game writing like to hold up as real gems and proof of games as art. The problem is that anyone who reads anything other than Star Wars novels recognizes these stories for what they are, mediocre.

 

Then there are a very very tiny number of games that have really interesting themes, well characterized players, very good writing, and a solid structure. Rarely do they have all of these qualities. Even rarer is it that they are also fun to play. In fact, I can't think of any.

 

EDIT: OK, I can think of a few.

 

So, this has tempted me to make my first post

 

Patrick, I find your statements regarding the lackluster nature of video game storytelling to be a bit odd, considering the company you work for. Doesn't Obsidian strive to make compelling stories and characters (which according to you never really seems to pan out in regards to games)?

[random n00b]

h8 multi-posting, so I'm going to address a lot of posts here

 

Why doesn't it make sense? Without going too much into it, much of both technical and stylistic aspects of video games have become lumped into one big 'progress' package, and a certain amount of it is expected of every new game nowadays. Meaning not only a 'basic requirement' to have, I don't know, x amount of pixels, but also gimmicky physics, bloom, etc. There is a cultivation of audience desire in the sense that a certain 'touch base' of technology has become a basic requirement and a potential ace-card for market success. This is the case in every mid/late capitalist industry, and it should be no surprise that it's coming fully into force in this one.

A basic requirement, perhaps. A potential ace-card for success, I'm not so sure. I don't know many people (zero, actually) that purchase games based on "ooh, awesome graphics!" or "aah, incredible physics!". It's the general expansion of the industry that provides products with more and more advanced technology and something else, that wins over the consumers. San Andreas, for instance, was as much a success of PR as it was of game design, but it was not technologically ground-breaking by any means, even though it's certainly more advanced than games published 5 years ago. Perhaps we are arguing the same, but I think it's easier to sell games by developing gameplay and other aspects than technology itself.

 

 

While there is certainly a feeling of accomplishment in being good at a difficult game (I can beat the first three levels of Metal Slug without dying! Woo!), most people who play video games do not belong to the small market share who will do that.

Counter-Strike and any other competitive online-based game prove you wrong. Challenge (and overcoming it) is fun.

 

 

Face it: video games cost too much to produce for them to make games for you, person who posts regularly on an internet forum about your favorite video game company. Video games are made for people who play video games a couple hours a week. They aren't designed for people to put a whole lot of energy into before any rewards are reaped. Because most people who buy video games don't have a whole lot of energy to do that, and will just give it back to GameStop.

This is true, unfortunately. Most people prefer to play the latest stupid **** game to a good chess match, and it also explains why the latest Forgotten Realms POS sells far more than Crime and Punishment or Thus Spake Zarathustra. Not much can be done about it, really. The success of Hollywood, adapted to games.

 

 

Just play on higher difficulty settings, Christ.

That would be fine, if "higher difficulty" didn't mean "increased AI cheating".

 

 

As to "why is realism boring," maybe it's because they actually tried making the game realistic and it was boring?

The first Rainbow Six games were fairly realistic, and they were fun. Also, I like realistic flight sims (IL-2? Argh!). I can see how that's not a mainstream view, though.

 

 

ARe you saying games offer more currently? Or have the potential to offer more?

I was merely referring to the increase of published games per year.

 

 

Graphics are not ephemeral. Humans are visual creatures, there is a reason you play games instead of reading books and it probably isn't the interactivity and it definitely isn't the story.

I don't know if it's your sincerity that's taken me aback, or your cynicism. Edited June 26, 2008 by random n00b

[Wrath of Dagon]

Video game stories can be more powerful than any other media, because the player becomes the protagonist in his own story. Unfortunately most developers still see stories as a way to justify the gameplay, instead of the primary goal of the game. When they do claim to give primacy to the story, they seem to think that telling the story means passively watching cutscenes in between all the shooting.

[jaz147]

Video game stories can be more powerful than any other media, because the player becomes the protagonist in his own story.

 

Really? Of all the things that I think video games offer, "more powerful" storytelling is not one of them. A video game will never hold a candle to my professor telling me stories of his time in the Vietnam War. Or my father telling me how he met my mother. Oral storytelling, to me, will always be far more "powerful" than video games will ever be.

 

I dunno. To make a point and as an introduction to these forums, I've been gaming for ~18 years now. I've also spent the last 4 years researching gaming, game media, and gaming experience in academia. As far as storytelling goes, games have some novelty. They offer repeatability with flexibility - you can "re-read" a video game like you might a book and you can also affect the progress of the story. Games can also provide unique toy boxes for making your own stories (The Sims), like you might with a box of Lego's. I also personally think the first-person perspective is a tool that is sort of uniquely practical in video games - some films have tried it and mostly failed, but it seems to work in games. So there's some potential there for novelty. They also offer spectacle on command. Pretty pictures and engaging sounds at the push of a button, as it were.

 

This is all very exciting for a lot of reasons. But it essentially only means that video games offer a potentially unique experience compared to other media, not a more "powerful" one. Keep in mind you're losing things for that uniqueness - the ability to pace a story like a book or movie can, for instance. For a more "powerful" (what I take to mean a more emotional or "moving") experience, well, you'd have to believe Andrew Glassner or Chris Crawford with regards to the potential of the media. I personally think they're fundamentally misguided, but I'm also a cynic. At the very least, the idealized interactive storytelling that they envision, a personalized, movie-like experience as if on a Holodeck, won't happen in my lifetime, so I wouldn't hold your breadth.

[Tigranes]

mkreku's post appears from the depths, and slots right into the top of this page!

 

And I must admit that it's a little worrying reading about how you refer to a standardization of control methods for a game genre as game evolution. Yeah, it's a chore having to relearn the controls for games before the mouse-look revolution, but is that really a point to prove how new games are still evolving in the right direction? I certainly don't think so.

 

While he is talking to Patrick, got to agree that this is a relevant question to ask (never did get to try SS1 unfortunately, so I can't say too much here).

 

rn:

 

A potential ace-card for success, I'm not so sure. I don't know many people (zero, actually) that purchase games based on "ooh, awesome graphics!" or "aah, incredible physics!

 

I've seen many. I mean, yeah, anecdotal evidence from both of us, but I've seen people who purchase for what might seem incredibly trivial, surprising or weird reasons to us. e.g. impulse buy of some random wrestling game after getting into wrestling. "Why this one and not others?" "There are others? I justp icked up the nearest one." e.g. buys Spartan: Total Warriot because "I saw that big walking stone statue and that was cool" (note: only appears for 2 minutes in one level and doesn't do much). Buys sports games because this one has better pixelated faces and confetti & stuff in the stadium. Doesn't buy MOTB because it looks 'blocky' and '5 years old', compared to Stalker. All these examples from different people. And hell, about 10 people that bought HL2 just because of the gravity gun & ragdoll, "DID YOU SEE THAT GUY BOUNCE AROUND I AM SO GETTING THIS GAME". I won't go out and judge these people's decisions, but to pretend that this kind of market force is negligible... doesn't sit with me.

 

Anyway. Video games are not inherently incapable of producing great stories. Especially since 'video game' defines a very wide and varied range of interactive media, unlike film or novel. But without such rash predictions, yes, so far, video games have had piss poor story, 90% of them. The only saving grace, I think, is that that's not really that far below books or films produced these days. Does the latest action flick from Hollywood really have a deeper story than Doom 3? Like, would you give any of them more than two out of five stars? What about the hundreds of formulaic "COOL GUNZ" thriller novels, the even greater mass of trash fantasy, 'modernist' contemporary fiction that talks about casual sex and antisocial emos all day, etc? Of course, if I had to pick a medium for story in general, I would pick those media over video games right now. But there isn't some massive, inevitable gulf.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Video game stories can be more powerful than any other media, because the player becomes the protagonist in his own story.

 

Really? Of all the things that I think video games offer, "more powerful" storytelling is not one of them. A video game will never hold a candle to my professor telling me stories of his time in the Vietnam War. Or my father telling me how he met my mother. Oral storytelling, to me, will always be far more "powerful" than video games will ever be.

Play Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth, it tells a story better than it's source material (don't get the PC version, it's buggy and there's no patch), play the Shalebridge Cradle level of Thief: Deadly Shadows, then tell me the story telling is not powerful. The problem is very few game developers have learned to tell a story through an interactive medium, and because of the crude tastes of most of the public it doesn't usually pay anyway.

This is all very exciting for a lot of reasons. But it essentially only means that video games offer a potentially unique experience compared to other media, not a more "powerful" one. Keep in mind you're losing things for that uniqueness - the ability to pace a story like a book or movie can, for instance.

Adventure games can pace the story quite well, in RPG's it's more difficult, but there are other advantages. Obviously movies didn't replace books, and games won't replace books and movies, but each medium offers something unique from others, and each can be incredibly powerful in the right hands. Btw, I didn't mean that the best game story will necessarily be more powerful than the best book (it's apples and oranges anyway), but for certain type of story telling video games offer advantages other media can't match. Edited June 26, 2008 by Wrath of Dagon

[Rostere]

we

Edited June 27, 2008 by Rostere

[Wrath of Dagon]

Why, what do you find so great about the source material?

[Redfield]

Why, what do you find so great about the source material?

 

I'm of the same mindset as you on this. I've read quite a few of Lovecraft's stories, and never once did I find his writing scary/disturbing etc., as it was no doubt meant to be back in the twenties. Add to that the overly verbose and obtuse writing style that was so prominent back then and yeah...just never did anything for me.

 

Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth, though, did an exceptional job at conveying the creepiness that should have been apparent to me when reading the story it is based off of (The Shadow over Innsmouth).

 

I've gotten much more enjoyment out of Dark Corners of the Earth, and the Call of Cthulhu pen and paper game, than I ever did the source material.